I wouldn’t expect people and dinosaurs to be running next to each other as they were trying to escape the rising flood waters. They likely didn’t generally live right next to each other in the pre-Flood world. They lived in different habitats. The flood didn’t instantly cover the whole earth the first day. The waters rose steadily, the Bible says, and did not cover the whole earth until sometime between the 40th and 150th day. The people and the dinosaurs (and other animals) would have had different perceptions of the danger as the Flood began. They also would have had different abilities and plans for trying to avoid drowning? So it is extremely unlikely that they would be buried in sediments together.

Young earth creationists have tried to respond to this problem, but other scientists have pointed out that their responses are problematic. See for example this website.

There was no human activity outside the Garden before Adam and Eve were expelled, for the simple fact that there were no other humans until they had their first son, born outside the Garden. Scripture is crystal clear: Adam and Eve were the first two humans and every other human that has ever lived is descended from them (Gen 3:20, 1 Cor 15:45, Gen 5 and Gen 10:32). But there were active animals and birds outside the Garden before the Fall, and of course sea creatures were active before God made Adam and Eve.

See my book The Origin of Humanity and Evolution for the details.

References:

Loke, Andrew Ter Ern. 2022. The Origin of Humanity and Evolution: Science and Scripture in Conversation. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Evolution and millions of years are almost universally accepted by non-Christians (and by a very large percentage, if not majority, of Christians) in every country of the world. When parents and churches express belief in young-earth creation but do NOT teach young people creation apologetics (both the biblical evidence for YEC and the scientific evidence confirming the literal history in Genesis, along with explaining the difference between experimental science and historical science and the role of worldview assumptions in the interpretation of scientific evidence), then those young people generally are led astray by evolutionary indoctrination in the schools and universities.

But when adults and children are taught creation apologetics, they become more confident in their commitment to the reliability and authority of Scripture and they become bolder in their witness to a lost world as they are equipped to deal with the skeptical questions related to evolution and millions of years.

And for many lost people, those creation apologetics have removed the barriers in their minds that have prevented them from believing the gospel. AiG [Answers in Genesis] has received (and I’m sure CMI [Creation Ministries International] can say the same) literally thousands of testimonies from people who came to faith in Christ after they were exposed to YEC lectures, articles, videos, or books that convinced them that biological evolution and millions of years of geological and cosmological evolution are pseudo-scientific myths.

Old-earth Christian leaders contend that if Christians hold to YEC, people will turn away from the gospel. But the opposite is actually true. The history of the once-Christian West (Europe, N. America, etc) over the last 200 years shows that the more the church has compromised with evolutionary teaching and rejected or ignored the plain meaning of Genesis 1-11, the more the church has departed from the biblical gospel and belief in the inerrant Word and biblical morality and the lost world has becoming increasingly hostile to the gospel and to biblical morality.

Of course non-Christians will scoff in unbelief if they encounter a Christian who believes Genesis 1-11 is true, but who are not prepared to defend that belief biblically and scientifically with creation apologetics. But Christians who are trained in creation apologetics will have a great influence on the thinking of non-Christians who are honestly open to the truth. But no amount of solid arguments will convince someone who is suppressing the truth in unrighteous and closed to the truth.

1. It is a hindrance to evangelism. I have been teaching science and religion in public universities for the last 10 years, and in almost every class there are non-Christian students claiming that the Bible is in conflict with science because they have been told by Christians that the Bible teaches young earth. (One friend even told me that YECs such as Ken Ham has caused more people to stay away from Christianity compared to atheists like Richard Dawkins). Once I explain to them that there are other possible ways of interpreting the relevant Bible passages, and present to them the evidence that God exists (using the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments) and that Jesus is God (using the historical argument for his resurrection), quite a number of them are willing to accept Christ. For some examples of their testimonies see here.

2.The promotion of YEC has resulted in the loss of faith of countless young people when the YEC pseudoscience is exposed for its faulty methodology and conclusions by their professors in universities, as illustrated by this example. I have heard many similar heart-breaking stories of young people who had grown up in Christian families but who have stopped attending church because they (falsely) thought that the YEC position represents the Christian faith and is in conflict with science. Nowadays students in Singapore are taught how to do fact-checking on the internet, and it quickly become apparent to them that the YEC position is pseudoscience.

