Dr. Terry Mortenson, AiG-U.S., responds to a recent blog post by Dr. Peter Enns that strongly accused Ken Ham of teaching obvious error and misleading Christians.
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.
With our announcement of the construction of a full-size Noah’s Ark and with the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Genesis Flood, our attention is once again drawn to Genesis 6–8.
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?
There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
PDF DownloadWhy do English translations of the Bible include definite articles that are not present in the original text?
Old-earth proponents’ own words indicate that evolutionary theories about the history and age of the earth and universe are the determining factor influencing their understanding of Genesis 1–11.
Is the NIV version of the Bible wrong to say that we are “knit” together in the womb? Dr. Terry Mortenson and Dr. David Menton, AiG–U.S., examine the Hebrew and science.
The departure of Dr. Waltke has become a news item outside Evangelical circles. Terry Mortenson, AiG–U.S., comments on this news item.
Did God create the whole universe, including the original plants, animals, and first two people (Adam and Eve) in six literal 24-hour days?
We agree when Dr. Moreland states that “we ought not allow science to dictate to us our exegesis of the Old Testament,” but then he proceeds to do exactly that.
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ.