The bottom line is that modern young-earthism was developed when some people felt that there was no other way to disprove evolution. If the Bible says Earth is young, it is reasoned, then evolution is wrong. However, this is entirely contingent on whether or not old age is a necessary component of evolution. If it is not, then a “young-earth” would be hard, if not impossible, to prove and biblical interpretations would be contradictory and inconsistent.
The Hebrew word day in Genesis 1 can be literally translated more than one way. So one must look at the various contextual elements of Genesis 1 before declaring what is the literal truth and what is not. Young-earthism is not based on sound science or biblical scholarship, but on preconceived beliefs fit onto science and the Bible. Based on the fallacy that old age equals evolution and that 24-hour days are the literal interpretation, creationists have claimed Earth is young
Yes, that’s one way of looking at it. I think a stronger argument is The “Gap Theory” which I talked a little bit about. The earth already existed when verse two through the rest of the chapter took place.
The young-earthism and the secular liberalism, those two diametrically opposed responses to the great crisis, both absurdist in their own ways, received all the attention... but if you lack that prior commitment to interpreting absolute truth subjectively, the great big dilemma would seem not to exist, and there arises the question of a "third way", which I think is the key to our future.