Presuppositions, Worldviews, and the Logic Behind Young-Earth and Old-Earth Creationism
Debates over the age of the earth are often framed as Bible vs. science. That framing is misleading. The real disagreement between Ken Ham and Hugh Ross runs deeper: it is about presuppositions, authority, and how Scripture and evidence are integrated.
This post lays out their views clearly—without caricature—by examining:
- Their starting commitments (presuppositions)
- Whether they actually share the same worldview
- The logical structure of their arguments
- Criticisms of Ken Ham’s posture
- Hugh Ross’s view of evolution
1. Presuppositions (Starting Commitments)
Presuppositions are the non-negotiable starting points that shape how evidence is interpreted. They are not conclusions; they are foundations.
Ken Ham (Young-Earth Creationism — YEC)
Key Presuppositions
- Scripture is the final authority for origins and history.
When Scripture and scientific claims conflict, “man’s word” must yield to “God’s Word.” - Genesis is perspicuous (clear) and intended to be read plainly.
The creation week describes six literal days, and the Flood was global. Alternative readings are seen as undermining clarity and authority. - Historical science is interpretive, not observational.
Claims about deep time rely on assumptions; fossils do not “come with labels.” Worldviews determine conclusions. - The gospel is tied to the timeline.
Allowing millions of years (and death before sin) is treated as an attack on the theological coherence of redemption and the work of Christ.
Summary:
Ham’s model is explicitly presuppositional. Scripture governs interpretation, and scientific claims that contradict a literal Genesis are dismissed as misinterpretations rooted in secular assumptions.
Hugh Ross (Old-Earth Creationism — OEC)
Key Presuppositions
- Dual revelation:
God reveals truth through both Scripture and nature, and all truth is God’s truth. - Nature is reliable because God cannot lie.
While scientific models can be mistaken, well-established evidence in creation must be taken seriously. - Concordism is a virtue, not a compromise.
When evidence strongly indicates an old universe or Earth, biblical interpretation should be re-examined so Scripture and nature harmonize. - Progressive creation.
Ross accepts microevolution (adaptation within kinds), rejects Darwinian macroevolution, and holds that God intervened to create new life forms at key moments.
Summary:
Ross’s approach is integrative. Scripture remains authoritative, but interpretation is informed by what God has revealed in the created order.
2. Do Ken Ham and Hugh Ross Share the Same Worldview?
Broadly: yes. Methodologically: no.
Shared Core Commitments
Both men affirm:
- God is the Creator
- Genesis is true Scripture
- Biblical inerrancy
- Rejection of purely secular or atheistic origins accounts
They are Christian creationists, not opponents of Christianity.
Where They Diverge: Authority Integration
- Ham: Scripture alone is the controlling lens.
Conflicting scientific claims are assumed to be flawed. - Ross: Scripture and nature are both God’s revelation.
Strong evidence from nature may prompt reinterpretation of Genesis “days.”
Bottom line:
They share the same roof (Christian theology) but build on different foundations (epistemology of authority).
3. Premises → Conclusions (Logical Structure)
Ken Ham — Young-Earth Creationism
A. The Authority Argument (Foundational)
- P1: Scripture is inerrant and must be the final authority on origins.
- P2: A plain reading of Genesis teaches six-day creation.
- P3: Old-earth interpretations elevate human reasoning above Scripture.
- C: Christians should affirm young-earth creation and reject old-earth timelines.
B. The “Death Before Sin” / Gospel Coherence Argument
- P1: Death is the result of sin in the biblical storyline.
- P2: Old-earth models require animal death long before Adam.
- P3: This undermines the theological logic of redemption.
- C: Old-earth timelines are theologically unacceptable.
C. The Historical Science Argument
- P1: Claims about the deep past rely on assumptions, not observation.
- P2: Dating methods can be circular.
- P3: Fossils can be interpreted within different worldviews.
- C: Old-age conclusions are not binding; interpret evidence within a young-earth framework.
Hugh Ross — Old-Earth Creationism
A. The “Two Books” Coherence Argument
- P1: God authored both Scripture and nature.
- P2: Nature strongly indicates an ancient universe and Earth.
- P3: Apparent conflict suggests misinterpretation, not contradiction.
- C: Accept old-earth creation while maintaining biblical inerrancy.
B. Science as Apologetic Support
- P1: The Big Bang and fine-tuning point to a purposeful Creator.
- P2: These align naturally with biblical theism.
- C: Old-earth cosmology strengthens, not threatens, Christian faith.
C. Progressive Creation (Not Darwinism)
- P1: Microevolution occurs within limits.
- P2: Macro-evolution is insufficient.
- C: Hold an old earth with divine intervention, not atheistic evolution.
4. Is Ken Ham Criticized for Being “Dogmatic”?
Often, yes—but the issue is framing, not conviction.
Two Common Objections
- Secular critics argue Ham’s approach pre-decides conclusions by definition, making contrary evidence inadmissible.
- Old-earth Christians object to being labeled as “compromising” or unfaithful, despite affirming inerrancy.
The criticism is less about what Ham believes and more about how he draws boundaries—especially when disagreements are framed as faithfulness vs. compromise.
5. Does Hugh Ross Believe in Evolution?
Partially—carefully—and not Darwinian macroevolution.
Ross affirms:
- Microevolution (adaptation within kinds)
- Progressive creation through divine intervention
Ross rejects:
- Atheistic evolution
- Humans evolving from animals in the image-bearing sense
Adam and Eve, in Ross’s model, are a special direct creation, even if placed much earlier in human history.
Final Reflection
This debate is not merely about days or dates. It is about:
- What counts as authority
- How Scripture should be interpreted
- Whether nature can inform theology without undermining it
Understanding these presuppositions helps Christians disagree without confusion, caricature, or unnecessary division.