T. James Tofflemire
Professor John King
Pt514 Creation College
Aug., 2009 Book 5
Morris, John. The Young Earth, Green Forest AK. Master Books (2007)
Dr Morris is the president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and has a PhD in Geological Engr. He has authored many publications and books on creation including this one. This book examines scientific evidence about what the earth reveals about itself. The introduction and first chapters tell of the differing world views and how holding an evolutionary world view biases ones judgment. The book has colorful illustrations and a CD with slides that could be used for a presentation to a non-technical audience. ICR has an office in San Diego, CA and Dallas, TX. ICR has a popular seminar series called ‘Back to Genesis” and this book is an outgrowth of that series and lecture on the age of the earth (7).
Dr. Morris gives definition of terms and one term the Framework Hypothesis is interesting. This is a Christian based interpretation of the Genesis creation that claims that it is true only in overall framework and in board theology but not in details or chronology (9). Wikipedia gives a more detailed definition of the Hypothesis and Answers in Genesis gives a detailed and scholarly refutation of the Hypothesis. See the reference list for more details. Dr. Morris points out that the way sedimentary rock with fossils are dated is to look up the index fossil in an evolutionary book that dates fossils as millions of years old. Radioisotope dating is not generally done in this case. Thus the rocks are dated by the fossils and the fossils by the rock layers. This forms circular reasoning (11-13). He goes on to note that the evolutionary world view of science excludes any non naturalistic cause, a priori. So other alternates like young earth creation are not considered and any evidence supporting a young earth is excluded and dismissed as an anomaly. The major events of creation or evolution happened in the distant past and neither is directly observable or repeatable and thus results in historical science full of assumptions and theories (14-16). Thus a false theory can be self sustaining, because any contrary evidence is categorically rejected (18). “Nevertheless, truth does exist and we can strive to discern it with God’s help to overcome our limitations, and with diligent study.” However, we must first be willing to reconsider our original presumptions (19). After stating the assumptions of the two main world views (creation and evolution) we must look at which model is better at predicting and fitting the evidence and which is more logically consistent and suitable for life (21-22). Dr. Morris spoke in Russia and notes that many there were schooled in Marxism and Communism. According to Marxism evolution is its foundation and they use the word materialism for it. His talks were well received there because they recognized that they had been taught only one philosophy. Marx considered Darwin’s book as the scientific justification for his view of evolution in the social realm (23). In his talks in communist China, he had difficulty with the government authorities allowing him because they knew how tied evolution is to their philosophy and did not want to consider an alternate one. However the students and professors there greatly enjoyed his talk.
In Chapter 2, Morris uses biblical references to confirm the literal interpretation of Genesis and refute the various Old Earth Creation Theories as an attempt to twist scripture to fit science (26-32). A good summary of the interpretation of the word day is given on pg. 28. In Chapter 3, Morris tracks various genealogies and gives time from creation to now as ranging from 6000 to12000 years, with the most likely time being 6000 to 7000 years (34-37). Some predictions from the creation model and evolution model are compared: Evolution: 1. transitional forms, 2 Beneficial mutations, 3. Things getting better, 4. New Species; Creation: 1. Separate, discrete kinds, 2 intelligent design in nature, 3. Tendency for decay, 4. Extinction of species. (22) He gives the creation view of the universe and creatures and plants all being created mature and functional, rather that as infants. This is to say trees created with fruit on them, and starlight in movement so we could see it as evidence of his glory (40). See list on pg. 40.
Morris noted the false report of the geologist Charles Lyell that the erosion rate of Niagara Falls was 1 ft/yr when local residents stated it was 4-5 ft/yr. This was used to disprove James Ushers book on chronology and rate agreeing with scripture (46). Also comets provide evidence of a young earth as they are evaporated by the Sun (20). Radioisotope dating is discussed in Chapter 5. Only igneous and metamorphic rocks are dated by radioisotopes. Basalt from melted lava can also be dated. Three or four assumptions are needed for the dating to be true: 1. No gain or loss of parent or daughter materials (a closed system) 2. Known amount of daughter material present at the start, 3. Constant decay rate. 4. An earth old enough to have produced the present state through the observed processes. Dr. Morris states there are difficulties with all three assumptions. Water can cause leaching making the system unclosed. The daughter material amount may be wrongly assumed or vary with catastrophic events. Three different types of experiments have indicated the decay rates may have varied greatly. A) Helium atoms trapped in zircon crystals in rocks dated 1.5 billion years old showed evidence of them being only 6000 years old by on helium diffusion. B) Uranium and Polonium halos are found together in rock of all ages, including flood rocks. The Polonium indicated a young age. C) Ancient carbon- bearing rocks contain substantial C14 indicating a young age. The incorrectness and lack of consistency of radio dating was also demonstrated. Many recent lava flows have been sampled and radio dated at .1-10 million years (48-68). There is also one older lava flow that is spilled over on top of the Grand Canyon sediments. However, it was dated by Rb-Sr-Pb isotopes to be older the Grand Canyon sediments themselves, which is impossible (58). This shows the inaccuracy of some of the isotope dating methods. Another way of dating is by ice cores and counting the layers. Creationists say that many layers in the cores could have been deposited in one year from severe storms during the ice age, after the flood (69).
Some other arguments can be made for a young earth from human history. Ancient civilization of 5000 yrs ago was quite advanced with long life spans. After the flood and after the dispersion at the tower of Babble, they suffered setbacks. Folklore stories of the flood and dispersion still exist. Records show population growth at 2%/yr. This rate explains our current population of about 6 billion. However, if we existed for about one million yrs as evolutionists teach, the population should be massive and also the human fossil bones (74). However 95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates. Land vertebrates fossils are very rare, and when they are found, it is often with marine fossils present. Essentially all of the marine fossils are found on the continents, in great fossil graveyards of large areas. There are almost no fossils found in the oceans. This is suggestive of a great flood that covered the continents over a short period of time. A little flood would not cover huge lands masses like continents. Also the great coal beds cover large areas and these were likely formed when land trees were eroded, floated and deposited in flood sediments. Occasionally fossils of land mammal are also found in the coal seams. Morris has a photograph of an iron pot taken from a coal seam that was supposedly 250 million yrs old. The DNA code contains precise information and the human genome contains about 3 billion ‘letter codes’ or nucleic acid base pairs. Mutation in the genome generally causes birth defects and degradation. In fact some genomes seem to be deteriorating so rapidly that extinction is likely (72-76).
Additional young earth arguments are made from the following: 1. C14 is building up and not at equilibrium in the atmosphere. Calculations indicated a maximum age of the earth of about 10,000-15000 yrs (78). 2. The earth’s magnetic field has been measured for 170 yrs and showed a uniform energy decay rate with a half life of about 700 yrs. Some models of this suggest a young earth of about 8,700 yrs. Dr. Morris states “Old earth advocates maintain hope that somehow the dynamo theory can still be salvaged. At present, it conflicts with observations of rapid reversals in modern lava flows, sunspot cycles, minor convection currents in the core, and it has no support in physical theory. The only existing model for the magnetic field that handles all the data specifies a young earth and a recent creation. It is based on sound physics and its predictions have been proven by observation.”(87). 3. Using uniformitarian calculations, based on measured Helium emission and loss rates, the earth cannot be older than 2 million yrs not 4.6 billion that evolution claims. From the rate of salt build up in the oceans would give the present levels in 32 million yrs, when considering all inputs and outputs. At the present rate of erosion, the continents would be greatly eroded in 14 million yrs. They are no greatly eroded continents and the very old sediments remain. Also from the rate of sediment input to the oceans (27.5 billion tons/yr), the present ocean sediment would be accounted for in 15 million yrs. Assuming the world wide flood would greatly shorten these times. Thus there are many different estimates that do not agree with the 4.6 billion yr old earth (90-94).
