Young Earth creationism

Young Earth creationism is a religious doctrine which teaches that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God relatively recently (about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago). It is generally held by those Christians, and Jews who believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Genesis is a literal account of historical events, and believe that evidence for a strictly factual interpretation of the text is present in the world today.

Many of its adherents are active in the development of "Creation Science", a creationist endeavor that holds that the events associated with supernatural creation can be evidenced and modeled through the scientific method. There is no support for a "young Earth" in professional science journals or among professional science organizations.

The History of Young Earth Creationism

Some young earth creationists claim that this view has its earliest roots in Judaism, citing for example, the commentary on Genesis by Ibn Ezra (c. 1089–1164), who believed the Genesis days were 24 hour periods.[1] The first-century Jewish historian Josephus may also have accepted a six-day creation and young earth. Dr. Shai Cherry of Vanderbilt University points out in his Introduction to Judaism class that Jews traditionally have not viewed the creation "day" ("yom") of Genesis as a solar day. Philo of Alexandria also indicates that the days were considered to be other than solar days. Although the Reformation hermeneutic inclined some of the Reformers and later Protestants toward an ordinary-day, younger-earth view, the majority of the early Church Fathers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Eusebius, and Basil did not believe the Genesis account depicted ordinary solar days. For much of the history of Christianity, the majority viewpoint in the absence of scientific evidence to contradict it was that the universe was made by a rational Creator; this viewpoint was held by many of the founders of modern science, such as Copernicus, Kepler, Faraday, Galileo, Maxwell, Newton, Boyle, Pascal and Nicholas Steno. However, the development of scientific methods of enquiry soon produced a decline in the scientific belief in Young Earth Creationism.

Decline of Young Earth Creationism

Support for Young Earth creationism declined from the 18th century onwards with the development of the new science of geology. It appeared to early geologists that the Earth had to be ancient to account for the range of geological phenomena that were observable. James Hutton, now regarded as the father of modern geology, opened up the concept of deep time for scientific inquiry. Rather than accepting that the earth was no more than a few thousand years old, he maintained that the Earth must be much older (indeed, he asserted that the Earth was infinitely old). Hutton stated that:

the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.

['Theory of the Earth', a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785; cited with approval in Holmes, A., Principles of Physical Geology, 2nd edition, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pp. 43–44, 1965.]

Hutton's main line of argument was that the tremendous displacements and changes he was seeing did not happen in a short period of time by means of catastrophe, but that the processes happening on the Earth in the present day had caused them. As these processes were very gradual, the Earth needed to be ancient, in order to allow time for the changes. Before long, scientific inquiries provoked by his claims had pushed back the age of the earth into the millions of years — still much younger than commonly accepted by modern scientists, but a great change from the literalist view of an Earth that was only a few thousand years old.

Hutton's ideas, called uniformitarianism, were popularized by Sir Charles Lyell in the early 19th century. The energetic advocacy of Lyell led to the public and scientific communities largely accepting an ancient Earth. This philosophy governed the interpretation of geological data by the Reverends William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick and other early geologists. By mid-century, mainstream science had abandoned leading Young Earth creationism as a serious hypothesis. Many religious groups also abandoned Young Earth creationism as a literal description of the Earth's history and came to regard the Biblical account of creation as purely allegorical or mythological.

As of 2006, an estimated 95% of scientists rejected the idea of a young earth. [2]. Among those scientists who work in fields related to geology, the percentage of those rejecting the idea of a young earth is even higher.

Revival of Young Earth Creationism

The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the 20th century saw a revival of interest in Young Earth creationism. In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist and amateur geologist, wrote The New Geology to provide an explicitly fundamentalist perspective on geology. The book was partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophetess Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great flood on the shape of the earth.

Price's work was adapted and updated by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. in their book The Genesis Flood in 1961. Morris and Whitcomb argued that the Earth was geologically recent and that the Great Flood had laid down most of the geological strata in the space of a single year. Given this history, they argued, "the last refuge of the case for evolution immediately vanishes away, and the record of the rocks becomes a tremendous witness... to the holiness and justice and power of the living God of Creation!"

This became the foundation of a new generation of Young Earth creationist thinkers, who organized themselves around Morris' Institute for Creation Research. Sister organizations such as the Creation Research Society have sought to re-interpret geological formations within a Young Earth creationist viewpoint. Langdon Gilkey writes,

... no distinction is made between scientific theories on the one hand and philosophical or religious theories on the other, between scientific questions and the sorts of questions religious beliefs seek to answer... It is, therefore, no surprise that in their theological works, as opposed to their creation science writings, creationists regard evolution and all other theories associated with it, as the intellectual source for and intellectual justification of everything that is to them evil and destructive in modern society. For them all that is spiritually healthy and creative has been for a century or more under attack by "that most complex of godless movements spawned by the pervasive and powerful system of evolutionary uniformitarianism", "If the system of flood geology can be established on a sound scientific basis... then the entire evolutionary cosmology, at least in its present neo-Darwinian form, will collapse. This in turn would mean that every anti-Christian system and movement (communism, racism, humanism, libertarianism, behaviorism, and all the rest) would be deprived of their pseudo-intellectual foundation", "It [evolution] has served effectively as the pseudo-scientific basis of atheism, agnosticism, socialism, fascism, and numerous faulty and dangerous philosophies over the past century"

(Gilkey, 1998, p. 35; quotations from Henry Morris).

Morris' ideas had a considerable impact on creationism and fundamentalist Christianity. Armed with the backing of conservative organizations and individuals, his brand of "creation science" was widely promoted throughout the United States and overseas, with his books being translated into at least ten different languages.

In 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy developed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which included the following:

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood. [3]

The revival of Young Earth creationism has had no significant impact on modern science — creation science is regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream scientists. However, it has had a significant impact on science education, particularly in the United States, where periodic controversies have raged over the appropriateness of teaching Young Earth creationist doctrine and creation science in public schools (see Teach the Controversy).

Young Earth creationism has also failed to make much of an impact outside of fundamentalist Protestant denominations. Virtually all other Christian denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, reject the concept of Young Earth creationism. Many Bible scholars dispute the idea that Genesis should be taken literally, contrary to what some see Jesus as having stated (Mark 10:6) and Young Earth creationists argue for.

Characteristics of Young Earth Creationism

Young Earth Creationists (YECs) comprise mainly Orthodox Jews and Christians who interpret the creation account of Genesis as historically accurate, factually correct, and in most cases, strictly inerrant. Analogously, those Muslims who might be described as YECs regard the account of creation in the Qur'an in the same way.

The defining characteristic of this belief is that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, rather than the age of 4.5 billion years estimated by a variety of scientific methods including radiometric dating. Some YECs derive this range of figures using the ages given in the genealogies and other dates in the Bible, similar to the process used by Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland James Ussher (1581–1656) when he dated creation at 4004 BC according to a book he published in 1650, which has been revised and updated (by Larry and Marion Pierce) in 2003. YECs believe that life was created by God 'each after their kind' in the universe's first six normal-length (24-hour) days. Additionally, they believe that the Biblical account of Noah's flood is historically true, maintaining that there was a worldwide flood (circa 2349 BC) that destroyed all terrestrial life except that which was saved on Noah's Ark.

Young Earth creationism is normally characterized as opposing evolution, though it also opposes many claims and theories in the fields of geology, astronomy, genomics and any other fields of science that have developed theories or made claims incompatible with the Young Earth version of world history. YECs are fundamentally opposed to any explanation for the origins of anything which replaces God as the universal creator as reported in the Bible, whether it be the origins of biological diversity, the origins of life or the origins of the universe itself. This has led some YECs to criticize intelligent design, a proposal which some see as an alternative form of creationism, for not taking a stand on the age of the Earth, special creation, or even the identity of the designer. Some YECs see this as too compromising.

Young Earth creationists challenge philosophical naturalism and uniformitarianism as the dominant principles of the mainstream scientific community, and assert instead that the physical evidence today best supports catastrophism and the Young Earth creationist viewpoint. See Creation vs. evolution debate for a more complete discussion.

Young Earth creationist ideas

Young Earth creationists regard the Bible as both a mandatory moral guide and a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history. They accept its authority as the central organizing text for human life -- the sole indisputable source of knowledge on every topic, from the physical workings of the universe to the purpose of a man's existence. As Henry Morris, a leading Young Earth creationist, explains it, Christians who flirt with less-than-literal readings of biblical texts are also flirting with theological disaster. For the vast majority of Young Earth creationists, an allegorical reading of the Genesis accounts of Creation, the Fall, the Deluge, and the Tower of Babel would undermine core Christian doctrines like the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see "The Gospels-evidence for creation"). According to Morris, Christians must "either ... believe God's Word all the way, or not at all." Therefore, YECs take the account of Genesis to be a historical account of the origin of the Earth and life. The corollary is that many YECs regard Christians who do not regard Genesis as historically accurate as being inconsistent Christians who subscribe instead to a philosophy that they regard as close to atheism.

