I previously asked Are there scientific research articles published in reputable journals that provide supporting evidence for Young Earth Creationism?. Here I'm relaxing the conditions. In other words, I'm happy with articles published in Answers Research Journal, Journal of Creation, or any other similar venue.

According to the Young Earth Creationist research community, have there been significant research breakthroughs, such as figuring out a successful model that does away with some nagging scientific objection to YEC, etc.? To avoid excessively long answers, listing a representative sample with the 10 most notable research articles along with a brief summary and explanation would be fine.

  • What's "ground breaking"? The evidences from RATE that suggest one or more periods of significantly accelerated nuclear decay? Jeanson's "Traced" which identifies genetic correlations with language families and human history (that only work on the YEC time scale)?
    – Matthew
    Commented Apr 16 at 15:31
  • @Matthew Solving some kind of puzzle/conundrum. Like the breakthrough from Newtonian Gravity to General Relativity, thus explaining the anomalies in the orbit of Mercury around the Sun. Or the breakthrough from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics, etc.
    – Mark
    Commented Apr 16 at 15:40
  • @Matthew Or some novel piece of evidence that completely invalidates a previously held view, with a profound impact on subsequent research, etc.
    – Mark
    Commented Apr 16 at 15:42
  • The results from the papers associated with this topic are interesting but not earth-shattering. Frankly, the biggest results seem to end up in books rather than mere papers. (On which note, creationscience.com/onlinebook may be significant.)
    – Matthew
    Commented Apr 16 at 15:46
  • 1
    @Matthew If that's the case, feel free to cite books as well.
    – Mark
    Commented Apr 16 at 15:52

3 Answers 3


Whether we're talking about the Principia (Newton), Principles of Geology (Lyell), or The Origin of the Species (Darwin), "groundbreaking" scientific results are often not published in papers, but as books. (Note that two of the examples I gave are foundations of Materialism.) With that recognition in mind, I can certainly cite a number of books that are of significance in the YEC space.

  • The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb and Morris) is often regarded as a seminal work and the origin of modern Creation Science. However, many of its hypotheses are no longer believed to be accurate by most of the YEC community.
  • In The Beginning (Brown) is a major work on hydroplate theory that offers another (and, so far as I know, more viable) model explaining Flood and post-Flood mechanisms and geology.
  • The Genesis Flood Revisited (Snelling) is intended as an updated and revised manuscript in the line of Whitcomb and Morris' prior work.
  • Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (Volume I and Volume II; various authors) is a collection of papers examining both radiometric "dating" techniques and related phenomena, with emphasis on possible evidences that radiometric decay has been vastly accelerated at one or more points in the past.
  • Traced (Jeanson) is a comprehensive analysis mapping human Y-chromosome genetics to history and language families... in a way that only works in a YEC timeline.
  • Starlight and Time (Humphreys) proposes one possible solution to the "distant starlight" problem. (Note, however, that Humphreys' hypothesis does not enjoy wide acceptance.)

I don't claim this to be a complete list, but rather a collection of some more notable works in my awareness.

Now... that said, here are a few actual papers with interesting results:

  • The Creation Of Planetary Magnetic Fields (Humphreys, 1984) discusses a possible origin of Earth's magnetic field which is consistent with its observed decay (which isn't the case for the materialist "dynamo" hypothesis!) and also predicted that other bodies would be found to have magnetic fields, along with upper limits on the strength of those fields. Subsequently, other bodies have been found to have magnetic fields that are surprising according to non-YEC models.
  • The Petrology of the Tapeats Sandstone (Snelling, 2021) and The Petrology of the Bright Angel Formation (Snelling, 2021) are two (closely related) papers that discuss findings with respect to "folded" rock layers in the Grand Canyon. Crucially, Snellings findings indicate a lack of indicators of heat and/or stress deformation, which indicate that folding occurred while the layers were still pliable, thus contradicting the claim that the layers were laid down over long periods of time.
  • Evidence for a Human Y Chromosome Molecular Clock (Jeanson, 2019) and Testing the Predictions of the Young-Earth Y Chromosome Molecular Clock (Jeanson, 2019) both deal with human Y-chromosome mutation rates and evidence that points to a single male ancestor approximately 4,500 years ago, which is consistent with the Noahic Flood.
  • Strictly speaking, RATE I and II are both collections of papers.
  • There's also one or two non-YEC papers (I don't have citation(s) offhand, though IIRC "Traced" does) that very carefully don't state that their data imply a single common ancestor some thousands of years ago.

