New Look at the Old Earth: What the Creation Institutes Are Not Telling You about Genesis

This book has been very helpful for me in furthering my personal study about Genesis and the Earth. After having been steeped for 20 years in young-Earth creationism, the arguments presented by Stoner finally allowed me to feel as though the Earth Sciences are not an inscrutible enemy to be avoided when possible and mocked when not. He addresses what passes for reason in the arguments presented by young-Earth proponents (the very arguments I've parroted) in a constructive, respectful manner. Thanks to this book in particular, I was able to take a year of Astronomy and a year of Geology in college without feeling as if every class session was an affront to faith. The book is written from the perspective of one who accepts that the account of creation in Genesis is believable, so he doesn't spend time defending the validity of the scriptures. Instead, he assumes that his reader agrees on that point (most will, I suspect) and moves into clear and simple evidences for an old age of the Earth, including dating methods and their limitations. This is a very readable book, and will unfortunately attract the hostility of some who are wedded to a particular interpretation of Genesis. I recommend it as a good starting place for others like me who are unhappy with the tension between the strident positions of some young-earth theologians and some atheistic scientists.

I'm not saying that observations that confirm an Old Earth or a Young Earth are wrong, but Don Stoner sincerely believed in keeping an open mind when writing this book. He may support an Old Earth, but no where in the book did it say he dismissed all of the Young Earth arguments for there are some very credible scientists in that field with degrees and references to back them up. However, he does shed light on how the chronology on how the Earth was formed in scientific theory does go in the chronological order that Scripture mentions. Even to the order of life on the Earth. Maybe not in the same time frame of days that separates the "Young Earthists" from the "Old Earthists", but the same order nontheless of those days. I am proud that Don Stoner kept one view in mind throughout his whole book: the words of man are fallible, but the Word of God is infallible.

Don Stoner is pretty much damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, advocate an Old Earth Creationist position. On the one hand, he faces empirical data that demonstrates clearly the age of the universe. He actually focuses on the scientific evidence and shows quite clearly using the data obtained from quasars and pulsars and the resultant red-shifting demonstrated in the light spectrums that unless one accepts the implausable possibility that the speed of light has not always been constant, the universe is Billions of years old. He then makes a compelling argument that if Scripture is to be taken as true it cannot be at odds with the truth of the creation itself. Here's where Stoner (and all Old Earth Creationists) finds himself in the cross-hairs. The vast majority of scientists would find his arguments as basic foundational information and accept his science without necessarily seeing the need to accept his theology. At the opposite end the Young Earth Creationists, whom Stoner appears to be targeting, are so committed to their interpretation of Scripture they will reject his arguments de facto without the benefit of a great deal of thought going in to their rejection because their position is based in faith and they cannot accept anything that is counter to their espoused presuppositions. Witness other critiques of this book which pretty much deal with Scripture and ignore the strongest physical facts presented. All this aside Stoner does a commendable job keeping the tone and tenor of his argument on the high road. He attempts to demonstrate to Young Earth Creationists how their positions in fact drive scientists and independent thinkers away because they see Christianity itself tied to what in effect is intellectual suicide. Stoner goes to great lengths to argue that the issue isn't Scripture itself; the issue is one's interpretation of that Scripture. There's room, even in Christianity for saying to some issues, "I don't know." "This is how understand it, but it is possible I am wrong." By making Young Earth Creationism tantamount to the Scripture itself, Young Earth Creationists repeat the mistakes of their intellectual ancestors who impuned Gallileo and espoused a flat earth based on much the same arguments. Stoner does an admirable job. Unfortunately for him (or more to the point, unfortunately for many Christians) he is going to be met with indifference and unpopularity from both sides. Hang on though. Time showed Galileo right. Time may well just demonstrated Stoner's position to be right, or at least closer to right than the popular Young Earth Creationist movement, once they get past their unwillingness to accept that their position while scripturally based, is not the equivilent of Scripture itself. Take a look objectively at both the facts AND the scripture with a willingness to listen and learn. Whether either side changes their mind, Stoner has done an admiral job, with a difficult subject and handled it