( Part 2 — Scientific Evidence & Perspectives ) 
 

 
A brief overview of this page is in the homepage for Origins Evidence.

Sections in this page:
Historical Science — Can we reach reliable conclusions? 

Overviews of Young-Earth Science & Old-Earth Science 

Selected Topics with Age-Science Claims and Responses 

We should use all of the information provided for us by God, so usually the reasons for adopting an "age of the universe" view are both scientific (the focus in this page) and theological (the focus in AGE OF THE EARTH & UNIVERSE - THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES).
 

 
      Historical Science — Can it be reliable?
      We cannot directly observe ancient history, but can we — by a logical analysis of historical evidence (in fields like astronomy, geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, and archaeology) — reach reliable conclusions about what happened in the past, on the earth and in other parts of the universe?  Young-earth creationists ask "Were you there? Did you see it?", and imply that "NO" means "then you can't know much about it."  What can we know, and how?

This section is now in its own page — HISTORICAL SCIENCE — which looks at criticisms and responses, and says that "officially, ASA does not have a position on historical science" but "unofficially, most members of ASA think the essential foundation of historical science — the logical evaluation of evidence about the past — provides a reliable way to learn about the history of nature."
 

 
      How old are the earth and universe?
      Most scientists think there is overwhelming scientific evidence, from a wide variety of fields, proving (beyond any reasonable doubt) that the earth and universe are very old, with ages of approximately 4.55 and 13.7 billion years, respectively.  But proponents of young-earth theories challenge the evaluations that lead to old-earth conclusions.
      The rest of this page looks at scientific evidence and logic that can help us answer questions about age.  Our goal is to help you get an accurate understanding, so we've tried to find "the best information and arguments that all sides of an issue can claim as support."  And even though the overall result won't be NEUTRAL, "we will try to be FAIR by letting representatives of each perspective clearly express their own views and criticize other views, and by treating their views with respect."  (quotes from Accurate Understanding and Respectful Attitudes)

      Typically, advocates of a young earth claim there are only two basic views of origins:  young-earth creation (Christian) and old-earth evolution (atheistic).  They define all old-earth views as "evolutionary" and imply that an old-earth view cannot be authentically Christian.  They ignore the important differences between three questions (when, how, who) and use "when" to define the answer to all three.  But the actual situation is not this simple, as you can see in THREE VIEWS OF CREATION. 

For all age-questions, we encourage you to carefully examine the scientific evidence-and-logic.
But it's more important to ask, "Is young-earth belief an essential part of Christian theology?"
and ask yourself whether it seems wise to insist that "if the earth is not young, the Bible is not true."

 
      You can jump to Selected Topics or begin with these Overviews & Responses:

      Old-Earth Science Overviews (geology & more)
      • Craig Rusbult explains the logical principle of Multiple Independent Confirmations — regarding what we can conclude from the fact that "abundant evidence from a wide range of fields... indicates that the earth and universe are billions of years old" — and summarizes Scientific Evidence for an Old Earth from a wide range of fields.
      • Deborah Haarsma & Loren Haarsma briefly summarize Geological Evidence [before 1840] for an Old Earth.
      • Hill Roberts — Evidences (*) That Have Led Many Scientists to Accept An Ancient Date for Creation of the Earth and Universe.  (* from geology, radiometric dating, plate tectonics, astronomy, and the Bible)
      • David Leveson explains how scientists determine the relative ages and absolute ages of rock formations.
      • Mark Isaak asks 20 tough questions about Producing the Geological Record in a Global Flood.
      • Answers In Creation offers a free Online Geology Curriculum for homeschoolers, or anyone who wants to learn.
      • Greg Neyman, from Answers in Creation, examines stratigraphy (science of geological layers) in the western United States, especially the Grand Canyon, and EarthHistory evaluates young-earth theories in the conclusion of a 5-part series about the Grand Canyon.
      • Dan Wonderly — The Date of Creation: Bible-Compatible Evidences for Great Age and other resources from Wonderly.