Many geologists now agree with neo-catastrophism, the idea that big floods caused rapid water deposition of certain layers (97). They then believe that these layers are separated by millions of yrs of time due to imposed fossil dates. However, the surface features like ripple marks, raindrop impressions and animal tracks provide evidence for rapid deposition features. Such features would have been eroded away or disturbed by bioturbation in long periods of time (98). Burred sediments show a marked lack of soil layers which should have occurred repeatedly with millions of years. Other evidence or recently buried sediments include undisturbed, unfractured bedding planes, polystrate fossils, soft sediment deformation like dikes, and the limited extent of nonconformities. (108-115). Coal beds have many vertically buried trees which are difficult to imagine or explain with standard uniform assumptions. They are also bedded over clay which is not a good soil or typical soil for a marsh. Spirit Lake formed after Mt St. Helens has many buried trees that with time, pressure and heat could form coal (106,117).
There is a considerable amount of evidence from different angles that indicate a young earth and Dr. Morris states “The weight of evidence comes down on the side of a young earth.” (120). “Evolution survives only by the suppression of alternatives. The tactics of evolutionists include ridicule, personal attacks, bureaucratic politics, and court rulings.” (121). Many public forum areas have assertive secularist who know they are in a battle and want to maintain their position. Many people don’t recognize that they have assumptions and presuppositions that condition their thinking. In the 1700’s most theologians held to the young earth biblical view. In the 1800’s this changed and many adopted the old earth ideas to fit with new science. If Noah’s flood produced the most of the fossil bearing rocks, there is hardly any evidence left for evolution and old earth concepts. Modern theologians who have old earth concepts must deny the global flood, and say it was either local or insignificant (126). Some modern environmentalists claim that man is the enemy of the earth and Mother Nature is the friend and good. This view denies the curse. The creation view is built on the word of God leads to the following: Care for creation, good science, government under God, concepts of right and wrong, the value for human life, and family values. Evolution is built on the mind of man and leads to the following: Worship of the earth, Naturalism and New Age thought, Socialism, Marxism, and anarchy; abortion and euthanasia, homosexuality, and promiscuity (128-9).
In summary, the book presents many scientific arguments for a young earth of 12,000 yrs or less age and many more that disagree with the 4.6 billion yr. old from evolution theory. The book calls into question the reliability of radioisotope dating which has many errors and inconsistencies. The book has colorful illustrations and a CD with slides that could be used for presentations to a semi-technical audience or to a college level audience. The book has a strong emphasis on geology and physical sciences but not on biological sciences. The book is well written, current (2007) and well referenced. The book weighs evidence carefully with conditions and assumptions stated. I agree with Dr. Morris’s summary that “The weight of evidence comes down on the side of a young earth.” (120). Also evolution survives mainly by the suppression of alternative evidences, that are in any way related to the Bible.
Works Cited
Morris, John. The Young Earth, Green Forest AK. Master Books (2007)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)
The framework interpretation (also known as the literary framework view, framework theory, or framework hypothesis) is an interpretation of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis which holds that the seven-day creation account found therein is not a literal or scientific description of the origins of the universe; rather, it is an ancient religious text which outlines a theology of creation. The seven day “framework” is therefore not meant to be chronological but is a literary or symbolic structure designed to reinforce the purposefulness of God in creation and the Sabbath commandment.
While based primarily on exegetical considerations, the framework interpretation also attempts to synthesize knowledge of historical and cultural conditions out of which the text arose, as well as a theology of general revelation. It has been advanced in modern times by scholars such as Meredith G. Kline and Henri Blocher and has the support of commentators including Gordon Wenham. It stands in contrast to more literalist approaches to the Genesis text.
What is the Framework Hypothesis? Is it Biblical? http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/creation-compromises
- A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2)
- A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 2 of 2)
- A critique of the literary framework view of the days of Creation (Technical, PDF, by Andrew Kulikovsky)
Hawking’s latest book, The Grand Design
Ross comments: First there’s the issue of cause and effect. One basic tenet of both science and philosophy (not to mention our daily experience) says that effects cannot be greater than their causes. In that case, how could impersonal, unthinking, unfeeling, non-volitional physical forces create personal beings that think, feel, make choices, and engage in spiritual activity? If nothing can create something, why have scientists never observed either directly or indirectly any instances of spontaneous creation? As it turns out, however, not one of the 490 planets discovered, studied, and measured to date has the characteristics life requires. In fact, not one would even allow for the possibility of a neighboring planet that could support life