An Unexpectedly Strong Argument for a Young Earth

“What does biology have to do with the age of the earth?” If you’re a creationist, you’ve likely already encountered the answer—indirectly. If you’re an evolutionist, you might have already tied the two together—in an attempt to disprove the flood.

Still stumped? Let’s start with a popular criticism of the biblical account of Noah: “There’s no way Noah could fit millions of species aboard the ark!” Creationists often (rightly) respond by pointing out the Genesis concept of kinds. There are far fewer kinds than species. Thus, the ark could have housed them easily.

Then the next step in this criticism: “Fine. There were less than 1,400 reptile, amphibian, bird, and mammal kinds on board the ark. But today there are tens of thousands of reptile, amphibian, bird, and mammal species! There’s no way so many species could have formed from so few kinds in just 4,500 years.” The last phrase makes the debate about timescales. Hence, biology meets the question of the age of the earth.

The answer to this criticism reveals one of the sturdiest arguments in favor of the biblical model and of the biblical timescale.

This is the story of how we uncovered the answers.

The first part of this story dives into some genetic weeds. But if you persevere through it, I think you’ll find that the last part of this story delivers a real punch.

Unresolved Questions: The Origin of Species

Fifteen years ago, I joined, not Answers in Genesis, but the Institute for Creation Research. The then-CEO, Henry Morris III, tasked me with developing a biology research program. From my time in graduate school, I knew step #1 was identifying the most important questions to be answered. Darwin’s central question was the origin of species. This seemed like a logical place to begin.

I then asked more specific, journalistic questions of Darwin’s central focus: Who (“from whom do species descend?”), what (“what species exist?”), when (“when did species form?”), where (“where did species form?”), why/how (“why and how did species form?”).

My conclusions? We already had big databases of species (the what). But the who question—the question of which species were related and which were not—remained a debated young-earth creation (YEC) research topic. Yes, hybridization (i.e., successful breeding) had given YEC an initial answer. But a precise, comprehensive answer was still lacking.

When did species form? Where did species form? Why did species form? The YEC technical literature showed that these questions were still unresolved.

DNA from Thousands of Species

Step #2 of my process of developing a research program was identifying the relevant tools to discover answers to these questions. Directly or indirectly, genetics and DNA comparisons were relevant to each puzzle. Conveniently, when I started in 2009, the DNA sequences of thousands of species were already present in public databases.

I began to critically analyze them.

Well, I began to critically analyze one type of DNA. In animal cells, DNA can be found in two main locations: the nucleus and the mitochondria. In humans, the former contains the DNA that we inherit from both parents. It represents 99% of our total DNA. In the technical literature, we refer to it as autosomal DNA. In contrast, mitochondrial DNA is inherited from only one parent—mothers. In humans, it represents less than 1% of our total DNA.

Being small has its advantages. Mitochondrial DNA is easier to obtain. It also costs less to decode the sequence. The “DNA sequences of thousands of species” that I analyzed were primarily mitochondrial DNA sequences.

This small genetic compartment contained large secrets. My first breakthrough came when I discovered the creationist explanation for the origin of mitochondrial DNA differences between kinds.

This didn’t directly answer my journalistic questions about the origin of species. But it put the research on a vitally important trajectory. For the past 40 years, evolutionists have insisted on a specific standard for YEC science. For YEC research to be considered scientific, it must make testable predictions. That is, for my research to be considered scientific, it must make claims that future experiments could reveal to be true or false.

My explanation for the origin of mitochondrial DNA differences between kinds did just that. (Hurrah!) It also gave me confidence to take my next step in the research process.

DNA Clocks and the Bible’s Timeline

In each case, the rate of mitochondrial DNA was exactly in line with the predictions of the biblical timescale.

Among the thousands of species with published mitochondrial DNA sequences, four species had another type of published data. In these studies, the DNA of parents/ancestors had been compared to the DNA of offspring/descendants. This revealed the pedigree-based mutation rate—the generation-by-generation rate of DNA change. I reran the published numbers to test them against the expectations of the YEC timescale. In each case,1 the rate of mitochondrial DNA was exactly in line with the predictions of the biblical timescale.

What made these data so compelling was their taxonomic breadth. That is, even though I initially had mutation rate data from only four species, these represented multiple phyla of life. In fact, several years later, I was able to confirm the results across entire kingdoms of life.2

In other words, let’s say I found mutation rate data in line with the biblical timescale for just one species. Evolutionists might chalk this up to statistical anomalies. Or maybe they would attribute it to the unique biology of the whatever species I was investigating. That explanation doesn’t work once the pattern appears across multiple species, each with very different biology. Instead, the pattern points toward the one thing these results have in common: The biblical timescale that was behind the predictions.

