Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 36:1 (Fall 1973)
Article: The Science Of Historical Geology
Author: John C. Whitcomb, Jr.

WTJ 36:1 (Fall 1973) p. 65

The Science Of Historical Geology

John C. Whitcomb, Jr.

In The Light Of The Biblical
Doctrine Of A Mature
Creation*

I am grateful for this opportunity to reply to an article in the May 1973 issue of The Westminster Theological Journal by Dr. Davis A. Young,1 because I believe that this topic is of great importance for Bible-believing Christians who desire to have a fully consistent world and life view. The fact that Dr. Young not only holds to the absolute inerrancy of Scripture (p. 268), but also insists that “the Christian geologist has the solemn responsibility of applying the facts and principles of the Biblical record to the actual geological phenomena of the earth” (ibid.) offers the prospect of a fruitful discussion of the scientific implications of the clear statements of Scripture on the subject of the ultimate origin of our world.

Let us begin where every true Bible student must begin, namely, with the Biblical data. What does Scripture really say about the creation of the earth and of living things ? In spite of his professed concern for the priority of Scripture, Dr. Young seems to be uneasy and hesitant at this crucial point. After mentioning three prominent approaches to Genesis 1 (theistic evolutionism, progressive creationism, and strict or mature creationism), he immediately states his preference for the second view, progressive creationism (“Genesis 1 and 2 are strictly historical, but the ‘days’ may be interpreted as long periods of time,” p. 268) because this view “permits Christian geologists

* The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of his colleague,
Dr. Charles R. Smith, Associate Professor of Greek and Theology,
Grace Theological Seminary, in preparing this article.

WTJ 36:1 (Fall 1973) p. 66

requiring them to subscribe to the general theory of organic evolution” (ibid.).

The third view, strict or mature creationism, though he grants that it “is Scripturally permissible,” is rejected immediately because it does not permit “the Christian geologist to interpret intelligibly the actual data of geology” and because it “renders the practice of geology by the Bible-believing Christian virtually impossible” (p. 269). While claiming that “only the text of Genesis and of other relevant Scriptures can settle” the question of the nature of Creation Week, Dr. Young in the next breath effectively denies that claim: “Yet the professional Christian geologist, called upo...