Don’t Creationists Believe Some “Wacky” Things?
9
Misconceptions About Biblical Creationists
Biblical Authority Ministries, May 19, 2025
While doing apologetics for many years, I heard some pretty outrageous things! Besides the foul language used by some, I was often told that I believe some strange things like a flat earth or that animals don’t change or that I believe the earth literally sits on a few pillars, etc.
When I tell these people I don’t believe these things, they are sometimes shocked! I suspect these rumors exist to confuse unsuspecting people to convince them the Bible isn’t true. With a little research, we can easily debunk these myths.
Claim: Biblical Creationists Believe In A Flat Earth.
As far as I’m aware, there are no biblical creationists that believe this. This charge is often leveled towards biblical creationists the moment the Bible is brought up. The Bible doesn’t teach a flat earth nor does historical or modern scholarship indicate that this belief was widespread. The Bible, though, makes it clear that the earth isn’t flat in plain language so it shouldn’t be an issue:
It is He
who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like
grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out
like a tent to dwell in. Isaiah 40:22, NKJV
Another
verse that teaches a circular or round earth is Job 26:10:
"He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness. Job 26:10, NKJV
The earth is circular, not flat as indicated by the Bible; Image from Presentation Library
Flat earth believers might have been common in ancient Greece before 500 BC. This belief resurfaced as a rare view held by Lactantius in the early AD 300’s and few others throughout history. It was humanists that later revived this strange belief of a flat earth during the renaissance and tried to indicate that Christians, for the most part, believed this view, which wasn’t the case.[1]
This was derived by taking some passages out of context. One such example is Revelation 7:1, which prophetically refers to the 4 corners of the earth. The verse is taken out of context by making the verse a strict literal sense meaning and ignoring any figurative speech. Expositor John Gill comments on this verse saying:
“Four angels are mentioned, in allusion to the four spirits of the heavens, in #Zec 6:5; and though the earth is not a plain square with angles, but round and globular, yet it is said to have four corners, with respect to the four points of the heavens; and though there is but one wind, which blows sometimes one way, and sometimes another, yet four are named with regard to the above points, east, west, north, and south, from whence it blows.”[2]
It was obviously referring to the directions of North, South, East, and West. Other passages used to derive the false view of a flat earth by using poetic passages such as Psalms 75:3 which refer to the “pillars” of the earth. Commentators such as John Gill[3] and Matthew Henry[4] etc. rightly point out that this is figurative for a firm foundation set by Christ.
The modern flat earth movement has both theological and scientific problems with influential roots from secularists. For more details, I suggest reading: Dr Jason Lisle’s book, Taking Astronomy Back, Chapter 2 and Dr. Danny Faulkner’s book, Falling Flat.
Claim: Biblical Creationists Don’t Believe In Natural Selection.
First, “natural selection” is not molecules-to-man evolution, even though many people wrongly interchange these phrases. Nor is natural selection the idea that nature has a mind and controls and selects things. It is simply the name of an observable process. In the same way, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a name, not the actual source or basis for knowledge.
The concept of natural selection was widely articulated by Ed Blyth, a creationist about 25 years before Darwin.[5] It explains variations within the original created kinds of life. Most of the changes we observe in life forms in nature are due to selection (natural or artificial) and the rest are due to mutations and other genetic factors based on created genetic diversity.
Natural selection was proposed as a partial mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution originally by theologian, Charles Darwin. Yes, Mr. Darwin’s schooling was theology, not science.
However, the variations we observe confirm that animals change but they have limited changes—they don’t change from one kind of life form into another. In other words, dogs change but give rise to dogs, salmon change but give rise to variations in salmon, etc. but they don’t give rise to other kinds of life like dogs giving rise to elephants! Variation in the dog kind still produces dogs, not elephants!
Image from Presentation Library
Natural selection supports the biblical model that there will be variation within the created kinds but not the evolutionary model of one kind changing into another.
Image from Presentation Library
Recommended
reading: Dr
Claim: Biblical Creationists Believe Life Forms Were Created Exactly As They Are Today And Therefore Reject Speciation.
Since creationists believe in natural selection and mutations, it should be obvious that animals have changed since creation. There were two major events in history that caused rapid major changes in many of the original created kinds of life forms.
First, God created everything perfect/very good as indicated in Genesis 1:31 and Deuteronomy 32:4. Then in Genesis 3, due to rebellion against God or “sin”, God cursed the ground and the animals. Both plants and animals were affected in a physical way. The serpent, for example, physically changed form and some vegetation began growing thorns and thistles. In other words, things weren’t perfect anymore and we would expect some other negative changes too, like mutations.
