With multiple lines of evidence, it was still wrong

Speaking in the context of evolution, David Macmillan advises:

Creationists attempt to rewrite the last two centuries of scientific progress in order to avoid dealing with the multiple lines of evidence all independently affirming common descent and deep time.

But does a claim’s support by multiple lines of evidence mean that it’s true?

Speaking in the context of deep time, Henry Morris advises:

When I first became interested in the subject of cosmogony almost 40 years ago, it was widely held that the universe was two billion years old. The most persuasive “proof” of this age was the convergence of several independent calculations on this date. The argument went like this: “Although questions can be raised about the reliability of any one method, the fact that several independent methods ‘agree’ must prove that they are all basically correct. The decay of lead into uranium, the expansion of the universe, and several other calculations all yield an age of two billion years, so this is undoubtedly the true age!”

It is now known, of course, that all these calculations were wrong. In each of the methods, certain assumptions had been made which were later proved wrong.

Quote sources

  1. Macmillan, D. (2014) Understanding creationism: An insider’s guide by a former young-Earth creationist. Panda’s Thumb. Available http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/05/understanding-c.html. Last accessed 11th Jul 2015.
  2. Morris, H. (1987) ‘How and When Did the World Begin?’ in What is Creation Science? [ebook]. Revised and Expanded Edition. Master Books, Green Forest, Location 3532.

R.J. Rushdoony’s critical contribution to creationism

One of the reviewers [of The Genesis Flood manuscript] had been Rev. Rousas J. Rushdoony, an Orthodox Presbyterian Church pastor in California. He was quite enthusiastic about the book and wanted us to get it published in its entirety as soon as possible. He was a friend of Charles Craig, owner of a small, non-profit publishing concern called the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., in Philadelphia. Rushdoony’s connection at P&R paid off for [Henry] Morris and [John] Whitcomb and The Genesis Flood was released in 1961. Rushdoony was able to see through the Dispensationalism of the authors and see the value of the book that they had written…

Rushdoony and Craig both understood that much of the battle for biblical authority is won or lost in the first several chapters of the Bible. Morris’s scientific expertise made the Flood much more than a simple theological concept. It had far-reaching implications and the shock waves are still being felt today. While Dispensational publisher Moody was dragging its feet and playing politics, P&R was willing to take the risk and cast their eschatological differences to the wind.

My two cents

Cover of
Cover of Genesis Flood

This is an important part of Christian theological history from the 20th century. When most people think of R.J. Rushdoony, they think of Biblical law, but it is equally important to see his crucial role in biblical creationism as well.

I find a lot of books on Presbyterian & Reformed’s website interesting. I was glad to hear that The Genesis Flood has been reprinted as a 50th anniversary edition, and I enjoyed the video made in celebration of its release. Imagine how great it would be to marry girls who like things like this as well!

I also have a DVD of Dr. John Whitcomb, in which I liked his delivery and exposition on the book of Genesis. If it ever happened, I wish I could have been in the same room as Whitcomb, Morris and Rushdoony—three giants against humanism.


The American Vision. (2006). The Recovery of Biblical Creationism. Available: http://americanvision.org/1037/recovery-of-biblical-creationism/. Last accessed 16th May 2013.