      Young-Earth Science Overviews (geology & more)
      • John Morris proposes major geological changes during Creation Week and Noah's Flood.
      • Tas Walker offers a 12-page series about Biblical Geology.
      • Arthur Chadwick outlines a Creation/Flood Model.
      • claims for young-earth evidence (from geology, radiometric dating, astronomy,...) by Russell Humphreys and Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati.
      • a summary (by Ashby Camp) of ideas in Faith, Form and Time (a book by Kurt Wise, a prominent young-earth scientist).
      • and within the community of young-earth creation scientists, debates about theories and approaches.

      Old-Earth Responses (geology & more)
      Advocates of young-earth flood geology often point to a geological feature caused by a fast-acting catastrophic event (a flood, volcano,...) and imply that this proves old-earth geology is wrong because it insists that ALL geological features were produced by slow-acting uniformitarian processes.  But modern conventional geological science, which is accepted by almost all geologists, is a "hybrid combination" proposing that slow uniformitarian processes produced most features, but fast catastrophic events produced some features, as explained by Mark Isaak and Greg Neyman.
      Two young-earth models (for plate tectonics & radiometric dating) are evaluated by Deborah Haarsma & Loren Haarsma and Greg Neyman examines catastrophic plate tectonics and provides links (1 at start, 7 at end) where you can learn more.  Twenty young-earth books are reviewed by Greg Neyman & others who explain why "the scientific arguments [for a young earth & young universe] are completely void of any credible evidence."
      Hundreds of questions — about the when and how of origins, in areas of geology, physics, astronomy, biology, and beyond — were examined by Mark Isaak (for Talk Origins) and then Greg Neyman (for Answers in Creation),who give brief responses (*) that are labeled "TO" and "AiC" in the topics-table below.   In a similar way, except in one big page instead of many small ones, Matthew Tiscareno and Brent Dalrymple present old-earth evidence while responding to a variety of young-earth claims;  and, for a smaller range of questions, Chris Stassen;  and a collection of small pages assembled, by Craig Rusbult, from the topics-pages below.

      Young-Earth Responses (geology & more)
      One response is to acknowledge the weakness of current young-earth science, but hope it will improve in the future and will become more satisfactory.   { But most scientists think this optimism is not justified, since the abundant evidence for an old earth (and old universe) occurs in so many different areas, covering a wide range of phenomena, and is strong in each area. }   Another response is to claim that their own logical analysis of the evidence is better than the conventional analysis:
      Tas Walker responds to old-earth arguments and there is a 3-part series (OE YE OE) about The Problems of Flood Geology by Mark Isaak (OE) & Jonathan Sarfati (YE) & Brad Henke (OE), and a comprehensive page about The Fossil Record by Sean Pitman.   * For counter-responses to the responses from TalkOrigins, CreationWiki summarizes many young-earth claims.

 
      Radiometric Dating — Overviews & Responses
      • Principles and applications are explained by the Haarsmas and Roger Wiens (briefly & in detail) and Jonathon Woolf & Brent Dalrymple & Hill Roberts.  The reliability of radiometric dating is challenged in AIG's Answer Book (Ham, Sarfati & Wieland) and by Clyde Webster and in Arthur Chadwick's 56-part FAQ but Brent Dalrymple responds to these criticisms.
      • The results of RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth), a young-earth research project by ICR, are described in book-outlines of Thousands not Billions (popular level) and Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (technical level);  a dialogue in ASA's journal begins with Assessing the RATE Project by Randy Isaac (June 2007) followed (in March 2008) by response & replies from RATE plus Randy Isaac and Kirk Bertsche;  expanded responses from RATE authors, Isaac, and Bertsche, plus Gary Loechelt and others, are in RATE AND RADIOMETRIC DATING.   /   The claims of RATE are also criticized by Stephen Meyers & Greg Neyman and others.