Second, about 1600 years after creation, there was a global Flood that demolished the earth and caused a bottleneck of land-dwelling air-breathing animals, and perhaps other animals like sea life, plants, etc. The land-dwelling air-breathing animals that were on the Ark were saved and the others died (many that died became fossils in sedimentary layers).[6]
As these land-dwelling animals spread across the globe, the descendants of these animals would take different portions of the gene pool with them causing rapid speciation. We would also expect that natural selection would cause animals to adapt to the different environments throughout the globe. These changes though, do not go beyond the boundaries for the created kinds.
Claim: Biblical Creationists Don’t Believe There Are “Beneficial” Mutations.
Mutations in and of themselves are usually harmful and we would expect this because of the curse. Most of the other mutations are static, meaning they don’t really affect the organism as a whole. However, there are a few cases of beneficial mutations that have been observed—these are different than mutations that cause the alleged gain of new information. In fact, I prefer to call them mutations with beneficial outcomes—you’ll see why in a moment.
A mutation that causes a beetle to lose its wings would be considered beneficial if the beetle lived on a windy island. It would be beneficial so they don’t blow out to sea and die. However, this mutation caused a loss of information since the beetle no longer has the information to make wings and can’t get away as easily from predators.
The mutation that causes sickle cell anemia could be considered beneficial because it protects against malaria. However, the person has lost the information to make proper, efficient blood cells and sickle blood cells cause many problems.
Both of these mutations were beneficial to the beetle/person but were the result of a loss of information. This means mutations, even beneficial ones, are going in the opposite direction for molecules-to-man evolution which requires a gain of new information, even though there was a beneficial outcome.
Consider the chickens that lost the information to produce feathers.[7] This can be considered “beneficial” because we no longer have to pluck them! But the chickens can’t fly and have trouble keeping warm! Often, people confuse gains of new information with beneficial mutations but they are different. For molecules-to-man evolutionary changes, the mutation needs to be beneficial and cause a gain of new information.
Recommended reading: War of the Worldviews, Chapter 3 Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?, Online here: https://www.biblicalauthorityministries.org/2025/03/are-mutations-engine-of-evolution.html.
Claim: You Can’t Be A Christian If You Don’t Believe In A Young Earth.
I’ve consistently maintained that one can be a Christian regardless of their stance on the age of the earth. Even evolutionists can be Christian, but their positions are inconsistent.
Believing in a younger age of the earth (about 6000 years) is a corollary of trusting the Bible first. If you start with the first 5 days of creation, then Adam was made on the sixth, then adding the genealogies from Adam to Abraham you get about 2000 years.[8] Both secular historians and scholarly Christians place Abraham at about 2000 BC, so it would be about 6000 years ago. So, the earth is about 6000 years old—which is old—but much younger than billions of years that are commonly touted!
|
|
Time |
Total
Time |
|
First
5 days of creation |
5
days |
5
days |
|
Adam
on Day 6 to Abraham |
~2000
years |
Still
~2000 years |
|
Abraham
to Christ |
~2000
years |
~4000
years |
|
Christ
until today |
~2000
years |
~6000
years |
Believing in an approximately 6000-year-old earth is consistent with setting a proper foundation for believing Jesus Christ because you are letting God speak through His Word, without taking ideas to the Bible. In the same way, by trusting the Bible first, we realize that sin and death is an intrusion in the world that goes back to Genesis 3—which is the foundation for the Gospel. Jesus came to save us from sin and death.
If you give up this foundation of starting with the Bible and insert evolutionary ideas for the past history of the world over the Bible’s teachings in Genesis (like millions of years), it is inconsistent to believe the rest of the Bible—particularly the Gospel. Sadly, people do it, and it is wrong, but it won’t negate their salvation. Here’s an analogy to put it into perspective:
Imagine Joe walking onto a road. Then someone else comes rushing out and pushes Joe out of the way of a car and accordingly saves his life.
If Joe trusts that his life was just saved by this other person but believes that cars don't exist and don’t drive on roads, does that change the fact that his life was saved? No. However, Joe would understand it better if he trusts that cars do exist and drive on roads. It works similarly with salvation in the Bible.
Thus, someone who doesn’t trust what God plainly says in Genesis and believes millions of years can be saved as long as they place their faith in Christ. But really, it is their witness that it becomes a hindrance. Imagine Joe witnessing:
Joe: I want to encourage
you to accept Jesus as your savior.
Bill the
non Christian: Jesus who?
Joe: The son of God who
came to save us that you can read about in the Bible.
Bill the
non Christian:
Oh yeah, I started to read that book one time. Do you believe Genesis then that
teaches the age of the earth is only a few thousand years ago if you add up the
genealogies?
Joe: Well…you don’t have to
believe what it says in that part of the Bible but can reinterpret that part.
Bill the non Christian: If I can’t trust that part, why should I trust the part about Jesus saving me then? Why can’t I just reinterpret the part about being saved by Jesus and say that everyone will be saved anyway?