The Teaching of Genesis

The text of Genesis relates that God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. God also planted the Garden of Eden for the habitation of Adam and Eve. As a result of the subsequent Fall of Man, Genesis reports that humanity was forced to work hard to provide food, childbirth became painful, and physical death entered the world. One problem with the idea that death did not exist before the Fall is that animals would eventually overrun the earth, a problem which YECs believe is immaterial since they believe that the earth did not remain in its unfallen state for any (generationally) appreciable time. A pre-Fall immortality renders the existence of the Tree of life irrelevant.

A second problem is that the plants which Adam and Eve and the animals ate in Eden must have not "died" during their ingestion, digestion, and excretion. Genesis 1:29 indicates that God gave to man seed-bearing and fruit-bearing plants, but does not specifically say whether man ate the fruits or seeds (which would not kill the plant) or consumed the entire plant. In any case, plant death may not have to be explained. Leviticus 17:11 can be interpereted as stating that only creatures with blood are "alive" (the specific passage reads "For the life of the flesh is in the blood" (NKJV), and this does not necessarily indicate a statement that only those organisms with blood are alive), so Genesis could have been referring to the death of those organisms that are "living" in this sense only. Following this line of reasoning, plant fossils and geological resources such as gas and oil don't directly conflict with YEC in terms of "death", but only in terms of the age of the earth.

The Genealogies of Genesis record the line of descent from Adam to Noah to Abraham, with the ages at which they had the next in line and the ages at which they died. According to the account, God sent a global flood 1656 years after Adam. Young Earth Creationists assert that the Flood was a combination of radical geological activity (the opening of the "fountains of the great deep") and extreme rainfall (from "windows in the firmament of heaven"). They claim that the land before the flood lay much lower than it does now, but that extreme geological action during the Flood raised mountains to new heights and dropped the sea-bed, so that the water that had covered the land flowed into the sea. Young Earth Creationists sometimes refer to a loosely codified idea called "Flood geology" to argue that the vast majority of present-day geological features are the result of the Great Flood. YECs further argue that anthropological evidence has shown that every culture studied has, in its history, a story similar to that of Noah in two aspects: 1) the existence of a catastrophic flood and 2) human and animal life saved by a man who built a large boat and placed all life on it for the duration of the flood.

After the flood, Genesis reports increasingly short lifespans dropping quickly from an average of 900 years at the time of Noah to an average of 100 by the time of Abraham. Young Earth Creationists have suggested that this is due to effects associated with inbreeding that took place after the flood, as only eight people remained. [4] However, Adam and Eve's children would have had to inbreed, there being no other humans on earth. Another theory suggests that the Earth had a higher concentration of oxygen prior to the Flood, possibly due to a layer of water vapor ("vapor canopy") above the Earth, even pointing out that rainbows apparently did not exist before the Flood. The result of such a postulation would be a giant Hyperbaric Chamber. YECs also assert that all modern species of land vertebrates are descended from those original animals on the ark. Most YECs believe that the Ark kinds diversified as they subsequently adapted to their environments by the process of variation and natural selection. Many YECs assert that the process of variation and natural selection resulted in a net loss of genetic information.

Subsequent genealogies in the text identify individuals named Egypt, Gomer, Sheba, Canaan, and Sidon, who are said to have founded the cities and civilizations that were later to bear their names.

Young Earth creationists do not deny the existence of dinosaurs and other extinct animals present in the fossil record. They assert, instead, that fossilized extinct creatures represent the remains of animals which perished in the Great Flood, and that Noah took dinosaurs within him in his Ark and they became extinct at some other point in time, like other animals such as the dodo. The newly-established Creation Museum in Kentucky portrays humans and dinosaurs co-existing before the Flood — one exhibit even portrays a saddled triceratops [5]. For many years, YECs referred to supposed associated human and dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas as proof of coexistence, though most now have abandoned this man track controversy as careful scrutiny of the claims have shown them to be either fabrications or spurious phenomena. Some creationists assert that living dinosaurs (as well as other extinct creatures such as plesiosaurs) still survive in isolated spots, accounting for alleged sightings of lake or sea monsters.[6] Other creationists urge caution about alleged plesiosaurs living today, since rotting basking sharks can form a pseudo-plesiosaur shape.[7]

Young Earth creationism and other forms of creationism

Young Earth is only one of several forms of creationism; others include Old Earth creationism and Day-Age Creationism. Young Earth creationists reject these alternatives based on textual, theological grounds. In addition, Young Earth creationists claim the scientific data in geology, astronomy, etc. point to a young earth which the scientific community consensus views as an errant view.

Young Earth creationists generally hold that when Genesis describes the creation of the Earth occurring over a period of days, this indicates normal-length days, and cannot reasonably be interpreted otherwise. They agree that while the Hebrew word for "day" (yôm) can mean both a 24-hour day and a long or unspecified time, they argue that whenever the latter interpretation is used it includes a preposition defining the long or unspecified period. However, in the specific context of Genesis 1, since the days are both numbered and are referred to as "evening and morning", this can mean only normal-length days. Further, they argue that the 24-hour day is the only interpretation that makes sense of the Sabbath command in Exodus 20:8–11. YECs argue that it is a glaring exegetical fallacy to take a meaning from one context (yom referring to a long period of time in Genesis 1) and apply it to a completely different one (yom referring to normal-length days in Exodus 20). [8]

Further, Young Earth creationists argue that their position is the only way to explain the Fall, which introduced death and suffering into the world. They argue that all long-age views entail death before sin, which they regard as a severe theological error, violating Genesis 3, Romans 5:12–19, 8:17–22 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22.[9]. Further discussion and refutation of these objections can be found on the Day-Age Creationism page.

Young Earth creationism and the Omphalos hypothesis

Many Young Earth Creationists distinguish their own hypotheses from the Omphalos hypothesis, today more commonly referred to as the apparent age concept, put forth by the science writer Philip Henry Gosse. Gosse's hypothesis was an unsuccessful mid-19th century attempt to reconcile creationism with geology. He proposed that just as Adam had a navel (omphalos is Greek for navel), evidence of a gestation he never experienced, so also the Earth was created ex nihilo complete with evidence of a prehistoric past that never actually occurred. Gosse's hypothesis allows for a young Earth without giving rise to any predictions that would contradict scientific findings of an old Earth. This was rejected at the time by scientists and theologians alike, on the grounds that it was completely unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific, as well as implying a deceitful God, which was theologically unacceptable.

Many YECs today argue that Adam did not have a navel [10], and in contrast to Gosse, posit that not only is the Earth young but the scientific data supports that view. However, the apparent age concept is still frequently used in young earth creationist literature.

Criticisms of Young Earth creationism

Young Earth creationism was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept over 150 years ago. While many mainstream scientists respect it as a faith position, they contend that it is little more than that and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated pseudoscience. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US scientists believed in Young Earth creationism; however, not all creationists are YECs. Some subscribe to Old Earth creationism, which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago.

Over the past century and a half, several scientific disciplines have found evidence which conflicts with many Young Earth creationist claims. This includes findings from geology, paleontology, biology, molecular biology, dendrochronology, genomics, physical anthropology, astronomy, physics and archaeology, amongst other sciences. Criticism of Young Earth creationism thus comes not only from supporters of evolutionary biology, against which creationism is most often contrasted, but from a wide range of sciences. Supernatural explanations are by their very nature unrepeatable, unfalsifiable and untestable, and therefore cannot be subjected to the scientific method.

Critics argue that every challenge to evolution by Young Earth creationists is interpreted in an unscientific fashion or is readily explainable by mainstream science, or that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While mainstream scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the mainstream scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by theologians, although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.

Christian Young Earth creationists adhere strongly to the concept of Biblical inerrancy, which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and therefore infallible and non-correctable. This position is considered by devotees and critics alike to be incompatible with the principles of scientific objectivity. The creationist organizations Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for Biblical inerrancy.

Young Earth creationists often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by atheism. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Catholic Church and Church of England neither reject the concept of biological evolution nor support the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Critics also like to point out how workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of (non-)belief comparable to the Biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG (although many creationism believers insist that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in Biblical principles.) [11]

Proponents of YEC are regularly accused of "quote mining," the dishonest practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary [12]. The creationist side responds that they simply make legitimate use of "hostile witness" evidence when they dispute evolution theory with contradictory quotations from the evolutionists themselves. They also assert that critics routinely attack YEC positions with far more egregious misuse of passages from the Bible.

Theological

Some theologians oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself which render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with known science.

