The controversies regarding the early chapters of Genesis and the geological discoveries and theories were part of a complex movement of thought which pulsed through the educated minds of Europeans.
Can the evolutionist view of the history of natural evil be harmonized with the Bible’s apparent teaching that all of this evil is the consequence of the Fall?
This is a summary of the historical development of the modern uniformitarian view of the geological record and the millions-of-years time-scale.
PDF DownloadMany people who have written on Genesis 1 have attempted to make a very significant distinction between two Hebrew words found there.
PDF DownloadMany old-earth creationists (OEC) try to get around young-earth creationist arguments about there being no death (animal or human) before Adam sinned.
Do trillions of artifacts found in Africa and elsewhere prove that the young-earth creation view is ridiculous?
In a blog post for The Gospel Coalition, Justin Taylor presented his reasons for doubting that the days of creation in Genesis 1 were literal 24-hour days.
Does Dr. Ross’s view (particularly about the origin the earth, sun, moon, and stars) really stand up to scrutiny with an open Bible?
We must consider why the scriptural geologists wrote on this subject, summarize the contemporary reactions to their writings, and then analyze the reasons for the reactions of their opponents.
All the scriptural geologists in the early 19th century believed that Genesis 1–11 provided a divinely inspired and historically accurate account of the origin and early history of the world.
Though virtually unknown in discussions of the scriptural geologists, William Rhind’s geological qualifications enabled him to debate the issues of his day.
Young had an obvious love for the study of geology and saw it not as a threat, but as an aid to faith.
John has been completely overlooked by historians, and his works related to the Genesis-geology debate were largely ignored by contemporary old-earth proponents.
Fairholme did not discuss at length his view of the Bible. But clearly he held to the traditional Christian view of the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture.
Ure wrote his book for the expressed purpose of promoting the study of geology, that “magnificent field of knowledge.”
Bugg held to the dominant view of evangelicals and high churchmen regarding the infallibility of the Scriptures, not just in matters of religion and morality, but also of history.
Penn made no claim to be a geologist, but he was well read in the geological literature of his day.
Before we can ascertain the level of geological ignorance or acumen of any of the scriptural geologists, we must define what constituted a competent geologist in the early 19th century.
To assess properly the debate that the scriptural geologists were involved in, one needs also to understand the views of Scripture held by evangelicals and high churchmen.
Two revolutions had a significant effect on life in Britain and the wider Western world in the 18th and early 19th centuries.
In a sermon to his church in 1804, the gap theory began to be propounded by the young pastor, Reverend Thomas Chalmers.
The fundamental features of geological study, namely, field work, collection, and theory construction, were not developed until the 16th to 18th centuries.
Many people in the church today think that “young-earth” creationism is a fairly recent invention, popularized by fundamentalist Christians in the mid-20th century. Is this view correct?
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ.