Notable Christians Open to an Old-universe, Old-earth Perspective

• Minister
• Producer
• Evangelist
• Philosopher
• Apologist
• Author

• Bio
• Web site

• Back to Top

President and founder of The Ankerberg Theological Research Institute. Producer and host of the nationally televised John Ankerberg Show - seen in all 50 states. Holds numerous degrees including: Master of Arts in Church History and Philosophy of Christian Thought and a Master of Divinity degree from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (both with honors), Doctor of Ministry degree from Luther Rice Seminary. Ordained Baptist minister and former pastor. In addition to being a well known evangelist and producer of the John Ankerberg Show, he is the author and co-author of 65 books.

RTB Endorsement

I have found Dr. Hugh Ross to be remarkably humble, and in my dealings with him I have been impressed by his gentlemanly response to disparaging comments. My impression is that he handles Scripture with great respect and in line with standard hermeneutical practice.

Dr. Ross and the Reasons To Believe staff are providing a much-needed voice showing that science does not have to deny God. In fact, when science is approached without a naturalistic bias, it provides strong evidence for the existence of the biblical God.  - John Ankerberg, March 2004

In His Words

The Seventh “Day” Is Thousands of Years Long

Everyone agrees that it has been at least thousands of years since the time of creation, yet the Bible declares that God rested on the seventh day after His six days of creation (Gen. 2:2-3). According to the book of Hebrews, God is still in His Sabbath rest from creation (4:3-5); hence, the seventh day has been at least six thousand years long, even on the shortest of all the chronologies of humankind.

Source: Article - Dr. Ankerberg's Comments On Creation

The Third “Day” Is Longer Than Twenty-Four Hours

On the third “day,” God not only created vegetation, but it grew to maturity. The text says that on the third day “the land produced vegetation; plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds” (Gen. 1:12, emphasis added). To grow from seeds to maturity and produce more seeds is a process that takes much longer than a day, a week, or even a month for most plants. There is no indication in the text that its growth was anything but natural; it is its origin that was supernatural.

Source: Article - Dr. Ankerberg's Comments On Creation

The Sixth “Day” Is Longer Than Twenty-Four Hours

It would also appear that the sixth “day” of creation was considerably longer than a solar day. Consider everything that happened during this one “day.”

First, God created all the many hundreds (or thousands) of land animals (Gen. 1:24-25).

Second, God “formed” man of the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7). This Hebrew word (yatsar) means “to mold” or “form,” which implies time. Yatsar is used specifically of the work of a potter (cf. Jer. 18:2f.).

Third, God said, “I will make a helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:18, emphasis added). This indicates a time subsequent to the time of the announcement.

Fourth, Adam observed and named this whole multitude of animals (Gen. 2:19). As Robert Newman noted, “If every one of the approximately 15,000 living species of such animals (not to mention those now extinct) were brought to Adam to be named, it would have taken ten hours if he spent only two second on each.” This is hardly enough time for Adam to study each animal and determine an appropriate name for it. Assuming a minimum of only two minutes each, the process would have taken six hundred hours (or twenty-five days).

Fifth, Adam searched for a helpmate for himself, apparently among all the creatures God had made. “But for Adam no suitable helper was found” (implying a time of searching) (Gen. 2:20, emphasis added).

Sixth, God put Adam to sleep and operated on him, taking out one of his ribs and healing the flesh (Gen. 2:21). This too involved additional time.

Seventh, Eve was brought to Adam, who observed her, accepted her, and was joined to her (Gen. 2:22-25).

In conclusion, it seems highly unlikely that all of these events–especially the fourth one–were compressed within a twenty-four-hour period or, more precisely, within the approximately twelve hours of light each day afforded.

Source: Article - Dr. Ankerberg's Comments On Creation

Online Work

• Article - Dr. Ankerberg's Comments On Creation
• Article - Large 1500 article index

Author of

• Book - The Facts on the King James Only Debate
• Book - Darwin's Leap of Faith: Exposing the False Religion of Evolution
• Book - The Facts on Creation Vs Evolution/ Facts on Series

• Scholar (OT/Hebrew)

• Bio

• Back to Top

Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

In His Words

[Referring to God's Sabbath analogy in Exodus 20:10-11:]

By no means does this demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six 'days,' any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days.

Source: Book - Archer G., "A Response to the Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science,", in Radmacher E.D., & Preus R.D., "Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible", Academic Books, Grand Rapids MI, 1986, p329

it would seem to border on sheer irrationality to insist that all of Adam’s experiences in Genesis 2:15-22 could have been crowded into the last hour or two of a literal twenty-four-hour day.

Source: Book - Archer G., "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties", Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI, 1982, pp. 59-60

Author of

• Book - Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
• Book - New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
• Book - The Genesis Debate

• Seminary president
• Professor
• Apologist

• Back to Top

B.A., Highland College, 1967; M.Div., Faith Theological Seminary, 1970; S.T.M., Faith Theological Seminary, 1971; Th.D., Grace Theological Seminary, 1975. Assistant Professor of New Testament, Faith Theological Seminary, 1971-1977; Professor of New Testament, Faith Theological Seminary, 1977-1982; Associate Professor of New Testament, Western Reformed Seminary, 1983-1998; Professor of New Testament and Theology, Western Reformed Seminary, since 1998. He also currently serves as president of Western Reformed Seminary.

In His Words

In Mark 10:6, Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27: “From the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’” Many young-earth creationists have latched onto this verse, interpreting it in a novel way that provides evidence for their position of a 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth.1 However, careful study of this passage reveals the traditional understanding of Jesus’ words is correct and the passage does not support a recent creation.

Source: Article - Examining Mark 10:6 Reasons To Believe - Seattle Area Chapter - News And Views (June 2004 p 2)

Online Work

• Article - Examining Mark 10:6 Reasons To Believe - Seattle Area Chapter - News And Views (June 2004 p 2)
• Article - Charles Hodge, Inspiration, Textual Criticism, And The Princeton Doctrine Of Scripture
• Article - How Can God Be Just And Ordain Evil?

• Professor
• Apologist

• Bio
• Web site
• Testimony

• Back to Top

Michael Behe is a strong advocate for Intelligent Design and author of the groundbreaking book Darwin's Black Box. He graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry. He did his graduate studies in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania and was awarded the Ph.D. in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978-1982 he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982-85 he was Assistant Professor of Chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife. In 1985 he moved to Lehigh University where he is currently Professor of Biochemistry. In his career he has authored over 40 technical papers and one book, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, which argues that living system at the molecular level are best explained as being the result of deliberate intelligent design. Darwin’s Black Box has been reviewed by the New York Times, Nature, Philosophy of Science, Christianity Today, and over one hundred other periodicals. He and his wife reside near Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, with their eight children.

In His Words

It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural. But this seems to me to be both bad logic and bad science. Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted. Rather, it is an effort to make true statements about physical reality. It was only about sixty years ago that the expansion of the universe was first observed. This fact immediately suggested a singular event--that at some time in the distant past the universe began expanding from an extremely small size. To many people this inference was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event--the creation, the beginning of the universe. The prominent physicist A.S. Eddington probably spoke for many physicists in voicing his disgust with such a notion 8:

Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single winding up at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind.

Nonetheless, the Big Bang hypothesis was embraced by physics and over the years has proven to be a very fruitful paradigm. The point here is that physics followed the data where it seemed to lead, even though some thought the model gave aid and comfort to religion.

Source: Article - Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference

• Lawyer
• Author
• Lecturer
• Politician
• Publisher
• Philosopher

• Back to Top

William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925) - Born in Salem, Illinois, he studied law and Received a law degree in 1883 from Union College in Chicago. After moving to Nebraska, he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1890 and served two terms. He became known as an accomplished author, lecturer, politician, publisher, and philosopher. He also became known as a rousing, impassioned orator. At the 1896 Democratic convention, he mesmerized delegates with his famous "Cross of Gold" speech and ended up the party's presidential nominee. He ran for president on the Democratic ticket three times (1896, 1900, 1908) but lost each election. Bryan also served as an Army Colonel in the Spanish-American War. He supported Woodrow Wilson in the 1912 election and became Wilson's secretary of state the following year. A devout Christian all his life, Bryan spent his later years campaigning for prohibition and against the teaching of evolution (He was a known proponent of the day-age theory of creation). In 1925, he served as prosecutor in the infamous "monkey trial" of John Scopes, a Tennessee teacher arrested for teaching evolution. He died of a heart attack on July 26, in Dayton, Tennessee, only days after the conclusion of the trial.

In His Words

[In 1925, at the famous Scopes Trial1 in Dayton, Tennessee, William Jennings Bryan was cross-examined - part of the transcript follows:]

Clarence Darrow (the ACLU lawyer) [D]: ‘Mr Bryan, could you tell me how old the Earth is?’

Bryan [B]: ‘No, sir, I couldn’t.’

[D]: ‘Could you come anywhere near it?’

[B]: ‘I wouldn’t attempt to. I could possibly come as near as the scientists do, but I had rather be more accurate before I give a guess.’

[D]: ‘Does the statement, “The morning and the evening were the first day,” and “The morning and the evening were the second day,” mean anything to you?’

[B]: ‘I do not think it necessarily means a twenty-four-hour day.’

[D]: ‘You do not?’

[B]: ‘No.’

[D]: 'Then, when the Bible said, for instance, "and God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day," that does not necessarily mean twenty-four-hours?’

[B]: ‘I do not think it necessarily does.’ ‘I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the Earth in six days as in six years or in six million years or in 600 million years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.’

[D]: ‘And they had the evening and the morning before that time for three days or three periods. All right, that settles it. Now, if you call those periods, they may have been a very long time.’

[B]: ‘They might have been.’

[D]: ‘The creation might have been going on for a very long time?’

[B]: ‘It might have continued for millions of years.’

Source: The World’s Most Famous Court Trial, Second Reprint Edition, Bryan College, Dayton, pp. 296, 302–303, 1990.

[Famous quote:]

The Rock of Ages is more important than the age of rocks

Online Work

• Article - Cross of Gold
• Article - In His Image

• Professor
• Apologist
• Author

• Bio
• Web site
• Testimony

• Back to Top

Walter L. Bradley received his B.S. in Engineering Science and his Ph.D. in Materials Science from the University of Texas in Austin. He taught for eight years as an Assistant and Associate Professor of Metallurgical Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines before assuming a position as Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Texas A&M University (TAMU) in 1976. He has published over 125 technical articles. He also served as Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Texas A&M University, and as Director of the Polymer Technology Center at TAMU. Dr. Bradley is currently working with Baylor University's engineering department and is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity Information and Design. Walter Bradley has also performed seminal research in the origin of life, having published journal articles and co-authoring the popular "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories" which remains the best-selling advanced level text on the origin of life.

