The Young Earth: The Real History of
the Earth - Past, Present, and Future
by John Morris
Good Overview
Morris studies geology, culture, and various creation theories to give a true
picture of Earth history. Explodes popular misconceptions about the age of
the earth by exposing the shaky reasoning behind radiometric dating;
Morriss discussion of these fallacies alone is worth the price of the book.
Helps readers understand that fossils are dated to vast ages by calculating
that the soil they are found in is millions of years old - a startling trade
secret among evolutionists.
Personal Review: The Young Earth: The Real History of the
Earth - Past, Present, and Future by John Morris
The purpose of this book is to review evidence that is a) grossly
inconsistent with a putative age of the earth of 4.5 billion years and b)
much more consistent with an earth that is on the order of 6,000-10,000

years. The word `consistent' here is important. Throughout the book,
Morris repeatedly stresses that the evidence under review does not
**prove** that the earth is young, only that it is far more consistent with an
earth much, much younger than 4.5 billion years. Furthermore, he
acknowledges that one can make a good bit of the evidence `work' within
either paradigm. The question, he points out, is which paradigm makes the
**best** sense of the most evidence. Thus, Morris understands and
acknowledges the inherently provisional nature of science. He doesn't
make the foolish claim, as many evolutionists do, that science has proven
the age of the earth.
Another good aspect of this book is how Morris explains the importance of
operative assumptions or axioms in science, particularly the historical
sciences (e.g. earth history). Morris makes clear that the argument is not
over evidence, but the **framework within which it is interpreted**. If one,
for instance, does not believe in a Creator, then evolution of some sort,
along with its attendant eons of time, **must** be true. On the other hand,
if one believes the bible is the inerrant Word of God and are convinced that
it teaches a recent creation, then a `youthful', scientific interpretation of the
evidence **must** exist, even if presently unknown. In each case, one's
prior - and necessarily unprovable - philosophical commitments concerning
earth's history govern the interpretation of the evidence. For those who
might claim that evolutionists are exempt on this count, here is Richard
Lewontin:
-------------------
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its
constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of
health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for
unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a
commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to
accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the
contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to
create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce
material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for
we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could
believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity
is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured,
that Miracles may happen.
~ Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York
Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997
-------------------
Pretending that they have no philosophical pre-commitments, evolutionists
will often charge that creationists try to force recalcitrant evidence into a
pre-existing conclusion, but they are no less guilty of this charge

themselves. For instance, two of the critical factors that any theory of
origins must explain are the transition from non-life to life and the origin of
homochirality. Evolutionists, despite occasional claims of `progress',
currently have no materialist explanation for either of these factors; they
simply have faith that one day they'll figure it out. This is a luxury they
vociferously deny creationists.
Three good examples of the evidence Morris reviews are 1) clean, straight-
edge boundaries between strata whose respective depositions are
putatively separated by millions of years, 2) deformed/bent strata, and 3)
discordant isochrons. To give just one (of many) example of #1 is the
Hermit Shale/Cocconino Sandstone boundary in the Grand Canyon. The
Hermit Shale is dated at ~280 million years old while the overlying
Coconino Sandstone is dated at ~270 million years old. Thus, there is
supposed to be a ~10 million year time gap between the deposition of the
two layers. The problem is that the contact between the two is dead flat.
There is no evidence of erosion or bioturbation of the Hermit Shale. So, we
are supposed to believe that this layer of sediment lay completely
undisturbed by weather, plants & animals for 10 million years. That's, well,
miraculous! To compound this problem, most such strata gradually grade
into one another, making it difficult to impossible to find where one ends
and the other begins. Both features are explained much better by rapid,
continuous deposition. This was pointed out at the birth of geological
science by the Scriptural Geologists (SG), who were simply ignored by
those (e.g. Lyell) intent on finding `deep time' (see Mortenson's 'The Great
Turning Point'). In fact, the catastrophists, among whom were counted the
SGs, were the more empirically-minded geologists of the day. As Gould
wrote:
-------------------
Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the most
brilliant briefs ever published by an advocate ... Lyell relied upon true bits
of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology.
First, he set up a straw man to demolish. In fact, the catastrophists were
much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem
to require catastrophes; rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas
are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his
imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is
extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can
reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard-nosed
empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.
~ Gould, Prof. Stephen Jay, Prof. of Geol. at Harvard; Natural History, Feb.
1975, pp. 16-17
-------------------
Regarding #2, there are many successive layers of strata that are bent into
curves, indicating that the sediments were soft and pliable when bent, a
conclusion reinforced especially when the layers on the outside of the
bend thin out at the bend, just as you would expect from a soft, pliable

material. Evolutionists claim that such bending can occur when the rock is
hard. Indeed, it can, but when it does there is physical evidence (e.g.
elongated sand grains, broken cement crystals, recrystalization). Most
deformed strata (e.g. the Tapeats Sandstone, Split Mountain, CA, Kaibab
Upward in the Grand Canyon) do not exhibit such evidence. Again, the
evidence suggests continuous, rapid deposition. Concerning #3, isochrons
are supposed to dispense with the need for the unprovable assumptions of
radiometric dating (initial conditions, constant decay rates, system
isolation, etc.) and thus provide a reliable date. The RATE group found that
different mineral isotopes systematically yield different isochron dates with
K-Ar giving the youngest date through Pb-Pb giving the oldest resulting in
a spread of some 1,000 million years. Which to believe? Whichever fits the
contemporary consensus, I suppose.
Finally, Morris acknowledges that most evolutionists are capable and
honorable scientists. Morris does not take issue with their credentials or
competence, but with their interpretive framework; he recognizes that their
interpretations follow logically from their prior commitment to materialism.
You will be hard-pressed to find such magnanimity on the part of
evolutionists, the vast majority of whom are unwilling to acknowledging the
possibility of honest, informed & competent disagreement with their
interpretation of the evidence.
For More 5 Star Customer Reviews and Lowest Price:
The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth - Past, Present, and Future by John
Morris 5 Star Customer Reviews and Lowest Price!