YEC Assumptions

YEC Assumptions

The vast majority of YECs are fundamentalist Protestant Christians and, as fundamentalists, they accept the following list of assumptions without question and attempt to force them onto the geologic record. Although Jewish, Roman Catholic, Hindu, Muslim and other forms of creationism do not rely on all of the following assumptions, every one of these assumptions must be completely true for Protestant young-Earth creationism to be a viable option. Yet, almost all of these assumptions have no definitive support and many of them have been demonstrated to be false despite passionate appeals and denials from YECs and other conservative Christians. In other words, young-Earth creationism is a discernibly false faith.

Assumption #1. One God, and no more and no less, exists and He (not she or it) was responsible for creating the Universe.

After thousands of years, the controversies over the existence of God or gods are far from settled. Not only do philosophers and theologians argue over the existence of god(s), but theists also argue over how many gods exist and whether there is a Trinity or not. Currently, the zero and one options for the number of gods are most popular in much of the world. However, hypothetically, there could be anywhere from zero to an unimaginably large number of gods.

Although this assumption is a necessary component of young-Earth creationism, most scientists recognize that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, whether or not god(s) exist. Furthermore, even if one or more gods exist, they may not include the Elohim and Yahweh of Genesis. When compared with young-Earth creationism, individuals that recognize the validity of biological evolution, the Big Bang and an ancient Earth have diverse political and religious beliefs, and include theists of every kind and not just atheists and agnostics. Science is non-supernatural and non-theistic methodological materialism and not atheistic philosophical materialism.

While some scientists are theists, polls (such as this one) generally show that belief in god(s) is less common among American scientists than the general American population. Although the majority of any group may be wrong, it's interesting to speculate on why skepticism about god(s) is so common among scientists. Perhaps, it's because scientists are professionally trained to cast a skeptical eye on all data and hypotheses, and not accept anything at face value. These scientists would then find it difficult to turn off or tune down this skeptical mindset outside of work when they hear sermons, read books that claim to be scriptures (such as the Bible, the Koran or the Book of Mormon), listen to politicians, or hear excuses from their children, employees, or students on why they failed to perform some task. For many scientists, the Bible, the Koran and/or the Book of Mormon simply fail to satisfy their skepticism.

Assumption #2. God is not deistic and impersonal, but wants to interact with every believer on a personal level.

Christians and many other theists believe that their God wants to be worshiped and have a personal relationship with every believer. Yet, very few of them actually claim to hear an audible voice from God and if they do, they are often considered crazy, even by their fellow believers. Even if god(s) exist, might they have simply created the Universe, perhaps even created life on Earth, concluded that humans have been given everything they need to live and be happy, and then they either retired or moved on to other creation projects in other universes? Why couldn't the god(s) be deistic? Why does god(s) have to be personal and care about individuals? Most people believe that their god is loving, caring and all-powerful. Yet, are these assumptions justified? Perhaps, after creating the Universe, god(s) just doesn't want to monitor the day to day lives of billions of people on Earth. Perhaps, god(s) are tolerant of human life, but have no desire to interact further with creation, answer prayers, desire worship or give an afterlife. These are profound theological questions that have no definite answers, yet fundamentalist Christians assume that they have the answers. Whether they believe in a personal God or gods or not, the vast majority of geologists recognize that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Assumption #3. Elohim and Yahweh of the Old Testament are the same God. Although technically a plural noun, Elohim in the Bible does not refer to the Canaanite Pantheon of gods, where El is the chief god (i.e., Elyon the most-high God). Yahweh, also called El, Elohim or Elyon, is the sole Creator of the Universe and is not just another god. The first five books of the Old Testament were not written by multiple authors, but were written by Moses under inspiration from the only true God.

Most modern Old Testament scholars argue against the tradition that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch). Instead, they think that multiple authors wrote these books long after Moses supposedly lived (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2001, pp. 10-14). Most Old Testament experts and archaeologists that study ancient Middle Eastern cultures also do not believe the historical claims in Genesis and Exodus, which include the creation stories, the Flood, the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, Moses and the giving of the Law. While most conservative Christians and Jews believe that the Israelites started out monotheistic and later came under pagan influences that caused them to abandon the "True Faith" by worshiping false gods, most experts on ancient Israel have concluded that the religion of ancient Israel was originally polytheistic and only eventually became monotheistic (Dever, 2005, pp. 252-303; Finkelstein and Silberman, 2001, pp. 240-250). For example, based on a copy of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 from the Dead Sea scrolls, Rollston (2003, pp. 104-105), Avalos (2011a, pp. 111-112), Price (2007b, Chapter 1) and their references argue that the verses originally described how the supreme god, El or Elyon, gave one nation to each of his 70 divine sons (compare with the list of nations in Genesis 10). Yahweh, a son of El, received Israel as his inheritance. The following is a translation of the Dead Sea copy of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (New Living Translation modified by information in Avalos, 2011a, pp. 111-112):

8 When the Most High [Elyon] assigned lands to the nations,

when he divided up the human race,

he established the boundaries of the peoples

according to the number of the sons of God [El or Elyon]

9 For the people of Israel belong to YHWH [Yahweh]

Jacob is his special possession. [my emphasis in bold]

The other gods of El received other nations. This interpretation is consistent with why Judges 11:24 refers to land owned by the god Chemosh, the likely brother of YHWH. In the earliest preserved copies of the Masoretic text (9^th and 10^th centuries CE), Deuteronomy 32:8 had been altered to entirely eliminate monolatrism and promote monotheism by replacing "the number of the sons of God" with "the number of the sons of Israel" (Avalos, 2011a, p. 112). El (Elyon) just became another name for Yahweh. Conservative Heiser has tried to argue against this interpretation. Although YECs consider Assumption #3 to be critical in supporting young Earth creationism and Flood geology, most geologists would find arguments over the identities of Yahweh and El to be irrelevant to the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth, the chemistry of granites and other geological issues.

