Changes

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|310px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]] by [[God]].]]

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|310px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]] by [[God]].]]

'''Young Earth Creationism''', or "YEC",<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism.  "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> accepts [[creationism]] whereby the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

'''Young Earth Creationism''', or "YEC", <ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism.  "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> accepts [[creationism]] whereby the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both [[creation]] and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are based on [[worldview]]s; because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions.  At the same time, Young Earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] see the Young Universe as the explanation that best fits the evidence.<ref>''See also'' [[Young Earth|Young earth]].</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both [[creation]] and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are based on [[worldview]]s; because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions.  At the same time, Young Earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] see the Young Universe as the explanation that best fits the evidence.<ref>''See also'' [[Young Earth|Young earth]].</ref>

* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.

* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.

* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].

* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].

* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].

* Adam and Eve [[sin]], leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].

* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].

* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].

* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]].<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17, 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref>

* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]].<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17, 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref>

* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence.  Evolutionists often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>https://creation.com/frequently-asked-questions-faq</ref>

* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence.  Evolutionists often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>https://creation.com/frequently-asked-questions-faq</ref>

* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>

* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>

*Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge  Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

* Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge  Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

* The facts 1)  that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood and 2) that geological evidence of a flood exists in almost every area of the Earth, show that it is very likely, if not proven that the great flood did take place.<ref>[http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]</ref>

* The facts 1)  that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood and 2) that geological evidence of a flood exists in almost every area of the Earth, show that it is very likely, if not proven, that the great flood did take place.<ref>[http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]</ref>

* The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization be. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced.

* The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization be. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced.

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==

Young Earth [[creation]] scientists advance a number of reasons for the Earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999</ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale  - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the Earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

Young Earth [[creation]] scientists advance a number of reasons for the Earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error, <ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999</ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale  - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the Earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[catastrophism]] <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

== Astronomy ==

== Astronomy ==

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:

:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.<ref name="icr.org">https://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, " The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.<ref name="icr.org">https://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>

This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.

This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the Earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that there is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000.<ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref>

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphreys's assumption that the Earth is in a large gravity well. If the Earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that there is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000 years.<ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref>

==== John Hartnett's model ====

==== John Hartnett's model ====

The first was during the creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.

The first was during the creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.

The second was during Noah's Flood.

The second was during Noah's Flood.

The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, which would form massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation during a short period of time.  

The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, which would have formed massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation during a short period of time.  

Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood. This single land mass broke apart during the Flood when the subterranean waters bursted out of the subterranean chambers causing the earth to break apart (see also: [[Hydroplate Theory]]). According to many Young Earth creationists, there were probably fewer oceans with much more land on the Earth prior to the flood. It is believed that the worldwide water quantity increased after the flood. The sea trenches and ocean floors sunk further down after the flood waters subsided, because of the increased pressure of the water, thus causing the sea levels to rise.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Hydroplate_theory</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=390_ILj34oM&feature=channel_video_title</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hbj7FXQ-RY&feature=relmfu</ref> Young earth creationists also believe that many of the mountains, valleys, and lakes we see today were formed by the geological transformations caused by the flood. This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.

Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood. This single land mass broke apart during the Flood when the subterranean waters burst out of subterranean chambers, causing the Earth to break apart (see also: [[Hydroplate Theory]]). According to many Young Earth creationists, there were probably fewer oceans with much more land on the Earth prior to the Flood. It is believed that the worldwide water quantity increased after the Flood. The sea trenches and ocean floors sank further down after the Flood waters subsided, because of the increased pressure of the water, thus causing the sea levels to rise.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Hydroplate_theory</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=390_ILj34oM&feature=channel_video_title</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hbj7FXQ-RY&feature=relmfu</ref> Young earth creationists also believe that many of the mountains, valleys, and lakes we see today were formed by the geological transformations caused by the Flood. This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.

== Anthropology ==

== Anthropology ==

{{main|Biblical anthropology}}

{{main|Biblical anthropology}}

YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilization is evidence of post-flood civilization, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.

YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilization is evidence of post-Flood civilization, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-Flood world.

God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.

God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.

Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.

Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.

The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:

The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:

* According to the chronogenealogies in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years.  The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million(14 billion) years ago and Earth was formed around 4,500 million(4.5 billion) years ago.

* According to the chronogenealogies in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years.  The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million (14 billion) years ago and Earth was formed around 4,500 million (4.5 billion) years ago.

* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.

* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.

* The order of creation is different.  The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences.  The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.

* The order of creation is different.  The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences.  The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.

* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].

* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].

* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.

* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.

*Young Earth creationism is based on the Bible, the infallible Word of God.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t002.html</ref><ref>atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/a/bible.htm</ref>

* Young Earth creationism is based on the Bible, the infallible Word of God.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t002.html</ref><ref>atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/a/bible.htm</ref>

== Arguments for a recent creation ==

== Arguments for a recent creation ==

Dating methods don't have to be based on radioactivity.