In His Words

We believe that the "bara/asah" of Genesis 1 implies God working through miracle and process to effect creation. We believe that the "yom" of Genesis I may be interpreted either "day" or "epoch." In either case Genesis may still be interpreted to allow for the large total time indicated by geology and astronomy. This model, usually called progressive creationism, suggests that God created the major types of plant and animal life at various times in geological history in a miraculous way and then worked through process (God acting in His customary way) to develop the tremendous variety of plant and animal life we see today. To accept the compelling evidence for geological age should not be equated with accepting the general theory of evolution (macroevolution).

Source: Article - The Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science
[A reprint of Chapter 5 (pp. 283-348) from Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, Radmacher and Preus, eds. (Zondervan, 1984)]

While these various nonradiometric methods of dating may be inaccurate for giving absolute ages, they occur at rates that give incontrovertible evidence that the earth is much older than ten thousand years. Furthermore, one cannot postulate here an uncertainty in assumptions as is done with radiometric dating since no assumptions are involved. Unless God chose to create the universe with this clear impression of great antiquity, the earth must actually be quite old.

Source: Article - The Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science
[A reprint of Chapter 5 (pp. 283-348) from Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, Radmacher and Preus, eds. (Zondervan, 1984)]

In conclusion we believe that progressive creationism achieves a very acceptable harmony of the scriptural and scientific data without in any way compromising the inerrant view of Scripture or resorting to a metaphorical or figurative interpretation where the context does not seem to suggest this interpretation.
Source: Article - The Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science

[A reprint of Chapter 5 (pp. 283-348) from Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, Radmacher and Preus, eds. (Zondervan, 1984)]

Online Work

• Article - The Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science
  [A reprint of Chapter 5 (pp. 283-348) from Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, Radmacher and Preus, eds. (Zondervan, 1984).]
• Article - What Non-Christians Ask

Author of

• Book - Know Why You Believe: Connecting Faith and Reason
• Book - Know What You Believe: Connecting Faith and Truth
• Book - Witnessing: How to Give Away Your Faith

• Professor
• Apologist
• Author

• Bio

• Back to Top

Professor Collins background includes advanced studies in linguistics and biblical languages, and practical experience in Bible study and discipleship ministry. He has written extensively on biblical languages and interpretation, and on science and the Christian faith. He also served as Old Testament chair for the English Standard Version of the Bible. John is currently Professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary.

In His Words

Let's dispense with a few arguments that some have offered to support the ordinary day position. The first is the claim that since the 'vast majority' of readers in the history of the church have held that the days are ordinary, so should we - to do otherwise would be unbearable arrogance. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the 'vast majority' are right, regardless of the reasons that led to their reading. After the first century, very few Christians read Hebrew at all, until about 1500; this means that this 'vast majority' arrived at their reading of Genesis on the basis of the Greek Old Testament in the Eastern church, and the Latin Old Testament in the West. These translations are good in some places and bad in others, and our 'vast majority' didn't have the resources to know which is which...

[Another] faulty argument is the claim that the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture is at stake. That is, the Bible must be transparent in its meaning, and this favors the 'simple' reading. This argument is faulty because it actually misuses the doctrine it is supposedly upholding. I know of no responsible statement of this doctrine that claims that all parts of the Bible are equally easy to understand, or that we should prefer a 'simple' reading no matter what...

[Another] false claim is the idea that Christians changed their interpretation of the days in order to make peace with Darwinism. As a matter of fact, most of the interpretive options came into play before 1850 - and Darwin¹s Origins of Species came out in 1859. The big factor for many in the church was the new geology that began in the 1700s which seemed to most to prove that the earth was much older than a few thousand years. And if someone wants to make the counterclaim, 'You see, that just proves that geology is naturalistic, too,' he has to come to grips with the simple fact that most of the early geologists were devout Christians who were far from being naturalistic...

Source: Book - Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? (2003 pp 78-81).

Online Work

• Article - Jack Collins: "What happened to Adam and Eve? A literary-theological approach to Genesis 3

Author of

• Book - Science & Faith: Friends or Foes?
• Book - The God of Miracles: An Exegetical Examination of God's Action in the World

• Columnist
• Author
• Speaker
• Commentator

• Bio
• Web Site

• Back to Top

Chuck Colson (b. 1931) - conservative evangelical founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and host of the radio program "BreakPoint." Formerly Anglican and now Southern Baptist, he holds to Protestant distinctives but works for unity with like-minded Catholics, believing the two groups have more commonalities than differences. Colson was a leading architect of the declaration "Evangelicals and Catholics Together." His many books include his autobiography Born Again, Six Million Angels, and How Now Shall We Live.

RTB Endorsement

I had a wonderful time at the conference with Hugh Ross, and everything I saw at the conference only confirmed what I’ve always believed. He has a very strong, articulate voice in defense of truth. I appreciate very much his ministry, Reasons To Believe, and consider him a very valued ally in a great cause to defend truth in the world today, the one true God. - Chuck Colson, July 2004

In His Words

The Big Bang and Hoyle's Steady State were mere abstractions, unable to be tested. Then, in 1964, Drs. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Labs encountered continuous static on certain microwave frequencies. Rotating their antenna in a vain attempt to remove the noise, they realized it was coming from all directions-permeating the universe. Physicists hailed this as the first observational evidence of the Big Bang known as "cosmic background radiation" or "the radio echo of creation."...