One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3, if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4. Young Earth creationists such as Basil the Great and John Calvin long ago answered this by suggesting that the light created by God on Day 1 was the light source. Answers in Genesis has refined this by suggesting that the earth was already rotating with respect to this light. [13] You can also make a case that God created the plants toward the evening of Day 3, the Sun was created on the morning of Day 4, therefore the plants only had to endure darkness for a period not much longer than a typical night.

Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Creationists have answered that big bang proponents have a light-travel-time problem of their own, namely the horizon problem [14] and have proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.[15] See creationist cosmologies for more information.

Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals (Genesis 2:19) or after the animals as stated in Genesis 1. Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggest that Genesis 1 was a litany from the "Priestly" source (possibly from an early Jewish liturgy) while Genesis 2 was assembled from older "Jawhist" material. A literal view holding both stories to be a single account requires Adam to name all the animals, and God to create Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24 hour period. Many creationists assert that this is a misunderstanding derived from a poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2.

Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that where scientific questions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. For instance, in a publication entitled The Gift of Scripture [16], published in October 2005, the Catholic Church of England and Wales comments that "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true in passages relating to human salvation, but "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters." However, that view of the inerrancy of scripture was rejected by Paul VI in the formulation of Dei Verbum 11 forcing the commission to adjust the wording and add crucial footnotes to keep it in line with prior teaching. The relator then said that it was not to be understood as limiting biblical inerrancy to only matters of salvation. However that view has since become predominant due to the deliberate decision to interpret it in a heterodox manner regardless of what it was truly asserting. [17] By contrast, Young Earth creationists contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historical accuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge. [18]

Theologians have also taken the stance, (an early example of this would be Augustine of Hippo and Galileo) where the problem between "science" and The Bible is merely one of interpretation. Since the creator of the universe, and the bible is one and the same, then there should be no contradiction between the two, and if there is, it is only on the part of the interpreter. So, parts of the bible should be taken metaphorically, since they were never meant to be interpreted as literal in the first place, since it is mostly concerned with salvation.

Aside from the theological objections voiced by other Christians, Young Earth creationism also stands in opposition to the creationist mythologies of other religions (both extant and extinct). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists.

External links

Pro-YEC Organizations and websites

Anti-YEC Organizations and websites

Young Earth Evidence Rebuttals
Reasons to Believe
Index of Creationist Claims
Answers In Creation (Old Earth creationist website, purporting to expose the flaws of Young Earth creationism)
New Creationism.org
Evidence for God
Does God Exist?
National Center for Science Education (NCSE) ("Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools")
The Talk.Origins Archive
Creationism versus Science
EvoWiki
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
[19]

Young Earth Videos

Critical Review of Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth - a Young Earth Video

Articles

Bradshaw, Robert I., "The Early Church & the Age of the Earth"
Grigg, R., 1993. Should Genesis be taken literally?, Creation 16(1):38–41 (principles of biblical interpretation, hermeneutics)
Steinmann, A., 2002. אחד (Echad) as an Ordinal Number and the Meaning of Genesis 1:5 (PDF), Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) 45(4):577–584 (argues that the numbering and definite article patterns of Genesis 1 indicate 24-hour days)
Hasel, G.F., 1994. The ‘days’ of creation in Genesis 1: Literal ‘days’ or figurative ‘periods/epochs’ of time?, Origins 21(1):5–38 (defends literal days).
McCabe, R.V., 2000. A Defense of Literal Days in the Creation Week (PDF), Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 5:97–123, 2000
Stambaugh, 1991. Days of Creation: A semantic approach TJ 5(1):70–78 (analyses the meaning of Hebrew yôm ("day") in different context and long-age words, concludes that creation days were 24 hours)
Sarfati, J., 2003. Biblical chronogenealogies, TJ 17(3):14–18 (defends Masoretic chronology of Gen. 5 & 11, and rejects gaps)
Grigg, R., 2003. Meeting the ancestors, Creation 25(2):13–15 (on the genealogies and lifespans)
Grigg, R., 1997. From the beginning of Creation: Does Genesis have a gap?, Creation 19(2):35–38 (why YECs reject the gap theory)
Batten, D., 1996. Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and 'progressive creationists'), from AiG, Creation 18(3):37
Grigg, R., 2001. Do I have to believe in a literal creation to be a Christian?, Creation 23(3):20–22 (AiG answers "No, but …")
US poll results — Public beliefs about evolution and creation
Lane Coffee and Darrick Dean, "Introduction to the Creation-Date Debate"; long-age perspective
Evowiki article on the History of Young Earth Creationism