Assumption #4. In at least the past, God communicated with certain people through personal revelation, such as through prophets and apostles. Jesus also spoke the word of God when he had a ministry on Earth. Although Pentecostal YECs believe that God still speaks to individuals through prophecy and other forms of revelation, many other YECs do not share these beliefs. Many fundamentalist Baptists, conservative Lutherans, and other YECs believe that God currently communicates his intentions to humanity primarily, if not solely, through written scripture.

(Of course, one should ask how anyone could have a "personal relationship" with a god if the only divine responses come from impersonal biblical verses that were written thousands of years ago or from a quiet voice in one's head that cannot be readily distinguished from one's own imagination, thoughts and feelings.)

All conservative Protestants claim that at least certain individuals in biblical times received personal revelations from God. Some of this information, but not all (e.g., John 21:25), was written down in the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. By definition, all conservative Protestants believe that the entire 66 books of the Protestant Bible are the word of God and are authoritative and completely infallible. Depending on their attitudes towards Pentecostalism, conservative Protestants often argue over whether personal revelation from God is common, rare or nonexistent today.

Assumption #5. The complete written word of God consists of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible (no more and no less) and not the scriptural canons of the Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics or any other theistic group with competing scriptures. Leading Jewish rabbis accurately separated the spurious books from the authentic books to develop the Old Testament canon. The Church Fathers had the same success with the New Testament. Muslims, Mormons and others believe that God inspired their scriptures, but they are wrong.

The authors of the 66 books (no more or no less) of the Protestant Bible perfectly recorded the words of God and these original writings contained no errors, lies or contradictions from God. The Bible may accurately record the erroneous beliefs and lies of various humans and demons, but these are always well-identified.

To establish the validity of this assumption, YECs have the impossible task of demonstrating that every verse in the long-lost original copies of the 66 books of their Bible is true and that each verse must have been inspired by God and could not have been just written by fallible human writers, forgers, individuals rewriting Old Testament history to conform to their agenda or people rewriting Jesus' biography to "fulfill prophecy." Because YECs are making the claim that their Bible is inerrant, the burden of evidence is on them.

When YECs state that they believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible, they often do not mention the serious implications of these beliefs. Not only do they claim that Genesis states that the entire Universe is only 6,000-10,000 years old, but they believe that every act of suffering and violence in the Universe, everything from stars blowing up in distant galaxies to humans suffering from cancer, to earthquakes and kittens and puppies dying horrible deaths are due to a couple of humans listening to a talking snake and eating a forbidden piece of fruit. One could ask: why are stars blowing up in distant galaxies because of what a couple of humans supposedly did on a small speck in the Milky Way galaxy 6,000 years ago? Is this not like breaking all the mirrors in your second cousin's bathroom in Calgary, Alberta because your kids were naughty and ate the cake that was made for the office party in Atlanta, Georgia? YECs simply reply that this is the truth and that we should not question the wisdom of their god. However, perhaps, it's time to recognize a YEC fairy tale when we see its nonsensical claims and lack of inspiration.

Certainly, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics and many Church Fathers would not agree with Assumption #5. Protestants accept the 66 books of the Bible out of faith. However, the Protestant canon is not a clear cut tradition as they might believe. For example, the Septuagint Bible, which is usually cited in the New Testament, contains the Apocrypha. Many extrabiblical books were included with the Old Testament books in the Dead Sea scrolls, but no copies of Esther have been found (McDonald, 2007, p. 109). Before the 4th century CE and even afterwards in some cases, the number of accepted canonical books in the New Testament varied among different churches and with different Church Fathers (Price 2006, pp. xiv-xxv; McDonald, 2007, pp. 384-400). Many churches did not accept the authenticity of 2 Peter and Revelation (McDonald, 2007, p. 396, 399). Others accepted the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermes and other works as scripture (McDonald, 2007, p. 67). Even Eusebius showed uncertainty in the New Testament canon when he divided the candidate books into recognized, disputed, spurious and heretical rather than just into inspired and uninspired categories without any shades of gray. As late as the 16th century, Martin Luther expressed doubts about the inspiration of James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation (Price, 2006, p. xviii).

Some fundamentalist Protestants might be tempted to believe that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament books had the same Old Testament as they do. The New Testament does not support this view. Within the Protestant New Testament, there is no record of Jesus or Paul and the other New Testament writers quoting the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, or Esther as if they were scripture. On the other hand, Jude quoted 1 Enoch as if it were authoritative history and prophecy (McDonald, 2007, p. 398). Protestant fundamentalists simply assume that they have the correct Old and New Testament canons. But how do we know this? Couldn't they be wrong? What reliable evidence do we have that the Protestants were more inspired to select the right books for the Word of God than anyone else? Couldn't the Muslims, Jews, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians or others have a more divine canon? Perhaps, there is no god to guide the development of any canon.

