ICR: Why the Earth Must Be Young

The creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom — have unintentionally, in one handy article, presented a large catalog of reasons why the bible is inconsistent with reality. There are more reasons than those given in ICR’s article (such as the shape of the Earth and its place in the solar system), but those listed in the article are a good start.

The article is Genesis Compromise Unravels the Bible. It’s by Jake Hebert, described at the end as a “Research Associate” for ICR. They say he has a Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Texas at Dallas. Jake says, with bold font added by us:

Christians who accept millions of years of Earth history may be unaware of the inconsistency of their position. On one hand, they profess to believe the Bible, but on the other they fail to accept Genesis 1–2 as written. They might attempt to dismiss the issue by telling themselves it isn’t that serious. After all, can’t one accept the rest of the Bible as written yet reject the doctrine of a recent six-day creation? Unfortunately, accepting an old earth logically undermines the entire Bible.

From here on, we’re given one problem after another caused by the conflict between the age of the Earth and the bible. The list begins:

If the world’s sedimentary rocks really are millions of years old, then the fossilized remains of plants and animals within those rocks are also millions of years old. These include the fossilized remains of thorny plants. This would imply that thorns were in the world long before the first humans. So, how can thorns be punishment for man’s sin as described in Genesis 3:18?

Gasp! Next problem:

Because fossils are the remains of dead animals and plants, accepting deep time implies that animal death and suffering existed for millions of years before Adam’s sin. Yet God’s description of His original creation as “very good” (Genesis 1:31), the gracious character of God revealed in Scripture (Psalm 145:9), and the fact that God created people and animals originally as vegetarians (Genesis 1:29-30) all imply that the “groaning” now found in nature (Romans 8:20-22) was imposed on it only after Adam’s fall, not before.

Jake is just getting started. Here’s the next item:

Also, these fossils are found in water-deposited rocks all over the world. This would seem to be prima facie evidence for the Genesis Flood, but many Christians naively accept the uniformitarian claim that these rock layers formed slowly over millions of years. But if these water-deposited rocks are not from the Flood event, then it would be only logical to conclude that the Flood never really happened in the first place.

Egad — no Flood! Jake explains why that’s a catastrophe:

But this would imply that the global Flood described in Genesis 6–8 is at best a serious exaggeration of a mere local flood. Yet the apostle Peter affirmed the global nature of the Flood (2 Peter 2:5, 3:6). If Peter was wrong about this, then clearly his writings were not divinely inspired. Yet those same writings testify of the transfiguration and resurrection of Christ (2 Peter 1:16-18; 1 Peter 3:18). So was Peter wrong about those events too?

Aaaargh!! It’s all falling apart! But wait — there’s even more:

The millions-of-years view also impugns the testimony of Christ. The Lord Jesus Himself clearly believed in both a recent creation (Mark 10:6, 13:19; Luke 11:50-51) and the historicity of the Genesis Flood (Luke 17:26-27). If He was wrong about such things, then how can He be the Son of God?

Lordy, lordy — there’s nothing left! Then, when everything is looking grim, Jake turns it all around. He says:

The bad news is that compromise with old-earth ideas logically undermines the entire Bible. The good news is that there is no good reason to believe in an old earth!

Ooooooooooooh — what a relief! At the end of his article, Jake tells us:

The earth is young, the Flood really did occur, and the scientific evidence is consistent with the claims of Scripture. Christians must, and can, stop uncritically accepting agenda-driven claims about Earth history made by secular scientists who deny the existence and revelation of God.

Your Curmudgeon is greatly relieved. We have no doubt that you are too, dear reader.

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “ICR: Why the Earth Must Be Young

  1. Obviously Jake needs to address a few problems – like – “The Lord Jesus Himself” never wrote anything. Likely response, even though the Gospels were written well after the life of Jesus, they are divinely inspired and infallible. Big problem with that one – inconsistencies and contradictions within the Gospels. Of course logic and analysis is not part of their game.

  2. Radioisotopes are obviously part of an atheist conspiracy against Christians.

  3. Unfortunately, accepting an old earth logically undermines the entire Bible.”
    Hear, hear, I’ll buy into that.

  4. Interestingly enough Jesus never reveals the age of the earth in any of those verses. He could just as easily have been referring to a fiction with which every one was familiar. If I make an comparison to a Shakespeare play – doesn’t mean that really happened – just that it is a scenario to which we can relate something else.

    They really are driving people away from Christianity with this nonsense. No wonder the numbers are down from >90% in 1900 to 70% today.

  5. When there is motivation, when the straightforward “plain reading” is not what one wants, then there can be creative reinterpretations of the Bible. That was generally the case among even the fundamentalists of the early 20th century with regard to the “young Earth” interpretation. It is still true, almost universally, wrt geocentrism.

  6. Not all sedimentary rocks are ‘water-deposited’ (let alone floodwater-deposited).

  7. With a PhD in physics, you should know better, Jake Hebert. You’re a Liar for Jesus and you should be ashamed.

  8. Jesus also believed in demons and a flat Earth, so those must be true as well..
    Luke 4:5: “The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.”

  9. “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
    An evil soul producing holy witness
    Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
    A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
    O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”

    ― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

    AiG, ICR, and DI summed up in four lines….

  10. This is what mental illness looks like; a total denial of reality. Substitute “Harry Potter” for “Bible” and his arguments make the same sense, that is, none.

    UT Dallas is an OK school. A geek paradise. Chess team instead of a football team. I’m sure, crazy or not, shakey Jakey met muster for his Piled Higher and Deeper. I know it’s hard to believe, but the ICR seems to be going downhill. First Lisle, now this guy.

  11. De</lusional Jake doesn't content himself with physics. Oh, no! He's a biologist, paleontologist and geologist. I know, you're shocked.

    Just watch a few minutes of this to get an idea how totally clueless this dude is.

  12. @Zetopan — No, you have it wrong. That verse is proof that all societies outside the Middle East were constitutional republics in Jesus’ day.

  13. But if these water-deposited rocks are not from the Flood event, then it would be only logical to conclude that the Flood never really happened in the first place.

    Gee, Jake is being a good sport about this!

  14. The earth is young, the Flood really did occur, and the scientific evidence is consistent with the claims of Scripture. Christians must, and can, stop uncritically accepting agenda-driven claims about Earth history made by secular scientists who deny the existence and revelation of God.

    Too bad Jake doesn’t offer any of that scientific evidence. Instead, at least in the passages quoted, he rants on about how this scientific finding or that contradicts the Bible, as though that all by itself proves those scientific findings were wrong and possibly outright fraudulent.

    And by the way, many scientists who accept the evidence for evolution and an ancient Earth don’t deny the existence of God, though they take issue with a literal interpretation of His “revelation.”