See the problem? Recommended reading: Do I have to believe in a literal Genesis to be saved?
Claim: Biblical Creationists Take The Whole Bible Literally.
This all hinges on the meaning of literal—then and now. Traditionally literal meant that “of the clearest sense” which means the plain or straightforward meaning. Anymore in a secularized culture, “literal” has taken the meaning that there can be no poetic, figurative meanings, etc. This is more of a strict sense and why this gets confusing to the next generation.
As biblical creationists, we don’t take the whole Bible literally in the strict sense but in the clearest sense and understand that there are other literary devices applied throughout the Bible.
To
avoid confusion, the Bible gives us some principles of interpretation in 2
Corinthians 4:2 and Proverbs 8:8–9:
But we
have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor
handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth
commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 2
Corinthians 4:2, NKJV
All the
utterances of my mouth are in righteousness; There is nothing crooked or
perverted in them. They are all straightforward to him who understands, And
right to those who find knowledge. Proverbs 8:8–9, NKJV
In other words, we read and understand the Bible in a plain or straightforward manner. This is usually what people mean when they say “literal interpretation of the Bible”. I try to use the term “plainly” so I don’t confuse people.
Reading the Bible “plainly” means understanding that literal history is literal history, metaphors are metaphors, poetry is poetry, etc. The Bible is written in many different literary styles and should be read accordingly. This is why we understand that Genesis records actual historical events. It was written as historical narrative and there is no reason to read it as any other literary style like allegory or poetry.
Reading the Bible plainly/straightforwardly (taking into account literary style, context, authorship, etc.) is the basis for what is called the historical-grammatical method of interpretation which has been used by theologians since the church fathers. This method helps to eliminate improper interpretations of the Bible and taking things out of context.
For example, I once had someone who was not a Christian say to me that the Bible clearly says “there is no God’ in Psalms 14:1.” When you look up the verse and read it in context, it says:
«To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David.» The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. Psalm 14:1, NKJV
So, the context helps determine the proper interpretation—that a fool was saying this.
I also once had someone tell me, “to interpret the days in Genesis, you need to read 2 Peter 3:8, which indicates the days are each a thousand years.” Many people try to use this passage to support the idea that the earth is millions/billions of years old, but let’s read it in context:
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:8-9, NKJV
This passage employs a literary device called a simile. Here, God compares a day to a thousand years in order to make the point that time doesn’t bind Him, in this case specifically regarding His patience. God is not limited to the time He created—that would be illogical.
Also, this verse gives no reference to the days in Genesis, so it is not warranted to apply this to the days in Genesis 1. On top of this, the verse also points out that a thousand years is like a day, so it wouldn’t support millions/billions of years anyway. When read plainly, these verses indicate that God is patient when keeping His promises. The gent that spoke to me had preconceived beliefs based on man’s ideas that the earth was millions of years old and it was those beliefs that lead him to interpret this strangely as opposed the using the historical-grammatical method.
Image from Presentation Library
So biblical Christians read the Bible plainly or straightforwardly, and are not reading things out of context. Accordingly, we are learning from what God says and means and don’t apply strange literalistic (in the strict sense) meanings on metaphorical or allegorical language or vice versa.
Claim: Biblical Creationists Don’t Have Any Evidence.
Do we all live on the same earth? Yes. Do we all look at the same dinosaur fossils? Yes. Do we all look at the same rocks? Yes. Etc.
Then yes, we have evidence. In fact, we have the exact same evidence that everyone else has—whether bones, fossils, rocks, etc. The difference is the interpretation of the evidence. We have two different starting points to look at evidence, which is why we arrive at two different conclusions.
Image from Presentation Library
As biblical Christians, we trust, as our presupposition or starting point, that God exists and that His Word is truth. From there, we use the Bible to explain the evidence.
Evolutionists commonly use their inconsistent materialistic presupposition (that the only things that exist is matter in motion thus millions of years and molecules-to-man evolution is true) to interpret evidence. When carefully analyzing the two positions interpretations, the biblical interpretation is vastly superior. The materialistic evolutionist cannot account truth, presuppositions, or the concept of conclusions since they are not material!
Recommended reading: War of the Worldviews, Chapter 12 What’s the best ‘proof’ of creation?
Claim: Biblical Creationists Believe The Earth Is The Same Now As It Was At The Beginning Of Creation.
Biblical creationists believe that significant changes have happened in earth history—some very catastrophic ones! Take for example a couple of major events in history:
The Fall was when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Prior to this, the earth and all of creation was perfect/very good (Deuteronomy 32:4; Genesis 1:31). Adam was given precious few commands in this perfect world but one was not to eat from the fruit the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If he ate, then the punishment was death (Genesis 2:17).