Dating methods don't have to be based on radioactivity.

Measuring the amount of [[sodium]] in sea water, for example, and calculating how long it would take to reach those levels is another method.

Measuring the amount of [[sodium]] in seawater, for example, and calculating how long it would take to reach those levels is another method.

Yet calculations show that the amount of sodium could not have taken longer than 62 million years to accumulate, well short of the 3,000 million year supposed age of the oceans.

Yet calculations show that the amount of sodium could not have taken longer than 62 million years to accumulate, well short of the 3,000 million year supposed age of the oceans.

[[Polystrate fossil]]s demonstrate that many layers of sedimentary rock that are normally supposed to take a long time to form can be formed quite quickly.

[[Polystrate fossil]]s demonstrate that many layers of sedimentary rock that are normally supposed to take a long time to form can be formed quite quickly.

==Criticism==

== Criticism ==

===Creationist methodology===

===Creationist methodology===

Against the Young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, 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 [[theology|theologians]] and [[philosophy|philosophers]],<ref>[http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm Is there anything wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning?], by Robert Larmer</ref> although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}

Against the Young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, 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 [[theology|theologians]] and [[philosophy|philosophers]], <ref>[http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm Is there anything wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning?], by Robert Larmer</ref> although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}

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

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

YECs 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 in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and [[Church of England]] believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by YEC. Critics also point out that workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of belief in evolution comparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG. This is contrary to the popular belief of creationists that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/admission.asp Amazing admission.<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> They also discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and eco-theologian, that the [[cosmology|cosmological]] 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world.

YECs 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 in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and [[Church of England]] believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by YEC. Critics also point out that workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of belief in evolution comparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG. This is contrary to the popular belief of creationists that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/admission.asp Amazing admission.<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> They also discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and eco-theologian, that the [[cosmology|cosmological]] 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world.

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. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> See creationist cosmologies and the [[starlight problem]] for more information.

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. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> See creationist cosmologies and the [[starlight problem]] for more information.

Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals or after the animals as stated in Genesis. 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 ''Jahwist'' material, holding that for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and God would have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24 hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=9 KJV] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=31 NIV]).<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp Biblical Exegesis</ref>

Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals or after the animals as stated in Genesis. 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 ''Jahwist'' material, holding that for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and God would have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24-hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=9 KJV] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=31 NIV]).<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp Biblical Exegesis</ref>

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'',<ref>http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/ (October 2005)</ref> the Roman Catholic Church in 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."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html | work=The Times | location=London | title=Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible | first=Ruth | last=Gledhill | date=2005-10-05}}</ref> By contrast, YECs 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.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/editorial.asp ‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

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'', <ref>http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/ (October 2005)</ref> the Roman Catholic Church in 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."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html | work=The Times | location=London | title=Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible | first=Ruth | last=Gledhill | date=2005-10-05}}</ref> By contrast, YECs 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.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/editorial.asp ‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, YEC also stands in opposition to the creation mythologies of other religions (both [[wikt:extant|extant]] and [[extinct]]). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).<ref>{{cite book|title=A Dictionary of Creation Myths|last=Leeming|first=D.A.|coauthors=Leeming, M.A.|year=1996|publisher=Oxford Paperbacks|isbn=0195102754}}</ref>

Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, YEC also stands in opposition to the creation mythologies of other religions (both [[wikt:extant|extant]] and [[extinct]]). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).<ref>{{cite book|title=A Dictionary of Creation Myths|last=Leeming|first=D.A.|coauthors=Leeming, M.A.|year=1996|publisher=Oxford Paperbacks|isbn=0195102754}}</ref>

: It is difficult to conceive of a mechanism by which any kind of biological "dating" mechanism could remain accurate in face of the supposedly changing levels of chemicals and solar radiation that evolutionary geologists insist upon. Even the most dedicated Darwin followers in the ranks of academia have been forced to admit that Carbon-14 dating can be wildly inaccurate for several reasons, such as naturally occurring radioactive elements in the Earth's crust.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html</ref> This is just one area of the theory of evolution that scientists have had to back away from with much embarrassment. Perhaps if scientists could adopt a more open-minded tone towards those they disagree with, they could issue retractions without such fear of retribution.

: It is difficult to conceive of a mechanism by which any kind of biological "dating" mechanism could remain accurate in face of the supposedly changing levels of chemicals and solar radiation that evolutionary geologists insist upon. Even the most dedicated Darwin followers in the ranks of academia have been forced to admit that Carbon-14 dating can be wildly inaccurate for several reasons, such as naturally occurring radioactive elements in the Earth's crust.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html</ref> This is just one area of the theory of evolution that scientists have had to back away from with much embarrassment. Perhaps if scientists could adopt a more open-minded tone towards those they disagree with, they could issue retractions without such fear of retribution.

* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''

* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''

: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish.  See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]. Some journals purport to accept material from all scientific perspectives, but engage in a process known as [[sham peer review]]. In normal peer review, papers are checked by two editors, independently, for methodological errors ONLY, not vetted for their content. That is the responsibility of the scientific public. During sham peer review, editors often collaborate to block publication of any literature that challenges established dogma, or their own pet theories. To make the problem worse, due to the incestuous nature of the mainstream journal editor pool, the same editor may serve on as many as a dozen different editorial boards, allowing them to spread their bias across a much larger area than an ethical editor would. Though this is widely acknowledged as a [[liberal deceit|deceitful]] practice, its scope is widely downplayed in the scientific community and is actually almost openly tolerated in some areas of science.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/peerreview/epidemic.php</ref>

: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish.  See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]. Some journals purport to accept material from all scientific perspectives, but engage in a process known as [[sham peer review]]. In normal peer review, papers are checked by two editors, independently, for methodological errors only, not vetted for their content. That is the responsibility of the scientific public. During sham peer review, editors often collaborate to block publication of any literature that challenges established dogma, or their own pet theories. To make the problem worse, due to the incestuous nature of the mainstream journal editor pool, the same editor may serve on as many as a dozen different editorial boards, allowing them to spread their bias across a much larger area than an ethical editor would. Though this is widely acknowledged as a [[liberal deceit|deceitful]] practice, its scope is widely downplayed in the scientific community and is actually almost openly tolerated in some areas of science.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/peerreview/epidemic.php</ref>

* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that.  Evolutionists start with the evidence.''

* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try to fit the evidence to that.  Evolutionists start with the evidence.''

: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point.  Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.

: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point.  Evolutionists try to fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.

* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views.  Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''

* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views.  Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''

: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found.  Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.

: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found.  Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.

* ''Creationists are anti-science.''

* ''Creationists are anti-science.''

: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science.  They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.

: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science.  They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.

* ''Creationisms is not falsifiable.''

* ''Creationism is not falsifiable.''

: Creationism is not less falsifiable than evolution.  See [[falsifiability of Creation]] and [[Falsifiability of evolution]].

: Creationism is not less falsifiable than evolution.  See [[falsifiability of Creation]] and [[Falsifiability of evolution]].

* ''Creationists want their view taught in schools, but not other creation stories.''

* ''Creationists want their view taught in schools, but not other creation stories.''

== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==

== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity,  

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). With regard to early Judaism and early Christianity,  

early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early church fathers held the young earth creationist view.<ref>

early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early church fathers held the young earth creationist view.<ref>

* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.

* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the [[Journal of Creation]] is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society, <ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the [[Journal of Creation]] is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further reading==

==Further reading==

* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007<ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref>

* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007 <ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref>

*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9

* Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9

*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]

* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]

*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]

* Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]

*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>https://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>

* [[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>https://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>

*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>

* [[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>

*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>

* [[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>

*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>

* [[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>

* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]

* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]

*Jeanson, Nathaniel T. (2017). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/replacing-darwin/ Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9781683440758.

* Jeanson, Nathaniel T. (2017). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/replacing-darwin/ Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9781683440758.

*Mortenson, Terry, ed. (2016). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/searching-adam/ Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man's Origin]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890519752.

* Mortenson, Terry, ed. (2016). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/searching-adam/ Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man's Origin]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890519752.

*Boyd, Steven W.; Snelling, Andrew A. ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/grappling-chronology-genesis-flood/?sku=10-3-129 Grappling with the Chronology of the Genesis Flood: Navigating the Flow of Time in Biblical Narrative]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890517093.

* Boyd, Steven W.; Snelling, Andrew A. ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/grappling-chronology-genesis-flood/?sku=10-3-129 Grappling with the Chronology of the Genesis Flood: Navigating the Flow of Time in Biblical Narrative]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890517093.

*Snelling, Andrew A. (2010). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/earths-catastrophic-past/?sku=10-3-124& Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & the Flood]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890518748.

* Snelling, Andrew A. (2010). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/earths-catastrophic-past/?sku=10-3-124& Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & the Flood]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890518748.

== See also ==

== See also ==

*[[Creation Science]]

* [[Creation Science]]

*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]

* [[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]

*[[Revolution Against Evolution website]]

* [[Revolution Against Evolution website]]

*[[Christianity and Science]]

* [[Christianity and Science]]

*[[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]

* [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]

*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]

* [[List of Young Earth Creationists]]

*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]

* [[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]

*[[Literalist Bible chronology]]

* [[Literalist Bible chronology]]

=== Alternative views===

=== Alternative views===

*[[Old Earth Creationism]]

* [[Old Earth Creationism]]

*[[Theistic evolution]]

* [[Theistic evolution]]

*[[Theory of Evolution]]

* [[Theory of Evolution]]

*[[Gap theory]]

* [[Gap theory]]

*[[Day age creationism]]

* [[Day age creationism]]

*[[Progressive Creationism]]

* [[Progressive Creationism]]

*[[Question evolution! campaign]]

* [[Question evolution! campaign]]

{{Creation vs. evolution}}

{{Creation vs. evolution}}