This result brought me closer to my journalistic questions. When did species form? I now had a clever genetic tool to identify answers.

Resolving Contradictions

I then moved on to the bigger, more vexing question. Again, for context, recall that mitochondrial DNA was just a fraction of the total DNA in an individual. If I wanted to explain the origin of a species’ DNA, and the origin of the species itself, I would need to explain the autosomal DNA—the DNA that represented 99% of the total.

Surely this DNA compartment would also hold the answer to other critical questions, like how and why species formed.

Again, mutation rates held the key clues to the answer.

But they first posed a puzzle. Autosomal DNA mutation rates turned out to be slow—too slow for the YEC timescale. At least, this is what the initial results suggested.

To summarize, the mitochondrial DNA clocks (mutation rates) were exactly in line with the biblical timescale. The rates were fast. But the autosomal DNA clocks were slow. What to do?

I found a way out of the dilemma when I realized that the evolutionists had the same problem, but in opposite directions. For them, the mitochondrial DNA clocks (mutation rates) were too fast for evolution. But the autosomal DNA clocks were in line with their expectations.

In other words, each position—YEC and evolution—would have to find an explanation for the contradictory genetic compartment. But the explanation would have to preserve the results in the agreeable genetic compartment.

For evolution, I found no rational reconciliation. Consider: The rates of mitochondrial DNA change were too fast for evolution. Too many DNA errors would have accumulated in the millions of years that mitochondrial DNA was mutating. What to do?

Perhaps evolution could invoke natural selection. Perhaps natural selection could eliminate the vast majority of these errors.

In theory, maybe natural selection could. But if it did, it also created a new problem to solve: Why wouldn’t natural selection have also eliminated many of the autosomal DNA mutations? Why would it work just on mitochondrial DNA and not on autosomal DNA? More importantly: What scientific predictions did the natural selection hypothesis make? Remember: Testable predictions are the standard for what constitutes science and what doesn’t.

In short, the mitochondrial DNA and autosomal DNA results put evolution in a scientific pickle.

For YEC, the answer was straightforward and rational. Recall that mitochondrial DNA is inherited from mothers, but autosomal DNA from both parents. At creation, God created just two people—a male (Adam) and a female (Eve). Everyone’s mitochondrial DNA is ultimately traceable back to Eve, not Adam. If God created Adam with a different mitochondrial DNA sequence from Eve’s, this wouldn’t have mattered. All that would have been passed on would have been Eve’s. Any mitochondrial DNA differences that exist today would be the result of mutations since creation.

But for autosomal DNA, God could have created genetic diversity within Adam and Eve. What I mean is: Adam could have been created with two different versions of his DNA. (Eve could have been as well, but this gets complicated.) Consequently, any autosomal differences between people alive today could be the result of at least two processes: Mutation since creation or differential distribution of created differences. In short, YEC explains the differences in the mitochondrial DNA and autosomal DNA clocks as a result of their differing patterns of inheritance.3 This would be applicable to humans as well as to animal species.

Finally, after all that genetic heavy lifting, we had a rigorous explanation for how/why species formed as well as for when they formed. In fall of 2017, I published this comprehensive scientific model in a book, Replacing Darwin.

These predictions were soon put to the test.

A Bombshell

Just four months after I published Replacing Darwin, a remarkable research result was published in one of the top mainstream technical journals in the world. For decades, Peter and Rosemary Grant had been studying Darwin’s finches. In Science magazine, they announced that they had witnessed the formation of a new species.

Now I could put my ideas to the test. How fast did this bird species form? By which mechanism did it arise? On both questions, my views in Replacing Darwin passed with flying colors. (See here and here).

Conclusion

Multiple lines of genetic evidence point toward the veracity of the 4,500-year timescale.

“How could tens of thousands of reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals form from less than 1,400 reptile, amphibian, bird, and mammal kinds on board the ark? How could they do so in just 4,500 years?” Creationist responses to these questions are no longer parked in the realm of theory and philosophical reasoning. I don’t have to speculate on how the process might have occurred or why a particular mechanism could be plausible. No, creationists have moved beyond this. Multiple lines of genetic evidence point toward the veracity of the 4,500-year timescale. Multiple lines of evidence also show that created genetic differences are necessary and sufficient to explain the origin of species in 4,500 years.

And more importantly, creationist predictions based on this evidence have already come true. The YEC explanation for the origin of species is full-fledged, robust scientific model—one that far surpasses evolution in its explanatory power and scientific strength.