The reasons that the Church Fathers gave for selecting certain books for the New Testament canon were often based on fallacious arguments, irrational and subjective biases, and flawed traditions. For example, Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.11.8 gives the following non-sequitur reason for accepting four Gospels, no more and no less:

"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."

Some might argue that despite the fallacious reasoning that was involved in the establishment of the biblical canons, God used the Church leadership to ultimately select the truly inspired and authentic New Testament books from the dozens of forgeries. In other words, the Church selected the right books often for the wrong reasons. However, there is no evidence to support this view. Conclusions simply cannot be trusted if they are based on fallacious reasoning. Indeed, the numerous contradictions between the four gospels and the New Testament epistles show that there is no continuity in what the Gospel really is. This is why fundamentalist Baptists, Lutherans, Church of Christ members, Presbyterians, and other conservative Christian denominations cannot agree on how an individual can obtain eternal life even though they all claim that their conflicting doctrines are solely based on the Bible. More specifically, conservative Lutherans use the New Testament in the original Greek to argue for the necessity of infant baptism, whereas fundamentalist Baptists use the same Greek New Testament and sometimes the very same Bible verses to argue against infant baptism and only for believer baptism! How do such disagreements indicate that the Bible is clear, infallible and objective "standard"?

For YECs, no criticism of the Bible is allowed. Yet, critics have listed numerous errors and contradictions in the Bible that challenge the belief that the book was inspired by an all-knowing, good and truthful god. In response, Bible apologists have come up with some very imaginative excuses to explain away these errors and contradictions. Although some of these excuses are plausible and even likely, many of them (for example, the rope broke harmonization of how Judas died) are flimsy ad-hoc arguments that are too far-fetched, violate Occam's Razor and, no doubt, would never be accepted by biblical fundamentalists if similar excuses were invoked to explain away difficulties in the Koran or Book of Mormon. Critics of fundamentalism also point out that fundamentalists frequently quote the Bible (especially 2 Timothy 3:16) to prove the inspiration of the Bible, which is flawed circular reasoning. No one should claim: "The Bible is the word of God because Jesus said so and then state: Jesus is right because the Bible says so." In other words, there is no justification for saying that the Good Book is the Good Book because the Good Book says it's the Good Book.

Conservative Christians often accuse the Koran, the Old Testament Apocrypha and the Book of Mormon of containing plagiarism, false prophecy, fraudulence, illogical claims and bad science, but they irrationally exempt their Bible from the same criticisms. The double standards and hypocrisy are obvious. While scientists are quick to point out the deficiencies and outdated statements in Charles Darwin's books, YECs will not submit Genesis to the same critical standards. For example, Mr. Oard, Dr. Reed, and his YEC allies simply would NEVER accept any evidence of pre-Pleistocene glaciations or Mesozoic deserts, no matter how good the evidence is, because it would refute their religious interpretations of Genesis. Young Earth creationism is not science, but dogmatism at its worst.

Like other Christian fundamentalists, Reed (2009, p. 208, 210) just assumes that his Protestant Bible is a reliably recorded revelation from his god. There is no justification for his assumption. If the Bible is ever to be proven infallible, the proof must come from outside of the Bible; that is, from logic, archeology, other sciences, sociology and history. So far, YECs have not even come close to reasonably justifying their claims for biblical infallibility and they, like all religious groups with scriptural claims, have the burden of proof and not the skeptics.

Archaeological support for the claims of the Bible has been mixed. Archaeologists have found good evidence of some of the events and kings mentioned in 2 Kings, (for example, Finkelstein and Silberman, 2001, pp. 240-295), but not a shred of evidence has been found for Moses or the Exodus (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2001, pp. 61-64). For nearly 170 years, geologists have known that Flood geology is a failure. References to David and Solomon have been found, but the biblical claims greatly exaggerated their power, wealth, and influence (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2001, pp. 128-145).

Finkelstein and Silberman (2001) present the current state of knowledge of Old Testament events, which shows that the Old Testament is a complex mixture of authentic history and outright fiction. Finkelstein and Silberman (2001) conclude the following:

"The historical saga contained in the Bible- from Abraham's encounter with God and his journey to Canaan, to Moses' deliverance of the children of Israel from bondage, to the rise and fall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah- was not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of the human imagination." (p. 1)

"The conclusion- that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible- seems irrefutable when we examine the evidence at specific sites where the children of Israel were said to have camped for extended periods during their wandering in the desert (Numbers 33) and where some archaeological indication- if present- would almost certainly be found." p. 63

"Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods- after the kingdom of Judah was established, when the text of the biblical narrative was set down in writing for the first time. Unfortunately for those seeking a historical Exodus, they were unoccupied precisely at the time they reportedly played a role in the events of the wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness." p. 64.

Also, how likely is it that after supposedly seeing the power of God in the Egyptian plagues (Exodus 7-12), in the crossing of the Sea of Reeds (Exodus 13:17-14:31), and in a cloud and pillar of fire (Exodus 13:21-22), that the Israelites decided that a golden calf was a more impressive god (Exodus 32)? It is far more likely that some monotheistic priests developed a profound disgust for polytheism and that they also desired to get a monopoly on the tithes and offerings by demonizing other gods and their priests. These monotheistic priests were finally able to influence the political leaders of Israel more than their competitors. They were also able to rewrite the history of Israel in their favor and promote their propaganda by largely controlling the content of the Old Testament. Similarly, through coercion, propaganda, and book burning, orthodox ("catholic") Christians were largely able to eliminate the Gnostics and other Christian sects and their competing New Testament scriptures. History is often written by the victors, and often the victors don't tell the truth.

