What is young earth creationism?

[In Part 2, Chapter 1, Genesis, Mr Ridout seeks to show, as a supplementary figure, a semblance to a pre-creation in the six days work of creation. There is no scriptural reference to, or necessity of, such a pre-creation. In Mr Ridout's day the infant science of geology overwhelmed people with the vastness of the geological record. Some, without faith, sought to make from this a theory of evolution. Many Christians, unable to apprehend the geological record in the time-span of man's history sought to find a space for it in a pre-creation, or 'gap', before the six days.

For many years it has been appreciated by many Christians that the geological record is very largely one of the cataclysmic global flood as described in Genesis and referred to elsewhere in the Scriptures e.g. 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; 2 Peter 3:3-6. (Men do not oppose long ages or a pre-creation view as such, they oppose any idea of 'God' and of 'judgment' as in Noah's flood.) Clearly such a flood would have left the remains of all types of life sorted by type in sediments soon hardened into rock. The earth in Genesis 1:1 was 'unformed and unfilled' — it is not necessary to understand it as 'wrecked'. These pre-creation ideas introduce even greater theological difficulties such as death before sin, and death operating where God had stated that all that He had made was very good. The fact that fossil creatures are either identical to modern creatures, including apes and men, or of a similar nature, point to the first creation pre-flood scene. It should also be mentioned that a long ages world view introduces more scientific difficulties than it seeks to solve, e.g. features of the universe which could not be as we now see them if there had been the long ages which are mooted. This is not the place to expand on this, but there is much literature available on the subject, both scriptural and scientific. Ed. STEM.]

[FWG here gives credence to 'death before the fall' and evolution (see elsewhere that he does not believe this), and is on extremely shaky ground. This interpretation owes everything to 'science' and not to the revelation FWG believes. The geological record, if read as before Adam, would leave no evidence of the catastrophic worldwide flood of Noah, as well as introducing more problems than it appears to solve. The reader is invited to visit www.answersingenesis.org for another understanding. Ed. STEM]

We therefore accept the days as being days of twenty-four hours. To faith this is no more difficult of acceptance than the interpretation which sees in them thousands of years.

I believe myself that they were six days of twenty-four hours each, having no scripture reason against it.

The evident immediateness of the first day's work applies throughout the other days. Whatever grounds there may be for scientific men to infer processes occupying vast tracts of time before the "days," there is no real reason to doubt, but plain and positive scripture to believe, that the work done on the several six days was not of long ages, but really within the compass of the literal evening and morning. How unnatural to suppose an age for light to act on the first day! And why suppose otherwise on the second day or any other? A long succession of ages may be true after "the beginning" and before "the days," which taken in their natural import have a striking moral harmony with man, the last work of God's creation-week.

In spite of what seems the general tendency of modern thought, Scripture shows plainly enough that the "days" are literal days. 1. The terms "evening" and "morning" naturally convey this thought; these having reference to the "light" which had just been called forth. The puzzle which would make the preceding darkness part of the first day is thus very simply set aside; for "evening" already speaks of the action of light, and shows that the first day begins with that. But a long period, divided thus into an "evening and a morning" by the absence or presence of light, can hardly be contended for.

So God divided the light from the darkness. There was not to be a compromise, a mixture, a sort of indefinite twilight, but the darkness was for a season to give way completely to light, and thus there was a division between them. Hence there was evening and there was morning — a first day. For a long time great exception was taken by unbelievers to this statement of verse 5, because the sun does not appear until the fourth day. But the sun is not the only source of light.

The question is raised as to whether the days of Genesis 1 are to be understood in a literal sense or figuratively as indicating immense periods of time, and it has provoked much discussion, as neither interpretation of the word is free from difficulties. For ourselves, we believe it is to be understood literally. The figurative sense occurs in Scripture — "man's day," "the day of salvation," etc. But this sense is most evidently a secondary one and the literal sense is the primary. In our judgment this fact alone is pretty decisive. We must have the primary meaning established before we can arrive at any secondary meaning at all, and Genesis 1 deals with primary things. When we reach Isaiah's prophecy we get "the day of the Lord," but even that, though not a day of 24 hours is not a long period of time. The repetition of "the evening and the morning" fits in with the primary meaning, and would have very little meaning in the secondary sense. Further, in verse 16, where the sun is made to rule the day and the moon to rule the night, we do not see how the primary sense can be avoided.

This surely points to the diurnal movement of the earth revolving round the sun. This clearly means a day of twenty-four hours. To try to make out that “the evening and the morning” were vast stretches of time involves too many difficulties. One cannot fit into the narrative the idea of millions of years of night, followed by millions of years of day. The reason why the period theory is pressed, is we believe that scientists are unwilling to admit the power of God. They will not allow that He is the Sustainer and Controller, as well as the Creator of nature.

Archbishop Ussher, using the record in the Bible of the ages of the patriarchs and its subsequent history, has made a chronology, which fixes the creation of man at about 4004 B.C. But this chronology was not inspired. Ussher generally treated each son in the genealogy as the eldest, whereas this was not necessarily the case, as witness Seth, who was Adam’s third son, and Solomon, who was far from being David’s eldest son. It is thus possible that Ussher’s chronology is within the mark.

When that moment comes, Scripture speaks of days, — "and the evening and the morning were the first day." I believe these days were days of twenty-four hours. How simple and perfect is God's tale of creation! He first of all created, in the beginning, the heavens and the earth; and secondly, at a date which we can measure, reformed and fashioned the earth, and then put man on it. He did not create the world in six days, nor does Scripture say so. Careless readers have done that. A joiner might fashion a table, but he could not create the material. The creation of the wood and the making of the table are totally different things.