The Satan Hypothesis (SH), “is the view that so-called natural evil, the evil suffered by sentient beings that is not caused by human agency, is caused by angelic agency, specifically that of Satan and other fallen angels” (Dunnington 2018, p. 266). Those that champion this view believe that Satan and his demonic host rebelled against God and suffered the consequences of their own cosmic Fall prior to that of Adam and Eve. As necessarily free, moral agents, however, Satan and his cohorts never lost the ability to interact with the physical realm, and so from their own Fall onwards, have sought ..read more

(See YouTube version of this post below). Answers in Genesis (AiG) have just published a series of articles that claims several young-age creationists, myself in included, are actually something called young earth evolutionists (YEE). Here is what they said in one of these articles: “A ‘new’ wrinkle in sneaking evolution into the church is something we are terming young-earth evolution. Subtle ideas that don’t comport with Scripture or are unnecessarily accommodating of evolutionary ideas are causing problems within the church, confusing the people in the pews” (https://answersingenesis.org/yo ..read more

My response to John Mackay and Diane Eager’s first review of Creation Unfolding: A new perspective on Ex Nihilo. I will respond to the second review in due time. This review can be found here: (https://askjohnmackay.com/what-do-you-think-of-the-book-creation-unfolding-by-ken-coulson-is-it-evolutionist/). This response to the first book review by John Mackay and Diane Eager will not only seek to defend my book from their scientific criticisms, but also defend my creationist convictions, and, sadly, my Christian character which was also merged into this “review.” I use quotation marks here becau ..read more

For a shorter, less technical overview, please see Part 1 of the three part YouTube series embedded at the bottom of the page. “Living fossils” represent presently existing organisms that are also found virtually unchanged as fossils in the geologic record. Some examples are the ginkgo family, the sequoia family, horsetails, the Lingula brachiopod, the chambered nautilus, the horseshoe crab, the tuatara lizard and, of course, the coelacanth. Recently, however, a number of scientists have sought to remove the term “living fossil” from the paleontological vernacular by appealing to the philosoph ..read more

(For the video version of this blog, see the YouTube video below). I personally think that the biggest problem with all old-earth positions is suffering before the fall of Adam and Eve. Predators tearing flesh away from live prey is, according to almost old earthers, considered “normal” and falls within God’s pre-Fall creative design. When God saw all that He had made on Day 6 of Creation Week and said, “behold, it [creation] was very good” (Genesis 1:31 ESV), then animal predation and suffering is to be included within this declaration. Old-earth website Reasons to Believe (RTB) unpacks what ..read more

(YouTube video version of this blog embedded below) Why is it that the chimpanzee shares more parts in common with me, than a dog? Well, some creationists appeal to common design, and that’s great as far as it goes, but common design doesn’t answer the question I just posed: Why is it that chimpanzee anatomy is much more like mine relative to that of a dog? To emphasize this, compare the skulls in the first figure below. These skulls are randomly mixed together. Go ahead and choose the skull that you think is most like that of the human (skull 1). Now pick the one that is most unlike that of t ..read more

Many old-earth creationists (OEC) and theistic evolutionists think mature creationism is deceptive on God’s part. Either something has a “real” history or it does not? Consider the words of OEC Rich Deem (2013): Here is where the appearance of age argument distorts the reality of God’s creation. Since we know that objects in the universe are 13 billion years away, it must have taken the light 13 billion years to reach us. Therefore, the universe must be at least 13 billion years old. Either God created the universe at least 13 billion years ago or He deceived us by making it seem to be 13 bill ..read more

Many creationists are actively engaged in finding the Flood/post-Flood boundary, but little work has been done on the pre-Flood/Flood boundary, primarily because most creationists consider the Precambrian-Cambrian contact geologically attractive. Arguments supporting a pre-Flood/Flood boundary at the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary are quite persuasive and make sense given the kinds of processes one might assume were at work during this period. The presence, however, of swaths of bacterial “reefs” made of solid lime mud, and usually shaped liked a dome or a column a few meters thick (called “mic ..read more

In part I, I discussed the importance of God’s creative strategy—to frame a world in literally six days. Such a strategy would require vast amounts of process condensed into a narrow window of time. Since humans interpret process in terms of time, then unbelievers (those who do not accept God’s revelatory Word) will ONLY interpret these processes in terms of time. A little more difficult is accounting for accelerated radioisotope decay in rocks that formed during the Flood and/or in the Pre- and Post-Food worlds. Most creationist models fall very short here. Nevertheless, the RATE group has pr ..read more

Absolute dating techniques associated with radioisotope decay are perhaps the greatest challenge to a cogent and scientifically sustainable young-earth creationist model. How are Christians to respond to claims that the earth is billions of years old? Typically, most Christians and/or creationists will respond with some kind of anti-evolutionary rhetoric that categorically undermines the veracity of radioisotope dating—“it’s all bogus.” This is a mistake. Geochronology based on radioisotope models of decay is a scientifically robust discipline. A knee-jerk reaction that condemns the entire dis ..read more