Besides the profound mythical aspects of many of the accounts and characters in the Bible, the Bible also contains serious moral flaws. While YECs are fond of digging up supposed dirt on the racist attitudes of Darwin and other 19th century anti-creationists, they frequently turn a blind eye to the obvious pro-slavery statements in both the Old and New Testaments (see here, here, here, here, here, and see Avalos 2011b for more details). As a former preacher, the late atheist Ken Pulliam concluded the following about the pro-slavery evangelical Christian preachers and theologians of the 18^th-19^th century United States:

"So, it is indisputable that Evangelical Christian leaders, leaders who were highly educated in the Scriptures and highly respected in the country, defended the justice and morality of antebellum Slavery in the United States. They did so on the basis of the teaching of 'God's Holy Word.' This same Word that we are told today by Christian apologists provides the only 'objective morality.'"

Assumption #5 is simply a groundless tradition embraced by Christian fundamentalists out of convenience.

Assumption #6. Jesus, as God, was a completely reliable eyewitness to the supernatural creation of the Earth and accurately spoke about these events during his ministry on Earth. Jesus has perfect and full knowledge of any past event.

Although most historians and Bible experts believe that Jesus lived, there is a growing number of New Testament experts and historians that argue that Jesus probably never existed (e.g., Price 2007a, pp. 271-279). Even if he did exist, how do we know that Jesus was present at the beginning of the Universe? How do we know that Jesus actually said or did anything that is credited to him in the New Testament? Might these words and actions be nothing more than rumors, misconceptions, fables and outright fabrications that arose after Jesus' death? Why should we believe the supposed quotations and miracles of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John anymore than those in the gospels of Thomas, Peter, Mary and Philip? Using more recent examples, Dr. Robert Price argues that false rumors and legends of miracles and resurrections involving popular leaders can arise in a matter of days or weeks rather than decades, and in some cases false rumors of miracles can arise while the supposed performer is still alive and trying to dismiss that they even happened! McCormick (2011) also argues that there is more and better eyewitness evidence and original documentation for demonic activity in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692 than Jesus' Resurrection occurring as stated in the New Testament. While no rational person would seriously believe any of the Salem evidence for demonic activity, conservative Christians readily embrace far less evidence and much more unreliable claims in the New Testament.

The extreme diversity in the doctrines of ancient Christians on the Resurrection, the divinity of Christ and many other issues suggest that the real teachings, actions and meanings of Christ's ministry may have been quickly lost or perverted, if he existed at all. Modern Christian fundamentalists just assume that the orthodox Church Fathers preserved the correct teachings from Jesus and the apostles, and that the Gnostic and other Christian sects had the wrong information. But, how do we know that this is true? The Gnostic and other non-orthodox Christian sects also claimed that they were the only ones that had the true teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Today, Mormons and Muslims claim that God gave them their scriptures because the Bible has inaccuracies. So, which religion really has the infallible scriptures and why should we believe that any of them do? Furthermore, history is full of mythic and historical individuals (also here) that were falsely identified as miracle workers or even gods. How do we know that Jesus was any different? Bible advocates have the burden of evidence to show that their Bible is indeed 100% inerrant and divinely inspired. So far, they have failed to do so.

In response to biological evolution and the age of the Earth, YEC Ken Ham often replies with the following shallow and invalid response: "How do you know what happened in the past? Where you there?" To which a skeptical scientist could reply: "We have the forensic evidence, which allows us to know much of the past beyond a reasonable doubt. How do you know your Jesus was even there?"

Assumption #7. Any of Jesus' statements on the accounts in Genesis 1-11 or any other topic are perfectly recorded in the Gospels. Paul wrote most of the New Testament epistles and the apostle Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter. When the New Testament authors wrote their books, they were inspired by God and the New Testament books are without error in at least the original Greek. Jesus, who personally witnessed the events of Genesis 1-11, believed in a literal six 24-day Creation Week, the existence of Adam and Eve as the first two human beings created by God, and the existence of Noah, the Ark and a world-wide Flood. Paul and Peter had the same beliefs. We should follow their examples and believe in a literal Genesis.

Fundamentalists recognize that the authors of the Gospels did not record everything that Jesus said or did during his supposed ministry on Earth (John 21:25). However, fundamentalists assume that whatever was written in the four canonical Gospels was perfectly recorded.

While geologists can physically examine rocks and often use field and laboratory methods to date them, dating the 66 books of the Protestant Bible is highly uncertain because no one has any of the original copies. Depending upon the historian or other expert and any agendas they might have, dates for the New Testament books could range anywhere from the mid-1st to the mid-2nd century CE, or about 15 to 120 years after the supposed death of Christ. There is also a total lack of definitive 1^st century evidence on who really wrote the four Gospels. Many conservative Christians use Irenaeus Against Heresies quotation of Papias to claim that the apostle Matthew was an eyewitness to the life of Christ and that he wrote the first Gospel, Matthew (Price, 2006, pp. 113, 493). Papias also supposedly stated that Mark with the assistance of the apostle Peter wrote the Gospel of Mark (Price 2006, pp. xiv, 70, 493, 807). Highly questionable church tradition also states that Luke, the companion of Paul and not an eyewitness of Jesus (Luke 1:2), wrote the third gospel and the disciple John, a supposed eyewitness, wrote the fourth. However, even if these second, third or more hand accounts from the Church Fathers that passed through copies of copies of copies of their writings are historically reliable (which is highly questionable), at least the supposed Papias quotation in Against Heresies may not be referring to the copies of the Gospels that we have. The quotation indicates that Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic). Yet, our book of Matthew largely burrows from Greek Mark and shows no evidence to support a significant Aramaic origin. Irenaeus and Papias may be referring to one of the lost Judeo-Christian gospels (perhaps the Gospel of the Ebionites or the Gospel of the Nazarenes) as "Matthew's Gospel."

Also, if eyewitnesses to Jesus' preaching participated in the writing of Matthew and Mark, why did Matthew heavily plagiarize Mark or, much less likely, Mark copy Matthew? Why would an inspired eyewitness need to heavily rely on the words of another gospel writer? The plagiarism between Matthew and Mark is so bad that one of them actually copied a personal "let the reader understand" comment from the other's manuscript (compare Mark 13:14 and Matthew 24:15). Obviously, the Gospel writers were not quoting Jesus or any other speaker because any speaker would have referred to listeners and not readers.

Furthermore, if Simon Peter (Cephas) helped to write the book of Mark as Papias supposedly claims, why does Mark 16 say absolutely nothing about Peter's supposed personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus, which is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:5? If Peter helped to write Mark, why did he leave out this critically important event? Wouldn't any encounter between Peter and the Resurrected Jesus deserve some detailed discussions in Mark? Compared with non-eyewitness Luke, Mark 16 says very little about the resurrected Christ, even when apocryphal verses 9-20 are included.

Christians also like to point to John 21:24 as evidence that the writer of the Book of John was a reliable first hand eyewitness to the life of Christ. But why should we believe him? Don't writers sometimes lie? If the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness, why does the famous "Ye must be born again" dialog in chapter 3 contain a pun in Greek that is a crucial component in understanding Jesus' message, which doesn't exist in Aramaic, the native language of Jesus and his Jewish opponents (Ehrman, 2012, p. 250; Price, 2003, pp. 227-228)? Why would Jesus and his Jewish opponents have argued in Greek? Similar claims about eyewitness testimonies are also made in the Book of Mormon and dozens of other gospels from the 1^st-20^th centuries CE. Should we use this same "if the author claims to be an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, it must be true" criterion to defend the inspiration of these books? We simply have no conclusive evidence of the identities of the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and whether any of them were really eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry on Earth or whether they actually interviewed the apostles. If anything, the evidence argues against eyewitness testimony in the gospels and leaves open the strong possibility that the New Testament is largely based on false rumors, misinterpretations, mythology, outright fabrications and a strong desire to promote a sectarian agenda.

Besides the infamous Salem witch trials mentioned above, false quotations, inaccurate eyewitness accounts and mythical antidotes have also been widely attributed to famous people in the recent past. For example, 10 years after the death of George Washington, Mason Weems reported the highly unlikely story about the cherry tree as history. There are also countless other myths and questionable stories about George Washington that arose within the 19^th century. Similarly, we know from the hundreds of apocryphal documents written by various early Christian sects that Jesus was credited with making a lot of statements, many, if not all, of which are utter fabrications. How can we be sure that no fabrications ever got into the four gospels and that every one of the statements said by Jesus in the four Gospels is authentic? For example, since Matthew, Mark and/or Luke often cannot agree about the exact words of Jesus on a number of critical issues, including divorce (Matthew 19:9 versus Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18), which one, if any of them, should we accept as authentic and the final "objective" authority?

It is also possible to rewrite history to fulfill prophecy. So, did the Old Testament actually predict Jesus' virgin birth, birth place and other supposed events in his life, or did early Christians misquote the Old Testament and rewrite or make up Jesus' biography to fulfill the prophecies? Considering how Matthew repeatedly finds obscure prophecies in the Old Testament and repeatedly quotes them out of context to refer to Christ, the latter is more probable than the former.

Assumption #8. Although all of the original copies of the 66 books of the Bible have been lost, the manuscripts have been well preserved in their original languages through many centuries of copying by hand. It is possible to reliably reconstruct all of the contents of the original copies of the 66 Bible books.

Many evangelicals admit that there are minor copying errors in our Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek copies of the biblical books and that the meanings of some verses are in dispute. However, they believe that these "minor" copying errors and unknown meanings have no effect on any "significant" doctrines (whatever minor and significant mean). Yet, how could a perfect God allow any of his words to have even one mistake? Why would a perfect God tolerate any jot or tittle changes in his word (Matthew 5:18)? If not every letter of the originals has been preserved, what does that say about God's ability or desire to perfectly communicate? This is why Mormons and Muslims claim that their scriptures are superior to the Bible, since the Koran and the Book of Mormon supposedly came directly from Heaven by God's messengers (angels) without any human authorship or misinterpretation.