Today, advocates of the Big Bang think that their theory is a substitute for God. But it's just the opposite. Hoyle rejected the Big Bang in spite of the evidence because he knew that the Big Bang pointed irresistibly to the existence of God...

As we read the obituaries about Sir Fred Hoyle, the man who named the Big Bang, we might ask our skeptical neighbors: If there was a Big Bang, isn't it reasonable to recognize what Hoyle did-that there behind it [is] a Big Brain. And might that not be the God of the Bible and of all creation?

Source: Article - The Big Bang According To Atheist, Sir Fred Hoyle

Author of

• Book - How Now Shall We Live?
• Book - Loving God
• Book - Kingdoms in Conflict

Online Work

• Article - The Big Bang According To Atheist, Sir Fred Hoyle
• Article - Junk or Jewels? Creation and the Need for a Designer
• Article - The Da Vinci conspiracy
• Article - Article Index

• Professor
• Author
• Lecturer

Paul Copan holds a BA from Columbia Bible College, an M.A. and M.Div. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and a Ph.D. from Marquette University. He is a regular contributor to a number of academic journals. Dr. Copan holds the Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University, West Palm Beach, FL. He has served as a visiting faculty member at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL, Bethel Seminary, St. Paul, MN, and Alliance Theological Seminary, Nyack, NY.

He is the author of True for You, But Not for Me (Bethany House), That's Just Your Interpretation, How Do You Know You're Not Wrong? (both with Baker Books), and a philosophy of religion book with Chalice Press (forthcoming).

He is editor of Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? (Baker), a debate between evangelical scholars and Jesus Seminar members. He is co-editor with Ronald Tacelli of Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? (InterVarsity Press). He has co-edited with Craig Evans, Who Was Jesus? A Jewish-Christian Dialogue (Westminster John Knox Press). He has co-edited The Rationality of Theism (Routledge) with Paul K. Moser. He has written the booklet Is Everything Really Relative? Examining the Assumptions of Relativism and the Culture of Truth Decay, which is part of a series Dr. Copan edited. His book Creation out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration (Baker/Apollos), was co-authored with William Lane Craig. Dr. Copan has contributed to various edited works such as The New Mormon Challenge (Zondervan), To Everyone an Answer (InterVarsity Press), and In Defense of Natural Theology (InterVarsity Press), and he is co-editor (with J.P. Moreland and three others) of the Apologetics Study Bible (Broadman and Holman, forthcoming). He is co-editor of two other volumes: The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion (Routledge, forthcoming) and Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues (Blackwell, forthcoming). He has also contributed articles and book reviews to journals such as Faith and Philosophy, Philosophia Christi, the Review of Metaphysics, and Trinity Journal. He has lectured at universities and colleges both in the U.S. and abroad. He currently serves as President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He and his wife, Jacqueline, live with their five children in West Palm Beach.

In His Words

Moreover, the theist can muster credible reasons for belief in God. For example, one can argue that the contingency of the universe — in light of Big Bang cosmology, the expanding universe, and the second law of thermodynamics (which implies that the universe has been "wound up" and will eventually die a heat death) — demonstrates that the cosmos has not always been here. It could not have popped into existence uncaused, out of absolutely nothing, because we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. A powerful First Cause like the God of theism plausibly answers the question of the universe’s origin. Also, the fine-tunedness of the universe — with complexly balanced conditions that seem tailored for life — points to the existence of an intelligent Designer.

Source: Article - The Presumptuousness of Atheism

Author of

• Book - Creation out of Nothing: Its Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration
• Book - That's Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith
• Book - The Rationality of Theism

Online Work

• Article - The Presumptuousness of Atheism
• Article - St. Augustine and the Scandal of the North African Catholic Mind
• Article - That’s True for You, But Not for Me

• Scholar (philosophy and theology)
• Apologist
• Author

• Web site

• Back to Top

Dr. William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in La Mirada, CA. With two doctorates - one in philosophy under the eminent philosopher of religion John Hick and one in theology under arguably the greatest living German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg - Dr. Craig is widely considered to be a leading figure in the philosophy of religion and the premier evangelical Christian apologist. He has participated in dozens of debates on the existence of God, the foundations of morality, and the contentious claim that salvation is in Christ alone. Furthermore, Dr. Craig has over 175 publications appearing in the best academic and top popular journals and presses. His diverse research interests include the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of time, and New Testament studies. He is the current president of the Evangelical Philosophical Society and the Philosophy of Time Society.

In His Words

The history of the Big Bang model for well over three-quarters of a century has been one of radical predictions repeatedly confirmed and the repeated failure of every attempt, some of them extremely speculative, to avoid the absolute origin of the universe posited in the standard model.{58} With each failure, the theory is corroborated anew. The defender of the kalam cosmological argument seems to be on secure ground in appropriating the Big Bang theory as empirical confirmation of the beginning of the universe.

Source: Article - A Swift and Simple Refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

With each successive failure of alternative cosmogonic theories, the Standard Model has been corroborated. It can be confidently said that no cosmogonic model has been as repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model.

Source: Article - The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe

Author of

• Book - Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology

Online Work

• Article - Creation and Big Bang Cosmology
• Article - The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe
• Article - A Swift and Simple Refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?
• Article - Numerous (in many categories)

• Prominent Apologist
• Theologian
• Philosopher

• Bio
• Web site

• Back to Top

In His Words

Of course, there are many Creationists who argue for an old earth. Biblically, this position that the word for day is used for more than twenty-four hours even in Genesis 2:4, the events of the sixth day surely took more than twenty-four hours, and Hebrews 4:4?5 implies that God is still in His seventh-day rest. If the seventh day can be long, then the others could too. Scientifically, this view does not require any novel theories to explain the evidence. One of the biggest problems for the young earth view is in astronomy. We can see light from stars that took 15 billion years to get here. To say that God created them with the appearance of age does not satisfy the question of how their light reached us. We have watched star explosions that happened billions of years ago, but if the universe is not billions of years old, then we are seeing light from stars that never existed because they would have died before Creation. Why would God deceive us with the evidence? The old earth view seems to fit the evidence better and causes no problem with the Bible.

Source: Book - When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidence (page 22 9)

Creation and Time is the best book on this topic in print. It is a must for anyone interested in the conflict between science and Scripture. Dr. Ross' pleas to overzealous 'young earthers' not to make the age of the earth a test of orthodoxy is long overdue.

Source: An endorsement of Creation and Time by Hugh Ross - Next to last paragraph under Book Description

The creationist points to the evidence for the Second Law of Thermodynamics that the universe is running down as evidence that it had a beginning along with the other evidence for the Big Bang theory. This, combined with the principle of causality, yields the conclusion that:

1. The cosmos had a beginning.
2. Everything that begins had a cause.
3. Therefore, the cosmos had a cause (see Kalam Cosmological Argument).

Source: Book - Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics, Geisler, N. L. 1999

Online Work

• Article - The Need For Defending The Faith

Author of

• Book - When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties
• Book - Inerrancy
• Book - Christian Apologetics

• Seminary president
• Minister
• Author

• Bio

• Back to Top

In His Words

A fresh look at Genesis 1 must begin by recognizing the variety of views that have existed among conservatives up to our time. Orthodox scholars have taken several different interpretive approaches to this part of the Bible in the history of the church, especially in relation to the days of creation. In broad terms we can say that there are two basic views. The first and dominant view, which we will call the traditional view, sees the days of Genesis 1 as twenty-four-hour days. The other view understands the days of creation as figurative or literary expressions. This second view takes several different forms. Augustine, who taught that God had created all instantaneously, believed that the days represent God¹s progressive illumination of the darkness of our understanding. Other interpreters have understood the days to stand for long periods of time. This view is often called the day-age interpretation. Still others see the days as providing a framework, which is not really chronological, for the relationships between elements of creation. This view is often called the framework interpretation. Whatever interpretation one takes of the days of Genesis 1, most of what follows in this book should be acceptable to all those who believe that the Bible is the revelation of God.

Source: Book - W. Robert Godfrey, God's Pattern for Creation: A Covenantal Reading of Genesis 1 (2003, pp 15-16).

How does Genesis use the word day in its early verses? That question is important since the days of creation are the most apparent part of the structure Moses gave to the introduction of Genesis. It is also important since many people today argue that it is obvious that the word day must mean a twenty-four-hour day in Genesis 1. We need to see that the word day is used in as many as seven different ways in the short space of Genesis 1:1-2:4. First, 'day' in Genesis 1:5 means daylight - in our experience twelve hours, not twenty-four hours. Second, later in that same verse 'day' means the whole day of evening and morning, apparently twenty-four hours long. Third, the first three days of Genesis 1 - at least according to the traditional interpretation - are distinct as presolar days. We cannot know with certainly how long such days would be. Fourth, the solar days after the creation of the sun are another use of the word day. Fifth, the seventh day of Genesis 2:1-3 is at least described differently from the other days in that evening and morning are not mentioned relation to is. Sixth, in Hebrew the numerals of the sixth and seventh days are preceded by the definite article, whereas there are no definite articles preceding the numerals for the other days....Finally, and significantly, Genesis 2:4...the word day stands for the whole period of the creative activity of God. This use of the word 'day' is particularly significant because it shows that in summarizing the work of creation at the beginning of the first of the generations in Genesis, Moses says the creation took place in a day.

Source: Book - W. Robert Godfrey, God's Pattern for Creation: A Covenantal Reading of Genesis 1 (2003, pp 69-70).

Online Work

• Article - What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura?
• Article - The TV Church

Author of

• Book - God's Pattern for Creation: A Covenantal Reading of Genesis 1

• Astronomer
• Author

• Back to Top

In His Words

How does the Sun’s metallicity (high relative to stars without planets and low relative to stars with planets) affect life on Earth? Assuming the Sun and its planets formed together from the same molecular cloud about 4.6 billion years ago, then the metallicity of that birth cloud supplied a very important initial condition to the formation of the planet-for Earth is made almost entirely of metals. If a lesser metal abundance were available early on, smaller terrestrial planets would have resulted.

Source: Article - Rare Sun

Online Work

• Article - Rare Sun
• Article - Design Update: How Wide the Life Zone?
• Article - Home Alone in the Universe
• Article - Alien Intelligences?: Think Again

Author of

• Book - The Privileged Planet (video produced as well)

• Apologist
• Author
• Ministry founder

• Web site

• Back to Top

In His Words

The question of whether the earth is 4.5 billion years old (as modern geology affirms) or roughly 10,000 years old (as some evangelical scientists and theologians are now maintaining) hinges largely on whether the "days" of Genesis chapter one are to be taken as indicating literal 24-hour days or as poetic references to indefinite periods of time. An analysis of the biblical material reveals that the answer to this is not eminently clear, and that some justification can be found for both positions.

Source: Article - CRI "STATEMENT DA060 Age of CREATION"

The truth is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports creation. Let me attempt to point out just some of this evidence here. First, the scientific community is now almost unanimous in affirming that the universe had a beginning. This is usually referred to in scientific terms as “The Big Bang Theory.” Of course, this implies that someone or something brought the universe into existence.

Source: Article - CRI "STATEMENT CP0103 EVIDENCE FOR CREATION?

Online Work

• Article - Christian Research Institute Articles
• Radio - Bible Answer Man Archives

Author of

• Book - The Bible Answer Book
• Book - Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction
• Book - Counterfeit Revival
• Book - The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution
• Book - Christianity in Crisis

• Pastor
• Author

• Bio
• Web site

• Back to Top

In His Words

[Introductory comments for an old earth creationism presentation]

One of the issues that face spiritual leaders today is how are we going to relate to an increasingly scientifically brainwashed society, that is very prejudiced against the Word of God because it presumes that there is no meeting place between the Bible and the revelation of God in His creation. And obviously these will not be at sword points with one another any more than you can find isolated texts in the Bible that may seem to argue against one another, but don't if you know it all. If you know all the Word it fits. And the more we understand about the realm of the physical creation, the more we'll see that what is discovered, more and more, examined and pursued, by, unprejudiced scientists, more and more, it reveals the greatness of God, and does not conflict with His Word...

But there is a very real, point of conflict that has been created in much of the church. Because of attitudes of bigoted, as often times prejudiced position is self righteous, if you don't believe in creationism THIS WAY then you are not a Bible believer, that's simply not true. And this way that they are describing is usually called the young earth approach...

To go the distance, we need to not let ourselves be cornered by small mindedness at any point, such as ones I gave examples of. If you should be here today and you hold the position that I cited as seeming, to my view untenable in our times, you probably wouldn't be here if you held the bigoted attitude of some that I've described. I want to say that if any hold such a position this is not presented as though we were endorsing this as an opponent to every other position. I personally believe this is the most viable approach.

Source: Introduction - Hugh Ross Introduction (11/05/2002)

Online Work

• Article - Creation Shall Praise Him
• Article - I Believe In The Resurrection
• Article - Worthy Worship
• Article - The Sabbath Question

Author of

• Book - The Trinity
• Book - Worship His Majesty
• Book - I'll Hold You in Heaven

• Apologist
• Author

• Bio
• Web site

• Back to Top

In His Words

A Skeptic’s Questions

How am I supposed to take you Bible believers seriously when so many of you say that the universe was created within the last 10,000 years, in obvious contradiction to the facts of science?

A Believer's Response

The fact that so many Christians believe that may be more of a cultural phenomenon than any sign of what the Bible actually teaches. I won’t deny that there’s a conflict between science and traditional beliefs among many Christians, but as I can show, there’s no conflict with the Bible itself.

Source: Article - The Bible and the Big Bang

The Big Bang’s Harmony with Your Witness

For Christians, talking about the stability produced by an expanding universe and the tremendous time and care God took to prepare the world for us can be a natural way to bring God into a conversation. However, advancing the young earth view poses a serious stumbling block to many who fear they must subscribe to it in order to believe the Bible. Reasonable people who have some knowledge of science will tend to dismiss your gospel along with your geology. How much better it is to present facts that witness rather than private interpretations that scare unbelievers away.

Source: Article - The Bible and the Big Bang

Online Work

• Article - The Bible and the Big Bang
• Article - How Old and How Big Is the Universe?
• Article - How Far Back in Time Can We Actually See?

Author of

• Book - Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God

• Theologian
• Minister
• Professor
• Biblical Commentator

• Bio

• Back to Top

In His Words

[Hodge explains the importance of science/faith harmony and using one to interpret the other]

Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science. As this principle is undeniably true, it is admitted and acted on by those who, through inattention to the meaning of terms, in words deny it. When the Bible speaks of the foundations, or of the pillars of the earth, or of the solid heavens, or of the motion of the sun, do not you and every other sane man, interpret this language by the facts of science? For five thousand years the Church understood the Bible to teach that the earth stood still in space, and that the sun and stars revolved around it. Science has demonstrated that this is not true. Shall we go on to interpret the Bible so as to make it teach the falsehood that the sun moves around the earth, or shall we interpret it by science, and make the two harmonize? Of course, this rule works both ways. If the Bible cannot contradict science, neither can science contradict the Bible…There is a two-fold evil on this subject against which it would be well for Christians to guard. There are some good men who are much too ready to adopt the opinions and theories of scientific men, and to adopt forced and unnatural interpretations of the Bible, to bring it to accord with these opinions. There are others, who not only refuse to admit the opinions of men, but science itself, to have any voice in the interpretation of Scripture. Both of these errors should be avoided.

Source: Book - The Bible In Science, New York Observer, Mar, 26, 1863, pp. 98-99.

Online Work

• Article - The Protestant Rule Of Faith

Author of

• Book - Systematic Theology
• Book - Commentary on Epistle to the Romans

• Seminary President
• Professor
• Author

• Back to Top

RTB Endorsement

I have found Dr. Hugh Ross to be a man of integrity and sound wisdom as he has continued to offer "Reasons to Believe" to an increasingly skeptical generation of seekers. In my conversations with him on the interpretation of Genesis one and two, I found him solidly committed to the inerrancy of Scripture and to sound principles of interpretation. I commend his works to all for their thoughtful reflection on the magnificence of our great Creator Living Lord.

Walter C. Kaiser

In His Words

I would opt for the day-age theory, given all that must take place on the sixth "day" according to the Genesis record. Incidentally, this day-age view has been the majority view of the church since the fourth century, mainly through the influence of Saint Augustine.

Source: Book - Hard Sayings of the Bible  page 104.

Online Work

• Interview - Creation Update, March 25, 2004

Author of

• Book - Hard Sayings of the Bible
• Book - Hard Sayings of the Old Testament
• Book - Toward an Old Testament Theology
• Book - The Messiah in the Old Testament
• Book - A History of Israel

• Apologist
• Speaker
• Philosopher
• Author

• Bio
• Web site

• Back to Top

In His Words

A young-universe creationist is in a very difficult spot. If he holds that God created the light in transit, he also has to hold that we have no way of knowing that anything further than 10,000 light years away actually exists. We can't see it. We're not seeing it; we're seeing an image that God created in transit. The light from it won't reach us for a billion years.

Source: Article - Star Light & the Age of the Universe

As an old-earther, I'm going to say that evidence for an ancient universe is in the heavens because scientific testing shows us that these stars are far away and their light takes a long time to reach us. Therefore, if we're seeing light from those stars, and they're a billion light years away, then those stars must have existed for at least a billion years.

Source: Article - Star Light & the Age of the Universe

Online Work

• Article - Star Light & the Age of the Universe
• Article - Designed by Natural Selection

Author of

• Book - Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air
• Book - Precious Unborn Human Persons

• Author (Apologetics)

• Bio
• Web Site

• Back to Top

In His Words

[Even though C. S. Lewis was a theistic evolutionist it is notable that he firmly believed in an old earth.]

I am not either attacking or defending Evolution. I believe that Christianity can still be believed, even if Evolution is true. This is where you and I differ.

Source: The Acworth Letters - Letter of December 9, 1944

I have read nearly the whole of Evolution [probably Acworth’s unpublished “The Lie of Evolution”] and am glad you sent it. I must confess it has shaken me: not in my belief in evolution, which was of the vaguest and most intermittent kind, but in my belief that the question was wholly unimportant.

Source: The Acworth Letters - Letter of September 13, 1951

The existence of pain in the animal kingdom especially troubled Lewis, who devoted an entire chapter to the subject in The Problem of Pain. Theologians, he noted, had previously attributed the origin of animal suffering to the Fall of man. But the scientific evidence that carnivorousness was “older than humanity” had led Lewis to conclude that evil had manifested itself long before Adam in the law of tooth and claw. To account for this fact, he postulated a hypothetical pre-Adamic fall, in which Satan corrupted the world and caused animals to live by preying on one another.

Source: The Acworth Letters - Summary at Apologetics.org

Author of

• Book - The Problem of Pain
• Book - Mere Christianity
• Book - Miracles

• Professor
• Evangelist
• Apologist
• Author

• Web site

• Back to Top

In His Words

In the light of all these things we can conclude with Ramm's statement: "Genesis 1 now stands in higher repute than it could ever have stood in the history of science up to this point. We now have means whereby we can point to a moment of time, or to an event or cluster of events in time, which dates our present known universe. According to the best available data, that is of the order of four to five billion years ago. A series of calculations converge on about the same order of time. We cannot with our present information force a verdict for creation from the scientists, though that is not to be considered an impossibility. Perhaps the day will come when we have enough evidence from physics, astronomy, and astrophysics to get such a verdict from the scientists. In the meantime we can maintain that Genesis 1 is not out of harmony with the trend of scientific information."

Source: Book - Know Why You Believe (chapter 2 - Is There A God?)

It is thought by many people, including the famous Lord Bertrand Russell, that all Christians actually believe creation occurred in 4004 B.C. Some time ago I was visiting a non-Christian student on a Midwestern state university campus. I picked up a true-false exam in a course on Western Civilization. One question read, “According to the Bible, the world was created in 4004 B.C."

“I suppose your instructor wants you to mark this question true," I said.

“That's right," the student replied.

“Interesting," I mused. Pulling an Oxford edition of the Bible from my pocket, I said, “I wonder if you could show me where the Bible says that."

Source: Book - Know Why You Believe (chapter 9 - Do Science and Scripture Conflict?)

Online Work

• Article - What Non-Christians Ask

Author of

• Book - Know Why You Believe: Connecting Faith and Reason
• Book - Know What You Believe: Connecting Faith and Truth
• Book - Witnessing: How to Give Away Your Faith

• Author
• Musician

• Bio

• Back to Top

In Her Words:

Our most recent and most conclusive scientific evidence points to a creation event; the starting point of the universe; a Big Bang. The Scriptures are in complete agreement with the concept of a Creation event. God created the universe from nothing. All of the stars, planets, galaxies, as well as all of the life that covers this earth came to be, because God spoke the word and it came into existence. No one was there to hear the sound at the moment of creation but the cosmic microwave background radiation still resounds with the radiant energy of an explosion from long ago. Though they have the proof of its happening, scientists still struggle to understand what the First Cause was, the mighty force that brought an entire universe into existence from nothing. Those who have studied the Bible understand that when God speaks, things happen. The Word of God was given and the universe sprang into existence at His command. It was a mighty big bang, indeed.

Source: Article - A Very Big Bang

Online Work

• Article - A Very Big Bang
• Article - Designer Genes
• Article - The Code Word
• Article - Ask the Animals
• Article - Maternal Instincts Betrayed: Post-Abortion Syndrome
• Song - Flow Mighty River (MP3)

Author of

• Book - Proclaim His Praise in the Islands
• Book - A Perennial Faith : Finding Courage to Grow in the Garden of Life

• Scholar
• Apologist
• Philosopher
• Author
• Lecturer

• Bio
• Web Site
• Testimony

• Back to Top

In His Words

Now, when it comes to the days of Genesis...I'm of the view on this that while we ought not allow science to dictate to us our exegesis of the Old Testament, nevertheless, if there is an interpretation of the Old Testament that is exegetically permissible-- that is, and old age interpretation; that is to say, if you can find conservative, inerrantist, evangelical Old Testament scholars that say that the interpretation of this text that treats the days of Genesis as unspecified periods of time, and that is a completely permissible thing to do on exegetical grounds alone, then my view is that that is a permissible option if it harmonizes the text with science because that option can be justified exegetically, independent of science.

Source: Lecture at Northshore Church in Everett, Washington on February 2, 2002. Transcript article here - The Age of Earth

Online Work

• Article - Is Science a Threat or Help to Faith?
• Audio Lecture - Education Crisis

Author of

• Book - Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul
• Book - Three Views on Creation and Evolution

• Astrophysicist
• Theologian
• Hebrew linguist
• Author
• Engineer

• Bio

• Back to Top

In His Words

The universe gives every appearance of being old, but of finite age, probably in the range of ten to twenty billion years

Source: Article - A Critical Examination Of Modern Cosmological Theories - Multimedia PowerPoint version available here.

Robert wrote in defense of Progressive Creation in the book Three Views on Creation and Evolution

Source: Book - Three Views on Creation and Evolution

Online Work

• Article - A Critical Examination Of Modern Cosmological Theories
• Article - Evangelicals and Crackpot Science
• Article - Beliefs and Physics: Some Lessons from the Ancient Greeks
• Article - A Designed Universe
• Article - The Status of Evolution as a Scientific Theory (critical of the theory)

Author of

• Book - Three Views on Creation and Evolution
• Book - Genesis one & the origin of the Earth

• Author

• Back to Top

In His Words

The Bible does not say, "Thou shalt believe in a young earth." The fact is, no verse in the Bible makes any claims as to the age of the earth. All the so-called verses that young earth proponents point to can be interpreted by the reader to mean old or young. The key doctrines of the Bible are not affected by either interpretation.

Source: Article - Can You Be a Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?

The (young earth) author uses the verse from Job, 'Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?' (Job 38:4) to admonish the old-ager. To the author I say, "Where were you when God laid the foundations of the earth?" You were not there either! So you can't "assume" a 6,000-year-old earth, just like we can't "assume" a 13.7 billion year old universe. What we have to decide this issue is the evidence from God's creation, and not our assumptions. Job 12:8 says "speak to the earth, and it will teach thee." Secular and Christian scientists, outside of a religious framework, have examined God's creation, and it says, "I'm 13.7 billion years old.

Source: Article - Are Dating Techniques Accurate?

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the days of creation are 24-hour days. Young earth creationists will argue over the correct translation of "day." The translation of "day" is irrelevant. If you are in the middle of space, what is a "day." If you are eternal, what meaning does time have? Are we going to have clocks in heaven? Wow, there goes another million years! Only human arrogance would insist on limiting God, an infinite being, to a finite 24-hour day.

Source: Article - Are Dating Techniques Accurate?

Does it matter which position you believe in? No, it doesn't. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is not affected by the age of the earth, nor the method God used to create the earth.

Source: Article - Old Earth Belief

Online Work

• Article - Answers In Creation (numerous articles)

• Professor
• Author

• Back to Top

In His Words

The word creationism by rights should define all who discern a divine mind at work in, or under the phenomena of the natural world. Yet by a most unfortunate set of events, the term has come to mean only the view that God created the world ten thousand or fewer years ago...

Source: Book - The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1994, p 188)

Creation science has damaged evangelism by making it much more difficult to think clearly about human origins, the age of the earth, and mechanisms of geological or biological change. But it has done more profound damage by undermining the ability to look at the world God has made and to understand what we see when we do look.

Source: Book - The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1994, p 196)

Online Work

• Article - Ignorant Armies - A review of The Creationists by Ronald L. Numbers
• Article - Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield on Science, the Bible, Evolution, and Darwinism

Author of

• Book - The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind - For this work, Noll was awarded the 1994 National Association of Evangelicals "Book of the Year".
• Book - The Princeton Theology 1812-1921 : Scripture, Science, and Theological Method from Archibald Alexander to Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield
• Book - America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln
• Book - The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys (History of Evangelicalism, 1)
• Book - Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity

• Scholar
• Speaker
• Author

• Bio
• Web site

• Back to Top