The sedimentary rock formation presented in my talk supports the argument that the Noah flood, claimed to be global by YEC, cannot be as recent as within the last 5000 years (YEC posit it to occur at ~4,500 years ago based on genealogies). That’s because this sedimentary sequence cannot be explained by either a young multi-thousand timescale, nor show evidence of these units being laid down during a global flood. Other sources indicating that a global flood at 4,500 years ago cannot have happened include:

• Flood Geology and the Grand Canyon: What Does the Evidence Really Say?
• The Extent of Noah’s Flood (Part 4): Criticisms of Global Flood Geology
• The Fatal Flaws of Flood Geology

The geological record I presented shows transitions between terrestrial, nearshore,  mangrove, estuarine to marine environments over long millennial timescales (Chua et al., 2020). We know this using in part using some Uniformitarian principles – we observe sedimentary structures and characteristics related to modern terrestrial, coastal, marine, mangrove environments to infer past environments. In my presentation you saw 2 marine mud units up to 20 m thick each. But YEC claims only 1 global flood event. In Singapore we know that sedimentary rock can reach 200 m in thickness. We also observe lithified rock overlain by semi-lithified rock followed by soft sedimentary rock. Given a young earth perspective of a catastrophic flood followed by continuous pedogenic processes, one would expect either 1 pre-flood and then 1 post-flood unit, or 1 post-flood unit given the catastrophic nature that possibly wiped out evidence of pre-flood sediment layers. There wouldn’t be such a diverse sequence of sediment types conforming to what geologists know as Walther’s Law, which states that any vertical progression of facies is the result of a succession of depositional environments that are laterally juxtaposed to each other. This can only come about by gradual coastal responses to sea level change allowing for marine-coastal-terrestrial features to either retreat landward or prograde seaward. This cannot be accounted for in a catastrophic flood.

Another YEC explanation would be such trends occur after the flood (i.e., last 4,500 years). This would thus require sea levels to rise and fall ~30m at least twice in recent millennia (i.e., sea level change of 27 mm/yr on average). Such dramatic changes would have been recorded by human civilization given that modern sea level rise rates of 3.7 mm/yr have already threatened coastal populations today. Also we observe not 1 but 2 oxidized palaesol layers which were originally desiccated and sub-aerially exposed marine muds– this means that layer was previously marine (flooded) then exposed longterm. The most plausible way to explain the formation of such a sedimentary unit is that sea levels rose and fell over large magnitudes over long timescales which allowed weathering and erosional processes to occur.

References:

Chua, Stephen, A.D. Switzer, T.I. Kearsey, M.I. Bird, C. Rowe, K. Chiam, and B.P. Horton. 2020. "A new Quaternary stratigraphy of the Kallang River Basin, Singapore: Implications for urban development and geotechnical engineering in Singapore." Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 200, (15 September 2020), 104430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2020.104430

It is a demonstrable fact that the YEC understanding of Genesis was the almost universal belief in the church until the early 19th century (as documented in the first 3 chapters in Coming to Grips with Genesis and this section from my book, The Great Turning Point, which is based on my PhD thesis). Most of the church quickly compromised with the false claim about millions of years in the early 19th century. By about 1859, when Darwin published his Origin of Species, the YEC view almost completely disappeared in the church until the early 20th century when a few men began to reject millions of years. From those small efforts, the modern YEC movement really accelerated after the publication of John Whitcomb and Henry Morris’ The Genesis Flood in 1961.

References:

Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris. 1961. The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing.

Mortenson, Terry. 2004. The Great Turning Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology—Before Darwin. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

Walton (2017) notes that the earliest commentaries of Genesis are found in other biblical texts such as Psalms 8 and 104, and these can be interpreted as affirming ordered functions. By the time of the intertestamental period, the commentaries were already occupied with the concern to respond to Hellenistic ontological views by interpreting Genesis as affirming ontological creation rather than functional creation, and that became the way Genesis has been translated and understood by many scholars since then.