Thorns; Photo by Bodie Hodge
But he ate, and he died and now we die because we too sin (disobedience to God) but there were also other curses that happened in Genesis 3 as a result of Adam’s disobedience. One was that the ground was cursed. Another was that thorns and thistles would come. In essence, this was a significant event for when bad things came about. Death and suffering also entered the creation as an intrusion. So things changed. In fact, we still see these effects today.
The Flood was a judgment on the people of the world who had turned their back on God. They were wicked, likely murdering, raping, sacrificing their own children, etc. God said He would destroy them with a Flood and He did.
But Noah, a man of righteousness among that generation, and his family were saved on an Ark that they built as per God’s instructions. They also saved two of every land-dwelling air-breathing animal (seven of the clean animals).
This Flood was a global Flood that demolished everything. Many biblical creationists believe the initial land mass(es) have broken apart catastrophically during the Flood and finally arrived close to what we have today.
This massive Flood buried many animals, plants and marine life and many became fossils. Some though, rotted and decayed and were never fossilized. A vast proportion of the sedimentary rock layers we find throughout the world, are a testimony to this global Flood.
Image from Presentation Library
The Flood also caused ocean basins to sink down, mountains to be pushed up, etc. So, major geological features were the results. In fact, some of these after effects are a result of the Flood—such as the Ice Age, plate fault lines, etc. Even these play a role in shaping the world we have today.
So biblical creationists believe the world has changed, the real question is in what way. This is an exciting part of creationist research today.
Claim: Biblical Creationists Are Anti-Science And Anti-Logic?
Biblical creationists love science! In fact, most fields of science were developed by Bible-believing Christians such as Isaac Newton (dynamics, gravitation, calculus), Michael Faraday (electromagnetics, field theory), Robert Boyle (chemistry), Johann Kepler (scientific astronomy), Louis Pasteur (bacteriology, immunization), etc.
It was Francis Bacon who developed the scientific method! The reason for such fields of science to develop under a biblical worldview was due to their belief that God created the universe and had created laws in the universe that we could investigate. This is why repeatability, observation and testing were important to biblical creationists. Even today many great scientists believe the Bible and use good observational science in the present on a daily basis.[9]
Even logic flows naturally from a biblical worldview. From a Christian perspective, logic exists because we start with the axiom that a logical God exists and His Word is truth. Since we are created in His image, logic exists and we can use logic.
Logic is not a material entity so it becomes a problem for materialist/atheistic thinking, not biblical creationists since we believe in an immaterial realm. From a materialistic perspective, a logical thought is the same as an illogical thought—merely a chemical reaction in the brain. From a materialistic point of view then, the perception of logic is due to random processes and has nothing to do with absolute truth, which is also immaterial but can only induce an alleged survival advantage.
So in a biblical worldview, logic exists and so does truth, both of which are immaterial. But in a materialistic worldview, there is no basis for logic or truth to exist, since they are immaterial.
To make the statement that logic can yield a truthful result, means that absolute truth must exist, hence God. This is not to say that atheists and molecules-to-man evolutionists cannot use logic or do science. But when they do, they must borrow from the above Christian principles which are not consistent with their professed worldview.
Recommended
reading: War of
the Worldviews, Chapter 10 Can Creationists
Be Real Scientists? Dr
Originally here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/creationists-believe-wacky-things; Edited; Republished by permission.
[1] Who invented
a flat earth? Creation 16(2):48-49, March 1994 Found online here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/flatearth.asp
Download date: July 11, 2006.
[2] Exposition of the Old Testament,
Commentary by John Gill, Expositor, Notes on Revelation 7:1, 1748-1763, Found
online here: http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/revelation/gill/revelation7.htm
Download date: July 11, 2006.
[3] Exposition of the Old Testament,
Commentary by John Gill, Expositor, Notes on Psalm 75:3, 1748-1763, Found
online here: http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/psalm/gill/psalm75.htm
Download date: July 11, 2006.
[4] Matthew Henry Bible Complete Commentary;
Matthew Henry, notes on Psalms 75:3, Found online here: http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/psalm/mh/psalm75.htm
Download date: July 11, 2006.
[5] Ed Blyth’s
scientific papers can be found on the internet at the following address:
[6] Determining
Ark Kinds, Dr. Jean Lightner, Tom Hennigan, Dr. Georgia Purdom, and Bodie Hodge,
Answers Research Journal 4 (2011): 195–201, November 16, 2011.
[7] Featherless
chicken creates a flat, Emma Young, May 21, 2002, Found online here: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2307
Download date: July 17, 2006.
[8] Ancient Patriarchs in Genesis, Bodie Hodge, Biblical Authority Ministries, April 3, 2025, https://www.biblicalauthorityministries.org/2025/04/ancient-patriarchs-in-genesis.html.
[9] Creation
Scientists, https://creation.com/en-us/pages/creation-scientists.
