Young Earth vs. Old Earth—Where Do They Agree? | John Ankerberg Show

Young Earth vs. Old Earth—Where Do They Agree?

By: The John Ankerberg Show
Instagram
By: Dr. John Ankerberg; ©2004
There are actually a number of areas of agreement between those who disagree on the age of the earth. But there are other areas where they ought to agree—but that are still a problem. Dr. Ankerberg explains.

(Excerpted from Dr. Ankerberg’s, “Does Scientific Evidence Today Show that God Created the Heavens and the Earth? And What Does the Bible Say About When He Created?” The entire article is available at www.johnankerberg.org)

Introduction

I would like to share with you some thoughts on what the Bible teaches about creation and science. In doing so, I would like to cite Dr. Norman Geisler’s new Systematic Theology, Volume 2 entitled, “God and Creation.” His words express what I believe, although I do not believe I could say as well as he.

What are the issues presented in the current creation/evolution debate?

Since the time of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), debate has raged within Christianity on whether or not total evolution is compatible with the historic biblical and theological teaching on origins. Two basic camps have emerged: theistic evolution and creationism. Within the second faction (creationists), there are two major groups: old-earth creationists and young-earth cre­ationists. (The former are often called progressive creationists, and the latter, fiat creationists.) Currently, in America, the young-earth creationists are led by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), based on the work of Henry Morris. Progressive (old-earth) creationism is championed by Hugh Ross and his “Reasons to Believe” organization; another proponent of this view is Robert Newman at Biblical Seminary in Hatfield, Pennsylvania.

What is the primary difference between “young-earth” and “old-earth” creationists?

The primary difference between young- and old-earth creationists is the speculated amount of time between God’s creative acts. Young-earthers insist that it was all accomplished in 144 hours—six successive 24-hour days—while old-earth (progressive) creationists allow for millions (or even billions) of years. This is usually done by:

  1. placing long periods of time before Genesis 1:1 (making it a recent and local Creation);
  2. placing the long periods of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (called “gap” views);
  3. making the “days” of Genesis 1 long periods of time;
  4. allowing long periods of time between literal 24-hour days in Genesis 1 (called “alternate day-age views); or
  5. making the days of Genesis to be days of revelation of God to the writer, not days of Creation (called “revelatory day” views).

There are several variations within these perspectives, making a total of more than a dozen different views held by evangelical theologians on the matter.

Old-earth (progressive) creationists are not to be confused with theistic evolutionists. Old‑earth creationists do not accept macroevolution as a method by which God produced the origi­nally created kinds of Genesis 1. Old-earth creationism was strong among nineteenth-century creationists, though the view dates from at least the fourth century (in Augustine). Again, promi­nent contemporary defenders include Hugh Ross and Robert Newman.

What are the areas of agreement between young- and old-earth creationists?

Young- and old-earth creationists have much in common, at least among those who are evangelical. This includes several basic things:

Direct Supernatural Creation of All Forms of Life

Both young- and old-earthers believe that God supernaturally, directly and immediately pro­duced every kind of animal and human as separate and genetically distinct forms of life. Both hold that every kind produced by God was directly created de nova (brand-new) and did not come about by God’s using natural processes over a long period of time or tinkering with previ­ous types of life in order to make higher forms (evolution).

Opposition to Naturalism

Both groups are also agreed in their opposition to naturalism, which they see as the philo­sophical presupposition of evolution. They correctly observe that without a naturalistic bias, evolution loses its credibility. Ruling out the possibility of supernatural intervention in the world begs the whole question in favor of evolution even before one begins.

Opposition to Macroevolution

Likewise, both are united in their opposition to macroevolution, either theistic or nontheistic; that is, they reject the theory of common ancestry. They both deny that all forms of life de­scended by completely natural processes without supernatural intervention from the outside. They deny that all living things are like a tree connected to a common trunk and root; rather, they affirm the separate ancestry of all the basic forms of life, a picture more like a forest of different trees. Microevolution, where small changes occur within the basic kinds of created things, is acknowledged, but no macro (large-scale) evolution occurs between different kinds. For example, both old- and young-earth creationists agree that all dogs are related to an original canine pair–part of the same tree. However, they deny that dogs, cats, cows, and other created kinds are related like branches from one original tree.

The Historicity of the Genesis Account

Further, both young- and old-earthers who are evangelical hold to the historicity of the Gen­esis account: They believe that Adam and Eve were literal people, the progenitors of the entire human race. While some may allow for poetic form and figure of speech in the narrative, all agree that it conveys historical and literal truth about origins. This is made clear by the New Testament references to Adam and Eve, their creation and fall, as literal (cf. Luke 3:38; Rom. 5:12; 1 Tim. 2:13-14).

