1. Cosner, L., Biblical reasons to affirm the creation
days were 24-hour periods: A response to Justin
Taylor of The Gospel Coalition, creation.com/
justin-taylor-response, 3 February 2015.
2. Why Christians should not divide over the age
of the earth, blogs.thegospelcoalition.org, 8 May
3. Sabato, N., Irreconcilable records of history
and muddled methodology: book review of ‘ 40
Questions about Creation and Evolution’, by Ken
Keathley and Mark Rooker, J. Creation 30( 1):
4. ‘Evolutionary creation’ is the authors’ (and
BioLogos’) preferred term to ‘theistic evolution’.
5. Chapters 8 and 9 address some of these
concerns. It is also telling that everyone the
authors list as “influential evangelicals” (p. 23)
serving as endorsees to BioLogos are on the
outer fringes of orthodoxy. Denis Lamoureux’s
claim that “evolutionary creationists enjoy a
personal relationship with Jesus” (p. 73) marks
a greatly diminished testimony compared to the
confessional precision of those who understand
the doctrine of justification. Such bears witness
to the state of evolutionized evangelicalism.
6. A note on the term “evangelical” which the
authors admit has been “difficult to define” (p. 21):
The broad spectrum of groups listed by Cabal and
Rasor as deserving of the title is a bit suspect and
may help to explain why such lenience is given
to an allegedly (relatively) peripheral subject like
the age of the earth.
7. The term ‘theological triage’ was popularized by
Dr Al Mohler and can be a helpful one in assessing
the relative importance of various doctrines. The
authors’ application of this concept is the focus of
study in chapter 9. See Mohler, R.A., Jr, A call for
theological triage and Christian maturity, July 12,
8. Clark, G.H., Modern Philosophy, The Trinity
Foundation, Unicoi, TN, pp. 32–35, 2008.
9. Sarfati, J., Galileo quadricentennial: myth vs
fact, Creation 31( 3): 49–5; creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial.
10. Schirrmacher, T., The Galileo Affair: history or
heroic hagiography, J. Creation 14( 1): 91, 2000.
11. William Webster similarly recalls that “[Rome]
condemned the theory because, in its view, it
was contrary to the teachings of Scripture and the
Church possessed the infallible right to determine
the proper interpretation of Scripture … . It was
not that the Bible itself was wrong, but that the
particular interpretation the Roman Catholic
Church had adopted was wrong.” Webster, W.,
The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, The
Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, PA, p. 69, 1995.
12. As long as the scriptural use of phenomenological
or reference-frame language is admitted. The
denial of this type of language is exemplified
in the erroneous statement of geocentricist
Gerardus Bouw: “If God cannot be taken
literally when he writes of the ‘rising of the
sun,’ then how can he be taken literally in writing
of the ‘rising of the Son?’ (p. 201). Compare
Carter, R. and Sarfati, J., Why the Universe does
not revolve around the Earth: Refuting absolute
geocentrism, creation.com/geocent, 12 February
2015, updated 19 July 2017.
13. I object to the term ‘scientific truth’ first because
it presupposes the validity of the competing
epistemology of empiricism. “Truth, of course,
is an insuperable problem for empiricism:
Truth cannot be derived from something non-propositional, such as ‘observations.’ Unless
one starts with propositions, one cannot end with
propositions.” Robbins, J. W., Without a Prayer:
Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System, The
Trinity Foundation, Unicoi, TN, p. 78, 2006.
14. MacCulloch, D., Christianity: The First Three
Thousand Years, Viking, New York, p. 684, 2009.
MacCulloch attributes Rome’s dogmatism in the
Galileo affair to the “papacy’s defensiveness
after Luther’s rebellion ... . Galileo’s trial also
happened during the Thirty Years War … a time
when the Pope was feeling unusually vulnerable”.
15. Sabato, N., A theologian’s disappointing departure
from biblical creation, J. Creation 28( 3): 125,
16. “[Empiricists] have exchanged infallible
propositional revelation … for fallible sense
experience … . Thomas Aquinas, the great
thirteenth-century Roman Catholic theologian,
tried to combine two axioms in his system: the
secular axiom of sense experience, which he
obtained from Aristotle, and the Christian axiom
of revelation, which he obtained from the Bible.
His synthesis was unsuccessful … . Today the
dominant form of epistemology in putatively
Christian circles … is empiricism. Apparently
today’s theologians have learned little from
Thomas’ failure.” Robbins, ref. 13, p. 337.
17. Scripture is ‘interpreted’ (in the sense of determining authorial intent), but not in the way that
non-propositional sensory data must be. This is
just one example of equivocation by the authors.
18. As cited in Robbins, ref. 13, pp. 256–257.
19. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One
is understanding” (Proverbs 9: 10). See also
Proverbs 1: 7 and Colossians 2: 3.
20. Sibley, A., Lessons from Augustine’s De Genesi
ad Litteram—Libri Duodecim, J. Creation 27( 2):
21. Cosner, L., Sarfati, J., Non-Christian philosopher
clears up myths about Augustine and the term
‘literal’, J. Creation 27( 2): 9–10, 2013.
22. Mohler, Jr, R.A., Maker of heaven and earth:
Why creation is a gospel issue (DVD), ICR,
Dallas, TX, 2010; icr.org/article/dr-albert-mohler-
23. Mohler, ref. 22, timestamp 0:01: 40.
24. Barcellos, R.C., Better than the Beginning:
Creation in Biblical Perspective, Reformed
Baptist Academic Press, Palmdale, CA,
p. 88, 2013.
25. Granted, in the article (ref. 7), Mohler does not
mention the age of the earth and we would assume
that he would not categorize such as a “
first-order doctrine”. However, he rightly contends
that “the truthfulness and authority of the Holy
Scriptures must … rank as a first-order doctrine”,
and this—not the age of the earth per se—is the
heart of the issue. While Cabal and Rasor affirm
the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, their
empirically tainted hermeneutic only serves to
cast doubt on Scripture’s perspicuity.
26. “… If [one] is truly convinced that his embrace
of old-earth creationism does not subvert the
authority and inerrancy of Scripture, then he is
obliged to provide the exegetical substrate for
his position. However, not even once does he
defend his unidentified brand of old-earthism
from the text of Scripture. This fact alone makes
it plain that he is not treating the Scripture as
his authority, at least not when it speaks to the
subjects of creation and the Flood. It is quite
insufficient … to merely take up a vague ‘
old-earth creationism’ without addressing the biblical
text and without putting forth one of the inevitable
compromise ‘solutions’. If a professing Christian
wants to be an old-earther, it is incumbent
upon him to find—rather, force—the oldness
somewhere [into] the text” (Sabato, ref. 15).
27. Waldron, S.E., A Modern Exposition of the 1689
Baptist Confession of Faith, 5th edn, EP Books,
Welwyn Garden City, UK, p. 91, 2016.
28. Sabato, N., Yet another old-earther accuses a
creationist of believing in evolution, creation.
com/keathley-ham, 12 April 2016.
29. Andrew Snelling is targeted as an example of a
YEC who reinterprets Genesis because of scientific
data (p. 177) and Terry Mortenson as one who is
soft on the scriptural geologists despite their own
inconsistencies in the handling of God’s Word.
30. The issue of epistemology is all too often
overlooked, but Joel Tay has it right: “… since
induction is always a formal logical fallacy,
scientific models are always held loosely and
never elevated to the same epistemic level as
Scripture… . This is … the reason why it is
necessary to hold to biblically deduced propositions authoritatively and scientifically
inferenced models loosely.” Tay, J., Design
by intuition: good biology, naive philosophy,
J. Creation 31( 2): 47, 2017.
31. I am indebted to William Downing for the phrase
“epistemological futility”, which adequately
describes the “wisdom of the world” (foolishness
with God) upon which the unregenerate man is
dependent. See Downing, W.R., The Bible and
the Problem of Knowledge, PIRS Press, Morgan
Hill, CA, 2006 or my review in Creation Research
Society Quarterly 52( 3):226–227, 2016.
32. To illustrate this point, one should not reject
Christ’s ‘real presence’ in the eucharist because
biochemical analysis fails to reveal hypostatic
DNA. One should reject any such teaching on
hermeneutical grounds recognizing Christ’s
use of figurative language. We do not need the
discoveries of modern science to rightly interpret
God’s Word, we simply need a return to the
33. Mortenson, T. and Ury, T.H., (eds.) Coming to
Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the
Age of the Earth, Master Books, Green Forest,
AR, p. 97, 2008. For a masterful account of
Princeton’s gradual degeneration, see Crowe,
D.D., Creation Without Compromise, CBP,
Brisbane, creation.com/s/10-2-651, 2009.