Moreover, these interpreters who interpreted the text as affirming ontological creation were not aware of the scientific evidence for old earth just as they were not aware of the scientific evidence for heliocentrism, and there was a tendency among them to interpret the Bible in light of their scientific understanding (although some interpreted the days of Genesis non-literally as well, such as Philo of Alexandria). This is a great mistake, for as I explained during the debate, the Bible should be interpreted in light of the historical background of the original authors, rather than in accordance with the scientific understanding of the reader.

The early church fathers and medieval theologians accepted Ptolemy’s geocentric model and interpreted the relevant passages in the Old Testament concerning the earth and the sun (e.g. Psalm 19:6: Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them) in light of that. The problem with this interpretation is that it neglects the historical background of the Jewish Biblical authors: while the ancient Greeks were interested in ontology, the ancient Jewish Biblical authors prior to the intertestamental period were more interested in function and phenomenology (Walton 2009). It was not until the time of Copernicus and Galileo that scientific discoveries prompted interpreters to interpret the Bible more carefully and rediscover the phenomenological perspective.

Galileo was opposed by the Pope who chose to cling on to the so-called traditional interpretation, and YECs are repeating the same mistake. They claim tradition in their favour, arguing that most Christians prior to the modern era interpret the Bible as saying that God created the cosmos a few thousand years ago. However, as noted above, most Christians prior to the modern era also interpret the Bible as saying that the sun rotates around the earth, but not many YECs today would agree with that. The interpretations of those pre-modern Christians who affirmed geocentricism were influenced by their understanding of the world. In particular, they were informed by Ptolemy’s model and were not aware of the scientific evidences (such as those discovered by Galileo later) which contradict the geocentric view, and which might have compelled them to examine the Scripture more carefully. In view of this, one might also ask whether the interpretations of Genesis by those pre-modern Christians who affirmed that God created the cosmos a few thousand years ago were likewise influenced by their (obsolete) understanding of the world, rather than based on sound biblical exegesis as Walton and others have argued.

Moreover, even among those pre-modern Christians, there were those such as Augustine, who (long before the rise of modern science) realized that the days of Genesis can be interpreted in different ways and who (unlike YECs such as Mortenson and Batten) argues that we should not insist on one particular interpretation rather than the other. As Augustine stated concerning the interpretation of Genesis,

‘In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it’ (Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1:18-19).

Sadly, YECs have failed to heed this warning of Augustine. They are repeating the same kind of mistake as Pope Urban VIII, who opposed Galileo and unwarrantedly rejected the alternative interpretation of the Bible that Galileo offered. Like what Augustine predicted, the YEC’s position have caused many people to fall. See this article.

References:

Augustine of Hippo. 1982. The Literal Meaning of Genesis. Volume 1, Books 1-6. Translated by John Hammond Taylor. New York, NY: Newman Press.

Walton, John H. 2009. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Walton, John H. 2017. Old Testament Theology for Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief. Westmont, IL: IVP Academic.

God says in Genesis 2:17 that Adam would die as a result of disobedience. The command was to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The command was NOT “you must eat from the tree of life or you will die.” Adam and Eve did die spiritually instantly when they sinned, evidenced by the fact that they hid themselves from God (Gen. 3:8). But they began to die physically as Gen 3:19 implies, a process which in the case of Adam took 930 years to complete. Paul says death came into the world through Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12) and in context Paul is speaking of physical death (as well as spiritual death). This is confirmed also in 1 Cor 15:21-22.

Romans 5:12 states that human death resulted only after Adam sinned. If Adam had not sinned but ate from the Tree of Life, he would not have died. However, because he sinned and was cast out of the Garden, he no longer had access to the Tree of Life, thus in this sense his death was due to his sin.

God has the final authority and He could not have said more clearly (in language that people at any level of education from any time or culture would understand) that He created in six literal, normal (i.e., 24-hour) days.

Most old-earth Christians have ignored Exodus 20:11 or superficially dealt with the verse, as I illustrate in this article.