What are the areas of difference between young- and old-earth creationists?

Of course, there are some differences between the two basic evangelical views on Creation. The primary ones include the following.

The Age of the Earth

A crucial variance between the two views, naturally, is the age of the earth. Young-earthers insist that both the Bible and science support a universe that is only thousands of years old, while old-earthers allow for billions of years. Young-earthers connect their view to a literal inter‑

pretation of Genesis (and Ex. 20:11), but old-earthers claim the same basic hermeneutic, which they believe can include millions, if not billions, of years since Creation. They too cite scientific evidence in their favor.

What are three areas both sides ought to agree on?

At a minimum, it would be wise if both sides could agree on the following:

  1. The age of the earth is not a test for orthodoxy.
  2. Neither view is proven with scientific finality, since there are unproven (if not unprovable) presuppositions associated with each.
  3. The fact of Creation (vs. evolution) is more important than the time of Creation. Their common enemy (naturalistic evolution) is a more significant focus than their intramural differ­ences.

What conclusions can we reach concerning the doctrine of creation?

The doctrine of Creation is a cornerstone of the Christian faith. The essentials of this teach­ing have universal consent among orthodox theologians. They include the following:

  1. There is a theistic God.
  2. Creation of the universe was ex nihilo (out of nothing).
  3. Every living thing was created by God.
  4. Adam and Eve were a direct and special creation of God.
  5. The Genesis account of creation is historical, not mythological.

While there is lively debate about the time of Creation, all evangelicals agree on the fact of Creation. There is also agreement on the source of Creation (a theistic God) and the purpose of Creation (to glorify God). The exact method of Creation is still a moot question; however, in­creasingly, the scientific evidence supports a supernatural Creation of the universe, the direct creation of first life, and the special creation of every basic life form. Hence, macroevolution, whether theistic or naturalistic, is unfounded both biblically and scientifically.[1]

Notes

  1. Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2003), p. 468-73. Headings and some emphases added.

The John Ankerberg Show

The John Ankerberg Show

Founder and president of The John Ankerberg Show, the most-watched Christian worldview show in America.
The John Ankerberg Show
The John Ankerberg Show

Latest posts by The John Ankerberg Show (see all)

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...

Please note we are not able to get to every comment due to the number we receive. To speak with someone directly please use the form here.

avatar
5 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Micha777Cindijim brashersRyanLarry Sloan Recent comment authors
Micha777
Micha777

“Jesus said to them… from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female” – Mark 10:5-6 NASB Dr. Georgia Purdom: “Mitochondrial DNA Supports the Biblical Timeline”, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1ejXXJfzjk&index=2&list=PLImC4ZIrWamo42vJGbrhYmBnKISyNW5KL&t=55s “Ross and Kaiser are just two of the many old-earth proponents in the church today who try to use the Christian theologian Augustine (AD 354–430) as a support for their belief in millions of years. But the idea that Augustine believed that is a myth… Augustine wrote three commentaries on Genesis and discussed the early chapters of Genesis in The City of God… Augustine wasn’t an old-earther. Rather, he believed… Read more »

jim brashers
jim brashers

respectfully, genesis just says the universe+earth were created. it never says ‘how long ago’ or the process(s) god used to create. it is no violation to genesis that god may have used billions of years. additionally, the ‘begats’ in the first 20 chaps only mean ‘blood descendant’–that could mean your 10th great grand father.

Cindi
Cindi

Actually it seems you didn’t read it very attentively. Genesis goes to great lengths to repeat many times “there was evening and there was morning the first day… there was evening and there was a morning the second day… there was evening and there was morning the third… fourth… fifth… & sixth days. The method of creation was also given: God spoke, “Let there be…” Billions of years for each day or age would imply years of death death before Adam was created. Genesis clearly says God created a “very good” garden of Eden with a Tree of Life to… Read more »

Ryan
Ryan

Evolution? The answer is simple really. Jesus was the first man.

Larry Sloan

I still don’t know which is true, I would like John’s opinion.

Subscribe & Get Offer

You have been added to our list!.

sorry something went wrong!.

Become a prayer warrior

Become A Prayer Warrior



Check Show Times In My Area

Get access to the show

Anywhere you go

The John Ankerberg Show is available on the App Store The John Ankerberg Show is available on Android
The John Ankerberg Show is available on iPad and iPhone

Stay Connected With Us