Creationism - National Center for Science Education

addressed to Christian students faced with evolution in school, and analyzes the coverage
of evolution in eleven standard textbooks. She assures students that evolution is “a mere
theory which is unsustained by scientific proof and that the facts of science do give
support to the doctrine of creation.” After refuting the evidence for evolution, Reno asks,
“Are you not glad that you were created in the image of God instead of being some
higher form of a beastlike creature?” (1953:83). She also denies that belief in an ancient
earth is inconsistent with belief in the Bible’s inerrancy. “The proofs that the earth is
very old are irrefutable” (1953:30).
In a later book, Evolution on Trial (1970; Evolution and the Bible is a condensed
version), Reno expressed a preference for Day-Age creationism, but mentioned the
possibility of creation in six literal days separated by long ages (intermittent-day theory).
Dordt College science professor Russell Maatman argued that all or most of the
six Genesis ‘days’ of creation were long periods in The Bible, Natural Science, and
Evolution (1970). The universe is billions of years old; however, “there is no doubt that
each creation event was instantaneous” and ex nihilo. Maatman affirms biblical
inerrancy, but dismisses Bible-science claims of anticipations of modern science in the
Bible, and says that science should not be used to prove the Bible.
R. Laird Harris advocated a Day-Age approach in Man: God’s Eternal Creation
(1971:47). In The Bible, the Qur’an, and Science (1983), Maurice Bucaille, the Islamic
French surgeon, wrote that the six ‘days’ of creation described in the Qur’an are long,
overlapping periods (1983:135). Bucaille suggests that the perfect Qur’anic revelation
uses the term ‘day’ to describe these periods so as not to confuse or antagonize
contemporary audiences. He claims that the Qur’anic creation account is “quite
different” than the Genesis account, and rejects recent creation of man.
Davis Young of Calvin College is an evangelical geologist with extensive field
experience. He argues strongly for an ancient earth and refutes modern Flood Geology
and young-earth creationism in Creation and the Flood (1977) and Christianity and the
Age of the Earth (1982), the former book dealing with biblical evidence, and the latter
focusing on scientific evidence. Christianity and the Age of the Earth is largely a
response to Whitcomb and Morris’s Genesis Flood, but Young also refutes the youngearth
arguments of Whitelaw, Barnes, Nevins [Austin], and Melvin Cook at length.
Henry Morris in turn responded directly to Young’s attack in Science, Scripture and the
Young Earth (1983).
Young defends Day-Age creationism: “I believe that there are exegetical grounds
for maintaining that the six days of creation were long, indeterminate periods of time”
(1982:161). He admits that there may not be perfect correspondence between the
creation sequence in Genesis and the scientific record, but argues that, as it is an
interpretation of Scripture, Day-Age creationism is “independent of the facts of nature.”
It “should be defended or rejected solely on the the grounds that Scripture affirms or
denies it” (1982:159).
Young, like Ramm, urges a return to the concordistic approach of the nineteenthcentury
creationist scientists, praising Buckland, Miller, and Chalmers. He argues
persuasively that young-earth creationism damages the credibility of evangelical
Christianity.
The faith of many Christian people could be hindered when they ultimately realize that the teachings of the
creationists are simply not in accord with the facts. Imagine the trauma and shock of finally realizing that