Since old-earth proponents in this EAST debate repeatedly sought to use Augustine to support their view, it is important to remember that Augustine did not know Hebrew, was misled by his faulty old-Latin translation (where Gen 2:4 mistakenly suggested that God created everything in an instant), and was otherwise a YEC (believing that Adam was less than 6000 years before Augustine, that the flood was global, and the ages of the patriarchs in Gen 5 and 11 are literally true).

Yahweh, of course. But Augustine and other theologians can help us understand what Yahweh wrote. What these theologians wrote are fallible of course, but so are the YECs. However, the fact that all interpreters are fallible does not mean that they are never correct; we need to judge case by case on the basis of proper hermeneutical principles, paying attention to genre, context, word meaning, grammar, historical and cultural background of the Biblical authors. When we apply these principles, it becomes evident that the Bible clearly teaches many things that both YECs and OECs agree, such as the existence of God, the deity of Christ, Jesus death and resurrection, etc.

They all EITHER reject the global flood (treating it as a local flood or a myth) OR they ignore the flood in their thinking about the age of the earth. The latter believe the flood was global, but they fail to think carefully about it to realize that they cannot believe in the global, yearlong, catastrophic flood while at the same time believing in millions of years. They can’t logically believe both because it is illogical to believe in a global flood that left no erosional and sedimentary evidence. All floods leave such evidence, and Noah’s Flood would have left massive evidence. Yet the scientific majority that convinces OEC to believe in millions of years dogmatically says there is no geological evidence for a global flood ever in earth history (and certainly not 4500 years ago, as the Bible teaches). So any Christian who truly believes what God’s Word says about the Flood should reject the millions of years.

Not all, but most do. Concerning the genre of Genesis 6-9 which contains the account of Noah’s Flood, based on careful comparative literature analysis of ANE [Ancient Near Eastern] texts and apocalyptic literature, Old Testament scholars Longman and Walton (2018) argue that Noah’s flood could have been a local flood described rhetorically in hyperbolic language as a worldwide flood to make a theological point.

References:

Longman, Tremper III, and John H. Walton. 2018. The Lost World of the Flood - Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

(1) Why think that, if the flood is local, the rainbow would have to be confined to a local place? This assumption is unproven. Concerning the rainbow promise in Genesis 9:17, one should note the functional and phenomenological perspective, the passage was spoken to Noah and his descendants (i.e. humans) and refer to the living creatures that are with them; that is, it refers to those in the human world.  ‘Earth’ (‘every beast of the earth’; 9:10) can refer to land. With regard to passages that mention ‘all’ (e.g. Gen. 6.12, 7.21), Walton (2003, p. 321) points out that the context of the Pentateuch passages such as Gen. 41.57 and Deut. 2.25 indicate that when the text uses the word ‘all’, it is not always in an absolute sense. He notes similar relative uses in Akkadian texts, and argues that it was perfectly acceptable to use the word ‘all’ in reference to a relatively delineated area. Mortenson objects that ‘The purpose of the Ark was to save two of every kind of land animal and birds to repopulate the earth after the flood (Gen. 7:1-3)’ (v.3: ‘to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth’). In reply, Ross (2007, p. 48) notes that the Hebrew terminology for ‘the earth’ of Genesis 6–9 does not necessarily refer to the entire globe but could refer to the greater Near East, as Gen. 9.19 and Genesis 10 show, and that the purpose for keeping their offspring alive might be for Noah to jumpstart the repopulation of the land right after the flood for the benefit of Noah’s family. This is consistent with the view that Noah’s Flood was merely of sufficient extent for destroying the habitat of ungodly humans (2 Peter 2:5) and that humans had not yet spread across the globe by the time of the flood. God foreknew that the descendants of Noah would later spread across the globe, so He chose to use a natural phenomenon (rainbow) which can be seen in different places around the globe to remind them of the promise that such a flood that destroy all ungodly humans will not happened again.

(2) Scientists have calculated that the answer to the question ‘how far back in time must we go to find an individual who was the ancestor of all present-day humans’ (MRCA) [most recent common ancestor] is surprisingly recent. All human beings today could have very recent common ancestors (say, around a few thousand years ago) even if substantial forms of population subdivision existed with very low rate of migration (Rohde, Olson, and Chang 2004). Thus, it is false to think that there must be a population not descended from Noah then today.

