Two Stories of Shifting Science in Origins

The reasoning by which we come to particular conclusions is as important as the conclusions themselves.

Scientific conclusions are important. The reasoning behind these conclusions is important too.

The first article by Ken Keathley recounts key aspects of the history with Young Earth Creationism. In the 1950s, and for long before, most fundamentalists (and evangelicals) were old-earth creationists. Then, in 1960, a book was published that presented several lines of evidence for a young earth, convincing Keathley (and many others) of young earth creationism.

How have the scientific arguments of young earth creationism fared? Keathley explains the history here, and how the failure of these arguments disappointed him.

The second article was presented last summer at ASA, and it tells a similar story from the other direction. Looking closely at the genetic arguments of evolutionary creationism, this article serves as an accessible and citable review of what the evidence does and does not tell us about genetic bottlenecks. Despite what some evolutionary creationists publicly argue, William Lane Craig and Reasons to Believe’s models of an ancient human origins—not the recent genealogical Adam and Eve—can be consistent with the genetic evidence.

In this case, the scientific conclusions changed quite a bit, but the scientific reasons for the conclusions changed even more.

Mar 21, 2023
Mar 21, 2023
Mar 21, 2023
Apr 13, 2024

Join the conversation...

Come to understand and to be understood.
Whatever your personal beliefs, we saved a chair for you.

Suggest Changes Revision History