Debunking creationism

I’m a former Baptist who is learning about evolution. I was raised on a steady diet of Ken Ham and AiG apologetics. Does Biologos have a page or video debunking common YEC claims?

I’m sorry to hear that. There is a common questions section on the main site:

TalkOrigins is a little old but has a good index of claims:

Finally, nothing beats learning about God’s creation than getting some good science textbooks. They are routinely updated with new information (a good thing) and provide nice summaries of the natural world. All in all though if there are particular claims that you are interested in we can discuss those.

1 Like

First, let me welcome you to the forum. I applaud you jumping right in. I think I lurked around the edges for months before my first post. In any case, it is good to have you here.
While there is a lot of rhetoric on the blog regarding YEC claims, I think Biologos in general tries to not address those claims in a spirit of confrontation and conflict, but tries to find common ground and understanding. If you look at the resources on the home page, there are a lot of articles most of which are geared towards support of the EC position rather than refuting others claims, though I am sure it bleeds over a bit into that at times.
There are a lot of blogs by active posters here that provide a more direct response to some of those claims, and there is a place for that also, and I greatly enjoy their contributions. Several off the top of my head: Jammycakes has an excellent one-

and of course Joel Duff-

These are a few of favorite blogs. There are many others, but gotta go, will leave something for others to chime in on.


May I ask, are you still a Christian?

And the old, but still useful

BioLogos has a lot of great articles that interact with misconceptions promoted by YEC, but they don’t set out to intentionally deconvert people from that way of thinking if that is their sincere conviction. The mission is more to help people accept the fact that there is room in the big tent of faithful Christianity for people who accept mainstream scientific consensus. If you use the search tool on the BioLogos homepage or here on the forum and look for a specific topic like “radiometric dating” or “global flood,” you should find some good stuff, but other places on the internet may have their info presented in more systematic and comprehensive ways.

I second the recommendation of James McKay’s and Joel Duff’s blogs. There have compiled lots of great info in direct response to YEC and AIG claims.

Here are a couple other good places to look:

InterVarsity’s Emerging Scholars Network
-Support for Christian students pursuing an academic vocation, publishes articles on negotiating faith and science issues

Musings on Science
-Blog by a chemistry professor at a large university, book club type discussions of faith and science books.

Age of Rocks
-blog of Jonathan Baker, phD candidate in geoscience, posts focus on geology and paleontology from a Christian perspective

-blog of Kevin Nelstead, former teacher, Natural Resources Specialist, posts focus on earth science from a Christian perspective

Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist
-blog of James Kidder, palaeoanthropologist and evolutionary biologist, posts on faith and science issues and Christian apologetics

God of Evolution
-blog of Tyler Francke, writer interested in evolution and Christian culture.

Pete Enns
-blog of Pete Enns, Old Testament Bible scholar, posts on biblical interpretation and Christian culture

Jesus Creed
-blog of Scot McKnight, New Testament Bible scholar, posts on biblical interpretation and Christian culture.

American Scientific Affiliation professional organization for Christian scientists in the U.S. and Canada, publishes resources on faith and science

Canadian Scientific Christian Association
-professional organization for Christian scientists in Canada, publishes a blog and other resources on faith and science

Christians in Science
-Professional organization for Christian scientists in the U.K. with resources for students

-blog of Joel Edmund Anderson. Has lots of specific critique of Ken Ham and AIG if that is what you are looking for.


I’d second this wholeheartedly. Personally, we need to be careful to avoid an attitude of “evolution is a fact, get over it.” When I approach evolution, I increasingly do so with 1 Corinthians 8 in mind. You and I may not have a problem with common ancestry of humans and animals, but to many Christians, the association between evolution and atheism in their minds is so strong that we do need to be sensitive in how we approach it, lest it become a stumbling block to them. For that reason, I prefer to take an approach of, “You can trust the Bible, evolution or not.” If they choose not to accept it, then I don’t object, as long as they aren’t coming out with total nonsense about it, such as describing it as being a cat turning into a dog. As it says right at the start of the chapter – knowledge puffs up but love builds up.

I’ve found personally that the best way to tackle evolution (in my own understanding at least) is to break it down into bite-sized chunks. I think the biggest mistake that just about everybody makes when debating evolution is to treat it as a single, take-it-or-leave-it monolith, when in actual fact it’s far better to view it as an umbrella term for a whole lot of different concepts (common ancestry, abiogenesis, methodological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, micro- versus macroevolution, and so on) whose truth or otherwise should be considered independently. This also takes care of the fact that different people have different ideas about what that umbrella term actually covers.

As for the age of the earth, it’s much more straightforward. When 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 tell us that a day with the Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day, and when “scientific” arguments for a young earth are quite frankly so bad that they look more like an atheist parody than genuine Christian apologetics, the only honest position that I can possibly take is that it’s old.


Wise words. :clap:t2::clap:t2::clap:t2:

1 Like

Yes, though my deconstruction has left me severely unorthodox. No longer a literalist, or a fundamentalist. Science Mike/ The liturgists have helped a lot along with Pete Enns and others


Wait, are Pete Enns and Mike McHargue severely unorthodox? :astonished: I thought they were just kind of progressive-ish.


This is a good article:

Well, they would be considered heretical by everyone at my old church. I guess it depends on where you stand. I’m finding out Christianity is a much bigger tent than I was led to believe.


What kind of Baptist was it? I’m Baptist (BGC), but I’ve come to realize that the church I grew up in and am still a member of (I live out of the country now) is maybe not most people’s idea of Baptist. It was not very legalistic: we had dance contests at the youth group New Year’s Eve party, girls wore bikinis to the beach, you could pierce or tattoo whatever you wanted to, and lots of folks appreciated a beer with their brats. I’m sure some people at my church would take issue with some things Peter Enns says, but some other people at my church are reading Rob Bell and Peter Rollins, so it all depends on who you talk to. Welcome to the forum by the way. We won’t call you a heretic here.


Almost sounds like you’re channeling Anne Lamott. (Which is a compliment, in case anyone should think otherwise.)

1 Like

Definitely. From my experience, I was so used to listening to debates and apologetics that it was rather disarming the first time I realized that the Old-Earthers I talked to weren’t out to “convert” me to their way of thinking at all costs.

Not to obsess over that statement, which is very appropriate, I admit that while I do not express that sentiment out loud, internally, I tell myself something similar, and think, “The evidence is not really worth debating, so believe what you will, I shake the dust from my feet.”

I would be considered heretical by “me from 20 years ago.” So there’s that.


That’s a good couple of steps superior to the “Lord, should we call fire down from heaven on them?” attitude that the disciples were happy to run with. Shaking the dust from your feet is probably the ancient equivalent of a slightly more assertive “we’ll agree to disagree” followed by a “but we all know they’re in the wrong” mumbled under your breath as you leave.

I don’t know whether “unorthodox” would be an apt description of Pete Enns – after all, there are different ideas on this forum about what constitutes orthodoxy and what doesn’t :slight_smile: However, I do get the impression that he likes to push the boundaries of what it means to be an evangelical Christian as far as he can get away with. He’s certainly pretty in-your-face about it all, that’s for sure.


This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.