Chapter 9: The Fraudulent Young Earth Theory Or Philosophy

CHAPTER NINE THE FRAUDULENT YOUNG EARTH THEORY OR PHILOSOPHY Where Did The Young Earth Philosophy Originate? The following excerpt is taken from Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2002.

"In fact, with one prominent exception, virtually all of the leading creationists of the 1920s endorsed either the Day-Age or Gap Interpretation of Genesis. THE EXCEPTION was Seventh-Day Adventist teacher and amateur geologist, George McCready Price, WHO FOLLOWED Adventist Prophet, Ellen G. White, in limiting the history of life on earth to about 6,000 years. Price attributed most fossil-bearing rock forma- tions to the geological disruptions of the Biblical flood."

Note: It appears that both Price and Ellen G. White held that BOTH the earth and human life have existed for only about 6,000 years. The same encyclopedia further states under the heading "RECENT TRENDS" the following:

"Flood geology gained wider acceptance after the publication of "The Genesis Flood" (1961) jointly authored by conservative Biblical scholar, John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and hydraulic engineer, Henry M. Morris. This immensely influential book promoted Price's views as fundamentalist orthodoxy, and prompted the formation in 1963 of the Creation Research Society. The society is dedicated to the promotion of what has come to be known as young-earth Creationism (by contrast with old-earth Creationism associated with the Day-Age and Gap theories). The most distinctive feature of young-earth creationism is its reliance on catastrophism, the doctrine that large-scale changes the earth's crust are to be explained by violent, unrepeatable geologic events, such as the Genesis flood."

Now, let us analyze the preceding information.

Two Views of Creation 1. In the 1920s, most Creationists held one of two views:

One was the Gap Principle which endorsed the Biblical teaching that the Original Creation in Genesis 1:1 was beautiful. There, Lucifer, the anointed cherub (Ezekiel 28:14) and the angels resided. Lucifer and one-third of the angels rebelled and brought God's judgment upon the Original Creation, which was later found in a desolate and waste condition, as recorded in Genesis 1:2. The unspecified length of time between God's judgment on the earth rendering it uninhabitable, until His remodeling it for man's habitation beginning in Genesis 1:2 b, is known as the Gap Principle, NOT A THEORY. This time period, along with the Original Creation, is what the "young-earth" advocates attempt to do away with. The length of time the angels resided on the Original Creation until Satan's rebellion is not given. In reality, this unspecified time period has no relativity to the young earth advocates, because they deny God's Word concerning the foregoing.

2. The second view held in the 20s and to this present time is called the "Day-Age" theory. In other words, a day in Genesis, Chapter One, is not a 24- hour period of time; but, rather, a geological age. The question then asked is, "How long is a geological age?" The answer is, any number of years they dream up! A 1,000 years,

300,000, or 500,000, or a million, maybe 500 million, or any number of years will do, just as long as we put the word "scientific" beside it. We are then led to believe it is true. What a joke! In 1 Timothy 6:20, young Timothy was warned,

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science (knowledge) falsely so called."

Included in this category are some who say that God created the first "blob." From this, things evolved to their present state. This is what is called "Theistic Evolution." Later, we will show the fallacies and impossibility of the Day- Age theory and give proof of a literal, 24-hour day.

3. From the Encyclopedia's article, it appears the Adventist Prophet, Ellen G. White, may have been one of the first, if not the first in advocating the young earth theory. Then an Adventist teacher, George McCready Price, followed her theory. Then Biblical scholar, John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and hydraulic engineer, Henry M. Morris co-authored "The Genesis Flood" (1961). Their book promoted Price's views of a "young earth." Now, everyone seems to have jumped on the young earth bandwagon. After 1900+ years, we have finally found the truth, or so they propose!

It amazes me that when someone wants to pawn off their theory about something, it is either scientific or advocated by a Biblical SCHOLAR. As long as one addresses an issue and concludes with their opinion, then it must be true because it is either scientific, or it is from a so-called Biblical scholar.

I remember reading H.G. Wells' "The Outline of History." This man didn't believe the Bible at all, but was a believer in evolution. In his book he was trying to align my thinking with his. As I went back through the book, I circled such phrases as "We are led to believe," "We can now assume," "It is most possible," and others, by which he was trying to magnetize my thinking to his. This man had no proof to substantiate his beliefs.

This, in some respects, reminds me of the young earth philosophy. When their geology disagrees with the clear teaching of the word of God, it is meaningless as to how many times they use the word "scientific" and /or "Biblical scholar."

Rev. Whitcomb, Mr. Morris, I do not know for sure; but, I do wonder, did your young earth idea come from the cult religionist and Adventist Ellen G. White and or George Price?

Some might ask, "Why should we take the time to search out the meaning of Genesis 1:1-3 with regard to the Original Creation, the Judgment, and the Remodeling of earth? It can't be that important." Here is one scholar's answer:

"Here are some reasons we should study and seek to understand this doctrine.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). That, in a sense, says it all. If God talked about it, it is important. If He wrote it, it has profit for us." (See Chapter Sixteen.)