Articles, such as this one, publish tables showing that there are tens of thousands of ancient copies of the New Testament when compared with very few handwritten copies of other ancient documents, such as Roman histories, Aristotle’s works or the Iliad. Certainly, Christianity was a major religion in Europe during the Middle Ages and it’s not surprising that a lot of copies of the New Testament were produced. Furthermore, if copies from up through the 4^th century CE or 300 years after Christ lived are counted, there are many copies and fragments. Even more manuscripts of the New Testament occur if the count is extended to the 9^th century AD or 800 years after Jesus lived. However, too often conservative Christian manuscript counters fail to emphasize or even mention an extremely critical issue. We have no known New Testament manuscripts from the 1^st century CE and only scraps from the 2^nd. When they compare the bad preservation of Christian manuscripts within the first 170 years after the death of Christ with the even worse preservation records of ancient secular manuscripts, they fail to realize that this comparison does not make the preservation of the New Testament acceptable. You don’t make a bad and unacceptable situation look good by comparing it to even worse examples. (An analogy - "My husband deserves a security clearance from the federal government for his heroism in the army. Yes, he was justly convicted and imprisoned for burglary, embezzlement, extortion, drug smuggling, assault, stalking and kidnapping, but he's no serial killer.") The preservation and reliability of all of these ancient manuscripts are unacceptable and their contents and claims must all be questioned. Not only may errors have been added to the manuscripts during the production of the copies of copies of copies..., it’s also very possible that the original authors were mistaken or lied about events and dialogues. Some manuscripts may be nothing more than forgeries. It’s just that if some scribe made up a saying and attributed it to Aristotle 200 years after he died, we could still say that it’s a wise and useful saying no matter who said it. If someone largely added to the Iliad or rewrote entire sections, it’s still a good work of fiction. If a statement about a battle in an ancient Roman history is questionable, we might be able to excavate the location and look for Roman artifacts to confirm whether a battle occurred at that time or not. If no evidence is found, we can still recognize that ancient historians could be wrong or the accounts of the heroes in their histories might have been embellished. We simply need to be skeptical of all ancient history that cannot be confirmed with archaeological or other collaborating evidence. But, if the writer of the Gospel of John attributed to Jesus a bunch of fictitious accounts and sayings, an early scribe added false rumors about the Resurrection of Jesus to the Gospel of Luke, or another individual forged 2 Peter in the 1^st or early 2nd century AD, then Christianity has serious and fatal problems.

The bottom line is that all of the original 66 books of the Bible have been lost and who knows how similar our copies are to the originals. The oldest possible New Testament copy is a small fragment either from the book of John or a source used by John (manuscript P52), which was initially dated to approximately the early to mid-2nd century CE. John was supposedly written about 100 CE. Yet, other scholars argue that P52 was perhaps written as late as 150-200 AD (Orsini and Clarysse 2012, p. 466).

Now, conservative Christians might point out that Matthew plagiarized 90% of Mark and, thus, we have 90% of 1st century CE Mark preserved in our Greek copies of Matthew. However, alternatively, Matthew and Luke could be viewed as examples of grossly rewriting and revising of Mark. Furthermore, could Mark have been a revision and corruption of an even earlier lost gospel? How many other Bible books are based on corruptions of lost earlier versions? The point is, we don't know, but since Matthew and Luke rewrote Mark, who knows what Mark or maybe John rewrote.

The conservative position on the "preservation" of Mark in Matthew also assumes that Matthew was copying an unaltered version of Mark and that Matthew was written in the 1st century CE. Although most scholars argue that Mark was written around 70 CE and conservatives favor even earlier dates, Price (2006, p. 69) argues that Mark was written after 136 CE and that Matthew, Luke and John were written later in that century despite initial claims that P52 is an early 2nd century CE fragment supposedly of John. Conservatives would also argue that there are substantial differences between Matthew, Mark and Luke, and that they were written at different times and initially circulated independently. Although Matthew and Luke extensively cited and rewrote Mark, it's obvious that no one succeeded in substantially rewriting the three gospels to make them more consistent after they were published. Yet, without the originals, we cannot say if selected verses were removed, added or rewritten by the early scribes making copies of two or three of these gospels. Furthermore, we know from the Church Fathers that the "heretic" Marcion had a shorter version of Luke. The church fathers claimed that Marcion removed the verses that he did not like, yet skeptical Price (2006, pp. 265-266) argues that the Church Fathers expanded and modified Marcion's version of Luke to comply with pro-orthodox theology. Again, without the originals, we simply don't know if the original version of Luke was closer to Marcion's copy or the copies of the proto-orthodox Church Fathers.

Many Church Fathers extensively quoted from the New Testament, but we do not have their original pristine writings either and a lot of the major editing and alterations of the New Testament books could have occurred late in the 1^st and into the early 2^nd centuries before most of the Fathers lived and wrote. Furthermore, it's possible that over the years some scribes "corrected" the quotations and interpretations of the New Testament in the documents of the Church Fathers to comply with their doctrines and copies of these Biblical books.

When the orthodox ("catholic") sect of Christianity won control of the Roman Empire in the 4^th century CE, the Gnostics and all other types of Christians lost and their written versions of Jesus' ministry were largely destroyed. The Church may also have suppressed a lot of negative evidence about Jesus, the apostles and the early growth of Christianity. Documents critical of Christianity written by Porphyry, Celsus and others from the 2^nd-4^th centuries CE are now lost. In most cases, we only know of their existence and some of the contents of these critical works from references made by their Christian opponents. Perhaps, the critics had nothing but lame arguments against early Christianity. Because the works are lost, who knows? On the other hand, some of these early critics may have had historical documents or competing eyewitness testimony that refuted the claims of the apostles and very existence of Jesus and his resurrection, which were ignored and destroyed by Christian leaders. Who knows? Since we don't know either way, there is plenty of room for justified skepticism of the biblical claims. Again, orthodox Christians have the burden of evidence that their beliefs are supported by history. Otherwise, agnosticism and skepticism are the logical default approaches.

Conservative Christians also like to boast about the trivial differences between the copies of the 1st-3rd century BCE book of Isaiah in the Dead Sea scrolls and the 9-10th century CE Masoretic texts. This is indeed an impressive testimony of the ability of scribes to preserve what they've received. However, just because Isaiah was well preserved from the 2nd century BCE to the present, can we make the Lyell uniformitarian assumption that the 6^th century BCE original was infallible, that the preservation was suitable before the 2nd century BCE or that the other 65 books of the Protestant Bible were nearly as well preserved? In particular, evangelicals generally fail to mention an almost 17% difference in length between the Masoretic and Hebrew Dead Sea scroll copies of Jeremiah (Tov, 2001, pp. 319-327) and the 10% more content in the Western Greek version of the Book of Acts when compared with the Alexandrian version. Which of these diverse versions of Acts and Jeremiah are divinely inspired and why? Despite some later efforts to carefully preserve the text, Tov (2001, p. 9) concludes that the Old Testament was substantially corrupted:

"Corruptions as well as various forms of scribal intervention (changes, corrections, etc.) are thus evidenced in all textural witnesses of the Hebrew Bible, including the group of texts now called the (medieval) Masoretic Text as well as in its predecessors, the proto-Masoretic texts. Those who are unaware of the details of textural criticism may think that one should not expect any corrections in [Masoretic Text] or any other sacred text, since these texts were meticulously written and transmitted. Indeed, the scrupulous approach of the soferim and Masoretes is manifest in their counting of all letters and words of [Masoretic Text] [reference to pages omitted]. Therefore, it is seemingly unlikely that they would have corrupted the text or even corrected it. Yet, in spite of their precision, even the manuscripts which were written and vocalized by the Masoretes contain corruptions, changes, and erasures. More importantly, the Masoretes, and before them the soferim, acted in a relatively late stage of the development of the biblical text, and before they had put their meticulous principles into practice, the text already contained corruptions and had been tampered with during that earlier period when scribes did not as yet treat the text with such reverence. Therefore, paradoxically, the soferim and Masoretes carefully preserved a text that was already corrupted." [author's emphasis]

So, we are stuck with uncertainty and skepticism about the origin and preservation of the Bible. In contrast, when geologists claim that two index fossils are of animals that lived at the same time, we can travel the world, look at outcrops and evaluate the claim. We can't perform such tests on the Bible. The original documents are long gone. Former evangelist, and now atheist, Dr. Bart Willruth further comments at this webpage on the numerous problems related to assuming biblical infallibility.

When faced with the unreliable origin and history of the Bible, as a last resort many Christians, including Mormons, appeal to their "hearts" to tell them the truth. However, such subjective, but sincere beliefs, even to the point of martyrdom, are no measure of the accuracy of a doctrine. Jonestown and numerous other events in history are testimonies of sincere martyrs that died for vain causes. You can always find a sincere person that is convinced in his/her "heart" to argue any point. But, without solid evidence, those claims are empty.

Assumption #9. YEC experts in biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek have an excellent understanding of the meaning and cultural context of the original words in the books of the Bible so that they can suitably translate these words into modern languages. When Genesis 1 says day, it means 24-hours. Noah's Flood was world-wide and not regional. The genealogies of Genesis are accurate and provide an age for the Earth of 6,000 to 10,000 years. Most, but not all, English-reading fundamentalist Christians prefer the King James Version.

Many conservative Christians readily admit that some words in the biblical languages have uncertain or multiple meanings. As examples, old-Earth and young-Earth theologians cannot agree on the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1. Boyd and Snelling (2014) demonstrate that even among YECs that are considerable controversies and disagreements over the meanings of the Hebrew words in the Genesis Flood. Uncertain and multiple meanings lead to uncertain and multiple interpretations of Bible verses.

Egyptian records also supposedly record events that occurred at the same time that the entire Earth was supposedly underwater from Noah's Flood. These records may be based on fictional mythology rather than history, but why should we believe that the genealogies of Genesis 5 are any more historical?

YECs like to believe that the battle over the meaning of the geologic record between them and the uniformitarians is ultimately about the Bible and that only they (not old-Earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, secularists, or anyone else) interpret the Bible correctly. However, the only reliable source of Earth history is the geologic record and its evidence, and not efforts by YECs to ignore large portions of it and misrepresent the rest to fit it into their biblical dogma. The bottom line is this: why should we listen to YEC claims about science in the Bible when after 1,900 years they and other Christians have failed to: 1) demonstrate that the Bible is completely reliable and 2) come to common agreement about what their Bible really says about essential religious issues, such as salvation and an afterlife? Again, ask a Missouri Synod Lutheran and a Bible Baptist about infant baptism. Then watch both of them claim that the Bible is their sole authority, but bitterly disagree over what the Bible means.

Assumption #10. Any evidence or argument from science, history, logic, philosophy, or any other discipline is false if it contradicts any statement in the original languages of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.