 
      Astronomy — Overviews & Responses
      To help you learn quickly and well, here are some carefully selected resources:
      • explanations of the Big Bang Expansion:  a brief overview and Cosmology 101 (a series from NASA) and Three Evidences (by Perry Phillips) and news + FAQ + tutorial (from Ned Wright).
      • old-universe claims by TO and Hill Roberts;  a good overview of current young-universe astronomy by Danny Faulkner;  young-universe claims by Don DeYoung and Jonathan Sarfati (with science plus Galileo).  The overviews & responses above also include some astronomy, especially in Humphreys (topics 1-3), and TO's Topic-List & Tiscareno (astronomy plus the final topic in page, Star Distances).

      There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang, as described in the above (in the overview, Cosmo 101, Phillips, Wright) and by Hugh Ross & TO (brief) & TalkOrigins (in depth), plus responses to 10 Problems for the Big Bang (Richard Deem) and Complexity & The Second Law (Craig Rusbult).  David Berlinski (OE) wonders what happened before the beginning and Apologetics Press (YE, A B) describes science history and science.  John Hartnett and Carl Wieland think disagreements among OE-scientists shows the Big Bang theory is in trouble, but Greg Neyman (A B) explains that this is just how science works.  Astronomy (about Distant Starlight, Big Bang, and Solar System) is in Chapters 1-3 of an excellent book (available online) by Robert Newman & Perry Phillips, Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth (2nd Edition, 2007).
      You can also learn about Distant Starlight (plus Light Speed Slowdown & White Hole Cosmology) and more in ASTRONOMY — AGE OF THE UNIVERSE.

 
      Scientific Methods and Logical Evaluations
      This page begins by asking, Can we use historical science to get reliable information about the history of nature?
      Usually, advocates of a young earth say NO.  Frank Sherwin, a young-earth scientist, seems to disagree when he explains why scientists should Follow the Evidence but John Morris thinks scientists cannot study the past with confidence so Biblical interpretation (not historical science) is the most reliable way to know the history of nature.   Ken Ham agrees;  he thinks the old-earth conclusions of conventional science are not due to scientific evidence-and-logic, they are caused by scientists looking through a sinful secular lens (not a Biblical lens) with old-earth presuppositions;  he thinks we should return to Biblical authority and should not "start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture" but (as explained by Craig Rusbult) he doesn't follow his own advice when he asks, does the earth rotate and orbit?
      To gather information about their young-earth (YE) views of science, ask a YE believer, "Is there any scientific evidence that would convince you the earth is old?"   If they answer yes, ask "then why do you harshly criticize the theology (and sometimes the faith and character) of the many Christians (your brothers and sisters in Christ) who have logically and prayerfully examined the evidence, and it has convinced them that the scientific support for an old earth is extremely strong?"   If they say no, ask "should a scientist reach a conclusion before examining the evidence?"
      Greg Neyman describes the conclusion first approach of YE "scientists" and the tendency of young-earth believers to avoid old-earth evidence, and the fact that YE websites don't link to pages with OE evidence-and-logic so it won't be seen by their YE followers;  and Glenn Morton explains how, when he was a YE believer, his Morton's [YE] Demon prevented him from seeing any non-YE evidence.
      How can we wisely use information from THE TWO BOOKS OF GOD in Scripture and Nature?
 

 
      Selected Topics
      The table below shows age-claims (•) and responses from two perspectives, young earth (YE) and old earth (OE).  If you want to study these topics (and many others) in more depth, you can explore four pages — for NOAH'S FLOOD, GEOLOGY, RADIOMETRIC DATING, and ASTRONOMY — that contain plenty of educational resources.

For a variety of reasons — personal and interpersonal, spiritual and scientific — it's important to ask, "Is young-earth belief an essential part of Christian theology?"

note:  Information about size (such as "8 k") is for the main part of a page, not including end-references; the "AiC" and "TO" pages are brief, usually about 1 k, as explained above.
 

• INFORMATION for readers is in a brief page about our Goal (a quick education for you), Quality (because we've made choices) and Variety (you'll see multiple positions, hence the disclaimer below), Exploring with Freedom (you can use sections and page-links in any order), Size (what does "20 k + 5k" mean?), and Links (that open in a new window)