References:

Rohde, Douglas L., Steve Olson, and Joseph T. Chang. 2004. "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans." Nature 431, no. 7008 (30 September 2004): 562-6. doi: 10.1038/nature02842.

Ross, Hugh. 2007. "Additional Explanations on Concordism: A Response to Paul Seely’s Critique." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 59, (2007): 46-50.

Walton, John. 2003. "Genesis Flood." In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

No, it doesn’t because God clearly says He created in six literal days a little more than 6000 years ago. If God really created over billions of years, then He is very deceptive in Genesis 1-11 (and in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, who clearly believed Gen. 1-11 as literal history). Furthermore, Scripture does not teach that “God created the earth to look old.” What Gen. 1 teaches is that in six days God made a mature, fully functioning creation. If He had not done so, then He would have had to constantly do miracles to keep it all going. He didn’t make the creation to look old, but rather to function well according to the laws of nature that He built into the creation.

Plants were created supernaturally with fruit already on their branches, with seeds in the fruit to procreate naturally to produce all subsequent plants after their kind. He supernaturally (by His Word: Psa 33:6-9) created the Sun, Moon, and stars so that 2 days later Adam could start to use them to measure time. He supernaturally created the first sea creatures, flying creatures and land animals to naturally procreate after their kind. He supernaturally created Adam and Eve, not as fertilized eggs or infants (they would have died) but as adult forms physically ready to naturally procreate children. Creating a mature, fully functioning creation, as Gen. 1 describes, does not involve God in deception. We are only deceived if we don’t believe what He said.

Note also, that no matter how God started the creation, it would have implied a history that never happened, IF you are thinking (like an atheist) that everything came into existence by natural processes.

Some YECs have claimed that the universe is young even though it appears to be old, because it was created in a mature state. Others object that it is implausible that a God of truth would create a universe with a multitude of evidences which provide multiple independent confirmations of old age if it is, in fact, young. One might agree that in some cases a mature state would have been functionally necessary given their scenario. For example, if God wanted Adam to be able to have dominion immediately as indicated by Gen. 1.26-28, God would have to create Adam as a mature adult. However, evidences such as starlight coming from billions of light years away indicating a supernova explosion are difficult to explain from YECs’ perspective. YECs might say that God desired humans to observe supernova explosions which declare His glory (Ps. 19.1). However, Ps. 19.1 does not indicate that declaring God’s glory has to involve supernova explosions. On the other hand, given that God foreknew that scientists would discover supernova explosions one day and calculate an old age on this basis, a Young-Earth view would imply that God wanted to mislead us by providing so many independent evidences to the contrary without providing an indication of His intention for doing so.

Batten (2024) addressed the distant starlight evidence by saying ‘This is probably the favourite counterargument to believing the Bible’s given timeframe.’ Here, Batten assumes that the YEC is the correct interpretation of the Bible’s timeframe, but as I have shown in my article, this assumption is unwarranted. Batten says ‘The argument is that we can see stars that are far further than ~6,000 light years away, so therefore the universe must be much older than we can ascertain from a straightforward reading of the Bible.’ Here, he assumes that the Bible can be read straightforwardly without considering the genre, context, etc., which illustrates the bad hermeneutics of YEC.

Batten claims ‘This argument depends on us knowing how God created the universe.’ False. As explained above, the argument depends on the character of God (He is not a deceiver).

Batten claims that ‘Modern physics tells us that time is distorted by movement and gravity (Relativity Theory). The process of creating “the stars also” on the fourth day of Creation Week (Genesis 1:16–19) likely entailed rapid movement of huge amounts of matter and massive gravitational forces. Such could explain how time ‘out there’ could flow much faster than time on Earth, allowing time for light for distant objects to reach us.’

Batten is appealing to the time dilation model proposed by Humphreys. He fails to note that almost all modern physicists have rejected Humphrey’s model for good reasons. Gordon (2014) points out that there have been no expected leftover effects from gravitational time dilation of such a huge scale observed on other stars; contrary to the prediction of Humphrey’s model; moreover, the heavy elements in our sun indicate that it is at least a second-generation star, which indicates that the universe would have existed for billions of years before our solar system came to be. Lewis and Barnes (2020, p. 219) explains the first point as follows:

‘Consider the Andromeda galaxy, which is 2.5 million light years away from Earth. (Humphreys doesn’t dispute these distances.) Supposedly, while light made this long journey, a very short time (about a day) passed on Earth. This requires an enormous amount of gravitational slowing of time, which in turn implies extreme warping of space and time. But, as Hartnett points out, there is no evidence of the aftermath of this phenomenal warping. For example, the light from Andromeda itself arrives at us essentially unchanged, with no sign of redshift or blueshift from intense gravitational fields. Hartnett says, “I don’t believe the relative clock rates can be tinkered with to achieve a sensible result.”’

Batten also claims that ‘Modern physics also allows that the speed of light towards an observer could be infinite (half the two-way speed away from the observer). There is no way of knowing that this is not the case because the speed of light cannot be measured in one direction (this does not affect any of the physics). This could also explain our observations.’

Batten is appealing to the proposal by Jason Lisle.[1] He fails to note that Lisle’s proposal has been rejected by almost all scientists for good reasons. The postulation that the speed of light towards an observer could be infinite does not agree with the electromagnetic nature of light. ‘Electromagnetic waves have a finite, constant speed. In contrast, Lisle’s proposal assumes a non-constant speed and, moreover, an infinite speed in directions towards an observe.’[2]

Another problem is that

‘Compared to galaxies close to the Milky Way, galaxies that are further away typically appear to be (1) bluer in color, (2) lighter in element content, (3) more active in star formation, and (4) “lumpier” in shape…such variation with distance fits well with the standard perspective in which light needs time to travel…distant galaxies can look different than nearby galaxies simply because we observe them as they were billions of years ago (when their light started its long journey towards us). In other words, the light from very distant galaxies comes from the early universe, while the light from nearby galaxies was emitted more recently (within the last few billion years)…This is where Lisle’s proposal runs into serious problems, because it does not allow for significant changes within a mere 6,000 years. In his ASC model, the light rays of all galaxies in the universe arrived instantaneously on Earth after they were created. Therefore, differences in age cannot be invoked to explain any variation.’[3]

Batten ends by saying ‘But we don’t know, and we should not disbelieve the sure testimony of God’s Word because we don’t understand how it could be (Isaiah 55:8,9).’ Elsewhere he claims that ‘Creation Week entailed a series of miracles.’[4]

By appealing to ‘the sure testimony of God’s Word’, Batten is once again appealing to the unwarranted assumption that the YEC is the correct interpretation of the Bible. Now I do agree that God’s creation of the universe is a divine (miraculous) act. However, as I have explained above, God would not do miracles in such a way that would deceive people into thinking that it is an old universe rather than young. On the contrary, when God miraculously resurrected Jesus, he left behind the evidence which point to the truth of the event: there were people who witnessed Jesus alive, and the tomb was empty (which would be expected if Jesus truly bodily resurrected). Thus, if (for example) God’s creation involve time dilation (as Batten suggested), He would not have miraculously remove any trace of the expected effects of time dilation on (say, for example) the light from Andromeda, such that we would fail to conclude that the time dilation happened and be misled into concluding that the universe was very old. But that is what Batten proposal seem to imply: a deceiving God who miraculously misled us.

Notes:
[1] https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/distant-starlight-thesis/
[2] https://biologos.org/articles/light-matters-a-response-to-jason-lisle
[3] https://biologos.org/articles/light-matters-a-response-to-jason-lisle
[4] https://creation.com/distant-starlight-and-the-biblical-timeframe

References:

Batten, Don. 2024. "Evidence for a young(er) creation." Unpublished manuscript. EAST Creation Seminar, East Asia School of Theology, Singapore, 13 April 2024.

Gordon, B. L. 2014. "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind: A Biblical and Scientific Critique of Young-Earth Creationism," Science, Religion and Culture 1: 144-73.

Lewis, Geraint, and Luke Barnes. 2020. The Cosmic Revolutionary’s Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.