Many YEC organizations and schools have oaths that are similarly worded to this assumption that all members, students or employees must unconditionally accept. If their biblical doctrines are as reliable, definitive, convincing and superior to all of the alternatives as YECs claim, why do so many of their organizations and schools demand that their members, students, and employees promise to adhere to these doctrines by signing "statements of faith"? If their doctrines are so good and obvious, why can't YECs simply trust their fellow YECs to keep the faith without having to prove it in writing? Forcing individuals to sign oaths demonstrates that even the YEC promoters of oaths recognize that their dogmas are weak. The oaths are necessary to prevent individuals from thinking and straying off of the dogmatic path. While all scientists are expected to be honest in their research, the Geological Society of America, the American Chemical Society and other scientific organizations never require their members to sign loyalty oaths to actualism, atomic theory, or Darwinism. Such dogmatic oaths are anathema to good science. Besides, actualism, atomic theory and Darwinism don't need oaths. Either they will prosper or be replaced by better natural explanations. For example, actualism has replaced 19th century Lyell uniformitarianism.

By signing these oaths, YECs have forfeited their freedom to explore nature for the sake of promoting a dogmatic religious agenda. They have closed their minds to any evidence that may challenge their sacred beliefs. How can anyone with a geology degree that signs away their scientific integrity for a political and/or religious cause deserve to be called a geologist? These oath-takers are promising not to accept any results or perform any research (no matter how good it is) that challenges the credibility of the official political and/or religious dogma. Whether atheist, YEC, Lysenkoist or whatever, those that submit to the oaths of the party line are ultimately unable to accept any evidence that goes against their precious beliefs. Many Christians warn each other not to fall away from the faith by denying Christ by written or spoken word, but any of these oath takers with science degrees have rejected the scientific method that they worked so hard to learn. By signing these oaths, they have betrayed any authentic university science departments that awarded them their degrees. Although YECs recognize that submitting to such oaths entitle them to employment and other benefits in YEC organizations, they must realize that commitments to dogma also have profoundly serious, ethical and negative consequences in the realm of science.

Conclusions: Young-Earth Creationism is a Religion and not a Science

The contrast between the underlying assumptions of science and those of young-Earth creationism is stark. As typified by Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 15) pleading for YECs to be given a "place at the table" of natural history, YECs desperately want their religion to be respected as a science. And we can see why. While science has contributed much to our society and is generally respected, religion has lost much of its respect (also see: Who's Really Being Religious?). Not surprisingly, this situation has long caused YECs to attempt to pass off their beliefs with the oxymoron "creation science" rather than its true identity as creation religion or cultic creationism. However, despite the best efforts and arguments from YECs over the decades, numerous court cases, scientific investigations and science philosophy papers have shown that young-Earth creationism is a fundamentalist, primarily Christian, religion that is without scientific merit, and that is based on highly questionable and often downright false assumptions.

Many YECs and other religious people experience periods of serious doubt about their faith and some even abandon their faith (for example, me). However, how many geologists lose sleep doubting whether the scientific method and actualism are true? Probably very few, if any. Geologists go to work, find the gold, discover the oil or clean up the environment, often without fully realizing that they're relying on actualism. Meanwhile, too many YECs have to sign oaths to remind themselves not to think too critically.

References

Avalos, H. 2011a. Why Biblical Studies Must End, in John W. Loftus, The End of Christianity, Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, USA, pp. 107-129.

Avalos, H. 2011b. Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship, The Bible in the Modern World, 38, Series Editors: J.C. Exum, J. Okland, S.D. Moore, Editorial Board: A. Jasper, T-s B Liew, C.V Stichele, Sheffield Phoenix Press: Sheffield UK, 331pp.

Boyd, S.W. and A.A. Snelling (eds.). 2014. Grappling with the Chronology of the Genesis Flood: Navigating the Flow of Time in Biblical Narrative, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, USA, 828pp.

Dever, W.G. 2005. Did God have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 344pp.

Ehrman, B.D. 2012. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 5th ed., Oxford University Press: New York, 536pp.

Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, The Free Press, New York, 385pp.

McCormick, M. 2011. The Salem Witch Trials and the Evidence for the Resurrection in J.W. Loftus, Chapter 8, The End of Christianity, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, USA, pp. 195-217.

McDonald, L.M. 2007. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody, Massachusetts, USA, 549pp.

Oard, M.J. 1997. Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landsides? Creation Research Society, Monograph No. 5, Chino Valley, AZ.

Oard, M.J. 2009a. Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient 'Ice Ages', chapter 7 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 111-123.

Oard, M.J. and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, 272 pp.

Orsini, P. and W. Clarysse. 2012. Early New Testament Manuscripts and their Dates: Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, v. 88, n. 4, pp. 443-474.

Price, R. M. 2003. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, USA, 389pp.

Price, R. M. 2006. The Pre-Nicene New Testament, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 1209pp.

Price, R.M. 2007a. Jesus is Dead, American Atheist Press, Cranford, NJ, USA, 279 pp.

Price, R.M. 2007b. The Paperback Apocalypse: How the Christian Church was LEFT BEHIND, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, 390pp.

Reed, J.K. 2009. Fossil Distribution in the Flood, chapter 12 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 207-215.

Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2009a. A Context for the Flood Geology Debate, chapter 1 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 11-17.

Rollston, C.A. 2003. The Rise of Monotheism in Ancient Israel: Biblical and Epigraphic Evidence, Stone-Campbell Journal, v. 6, pp. 95-115.

Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History- The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, USA, 552pp.

Tov, E. 2001. Textural Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2^nd revised edition, Fortress Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 456 pp.