Not much research in the Young Earth creationist area can realistically be described as 'ground breaking", even within the confines of YEC. This is at least in part because the number of people doing original research in the YEC field that have anything like adequate credentials is very small indeed.

The most recent piece of research that caused a significant stir in the YEC field was the publication of the book "Starlight and Time" by Russell Humphreys (2008). This purported to have a possible solution for one of the most thorny problems of YEC science, the fact that light from many of the stars we can see now must have started its journey many millenia before the claimed creation of the universe.

The book drew attention because it was published by someone with a real PhD in mathematics (which is a rarity in YEC research). For several years it was very widely talked about in scientific Christian circles. However it drew poor reviews ("Complete crap": Christian math PhD and lecturer of my aquaintence.)

Another interesting book that caused a stir was "Darwin's Black Box" (Michael J. Behe, 1996). That wasn't proposing any kind of Young Earth understanding, merely challenging some accepted beliefs about evolution.

  • 1
    Yes, the relative funding levels are a serious issue. For every 1 PhD and $1 spent on the YEC side, there are several PhD's and a lot of money on the Materialism side. That's not to say there aren't PhD's in the YEC camp, though, but there are many challenges to pursuing that work, including lack of money and manpower.
    – Matthew
    Commented Apr 16 at 15:54
  • 1
    The YEC movement pretty much defines itself so as to exclude any interpretation other than a literal one. Virtually all YEC are also literalalists, and as soon as you say you are going to 'interpret' Genesis the YEC movement is going to reject you. Commented Apr 16 at 19:47
  • 1
    A "literalist" doesn't mean your believe there is no such thing as a metaphor. If CMI say they are not literalists then they are probably creating a straw man definition of literalist and denying they believe that. If you tried to join CMI and started saying "maybe that word 'day' should be taken metaphorically" you would be out on your ear pretty quickly. Commented Apr 17 at 13:28
  • 1
    What is absolutely certain is that all YEC take all of Genesis as literal history (and claim that not doing so is a sin). That alone separates them from the vast majority of Christians. Exactly what other parts they consider to be non-literal and whether this in any way from other literalists I would have to investigate. I've seen some articles that rely on passages of the Psalms being taken as scientific statements, but maybe they have moved away from those. In any case CMI do not 8nterpret the Bible just like other Christians. Commented Apr 18 at 0:22
  • 1
    With respect to "literalism", there are people that insist on what might be called an "overly pedantic" interpretation which is generally regarded as detrimental (and often associated with e.g. geocentrism and, unfortunately, Flat Earth belief). I wouldn't say that trying to distance ones' self from those groups constitutes creation of a straw man.
    – Matthew
    Commented Apr 18 at 14:39

Despite the pomp and pretense of science as well as its more insidious leanings, vis-a-vis crippling religious creativity and narrowing thought processes into that which is "the correct answer", it continuously falls flat when attempting to debunk YEC.

In my many decades in academia I have not once studied a literature review or research article that comes even close to matching the divinity of the Bible. For the Bible is the word of our Lord God and the word of no man can ever come close.

So to answer your question, no, there have been no notable scientific research articles on YEC because the scientific establishment is so firmly athiest (may Christ the Lord God bless their souls with His Divine Forgiveness).

  • I think you confuse "science" with "materialism". (To be sure, materialists promote that confusion!) True science started as an attempt to understand God's ordinary workings, and true science also happens to affirm Scripture... because Scripture happens to be True. To be fair, most of that "pomp and pretense" seems also to belong also to materialism and not to true science. However, those scientists who also happen to believe Scripture might be a bit put out by your implied exclusion. (Also, propagating that confusion isn't helping matters.)
    – Matthew
    Commented Apr 19 at 22:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .