The Six-Day War in Creationism, by Gene Nouhan

There are several books that seriously criticize Young-Earth Creationism, as it is taught by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis (AiG), and others. The Six-Day War in Creationism: A New Critique of the Young Earth Reform Movement and Its Excesses is the most thorough such book that I have read. It's also the longest. The length and content of that title gives a hint of that thoroughness, and length. 

Author Gene Nouhan  carefully considers the meaning of the Bible's original languages, and concludes that the Bible wasn't meant to say that the earth is but a few thousand years old, and doesn't. His related main criticism of the Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) movement is that its advocates do not usually explicitly claim that you have to agree with them for your eternal salvation, but that they argue so strongly for a YEC interpretation (never mind the lack of evidence) that the message that comes across is that only YEC believers can be saved.

Nouhan doesn't attempt to rule out a six day creation by examining scientific evidence. Others have done so, explaining that a young earth isn't consistent with geological, biological, or paleological findings. Nouhan's base is the original words in the Bible, as far as we can know them. I am not a scholar of biblical language, but Nouhan seems convincing. He calls upon logic and common sense.

Two other books that I recommend are not as thorough, but seem sound in Biblical scholarship, and make some important points. (Mis)interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern Context of the Bible, by Ben Stanhope, deflates claims from AiG that the Bible teaches that dinosaurs were contemporary with people in Noah's time, based on his analysis of the language of the Old Testament. Why does AiG make such claims? One possibility is that they genuinely believe that the Bible teaches that. Another possibility is that, as a culture, we are excited by dinosaurs -- see Jurassic Park, etc., the Flintstones, news reports on newly discovered fossils, and many other phenomena -- and that AiG is using this fascination to raise interest, attendance, and money. Stanhope considers archaeology, and some of the sciences, as well as history. An important sample is 

It’s historically outrageous to suppose a global flood ... [is] supposed to have managed to blast out the Grand Canyon in North America and fossilize the dinosaurs in Uzbekistan but couldn’t put a dent in the Sphinx at Giza or other hundreds of Egyptian sites and entire civilizations constructed far earlier and well documented as alive and well through this period. If you accept the calculation that a global flood occurred in 2300 BC, you absurdly end up having to compress or explain away nearly all of the world’s chronological and archaeological evidence dating to before the middle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom period.

The Heresy of Ham: What Every Evangelical Needs to Know About the Creation-Evolution Controversy, by Joel Edmund Anderson, argues that AiG believes, and teaches, that Young-Earth Creationism is one of the foundational beliefs of the church, which belief is a heresy. Here's a quotation from the book:

... heresy is not limited to simply wrong teaching about something. It also can involve undue emphasis of a particular theological point or view, and actually elevate a secondary or non-essential issue to a level of primacy, equal to the resurrection of Christ.

And Anderson (and Nouhan) believe that AiG and those it influences and agrees with have done exactly that.

Nouhan's book is not perfect. There are a few things that the editor missed, such as using "tenant" when "tenet" was what was meant. The acronym SDWC is commonly used, but never expanded. (It means "Six Day War in Creationism," of course. There are hundreds of footnotes. Some of them, to web sources, don't give the UUL but give the site's name (Answers in Genesis, for example) and the date. Some of those sources would be hard to fine. Some footnotes are not to an outside source, but give part of Nouhan's argument. I'm not clear as to why these are not part of the main text. Finally, Nouhan overuses italics. When it doubt, italicize, seems to be his thinking. These are minor flaws, or maybe flaws at all. It's a good book.

Thanks for reading!

The following graphic does not directly relate to this post, but it's my blog. It's impossible to take Genesis 1 and 2 as two straightforward sequential lists of events: