Apologist Matt Walsh makes a seriously uninformed attack on biblical creationism


Published: 25 October 2018 (GMT+10)
Matt Walsh

Well-known conservative blogger and apologist Matt Walsh just came out with a podcast that denounced biblical (or ‘young earth’) creation, and many of our supporters have brought it to our attention.1 It is always deeply frustrating and saddening when supposed prominent defenders of Christian moral values in the public sphere take compromising views on creation. We decided to respond directly to his podcast, with the purpose being to equip Christians to respond to the flawed arguments he put forward—especially since Walsh represents an otherwise respected voice in the evangelical Christian community at the moment. We also felt the need to respond because Mr. Walsh is a frequent speaker at homeschool conventions in the USA, where families expect to receive sound Christian instruction.

Listening to what Walsh has to say on the issue, there is one thing above all that stands out and cannot be ignored: Walsh has clearly never spent any quantity of time studying what the actual modern-day defenders of biblical creation have to say. He displays shocking ignorance of biblical creationism throughout the entirety of his podcast, and in many places is guilty of using strawman arguments which completely fail to engage with what biblical creationists actually believe (or the Bible itself, for that matter). This is unacceptable given the amount of information available today via the prominent creationist organizations that exist.

A Twitter-level understanding of the issues

Walsh complains that he has been involved in many arguments on Twitter with people on this issue. Unfortunately, it appears he did not extend himself much beyond that realm when trying to find out what reasons biblical creationists actually have for our position! It is no exaggeration to say that there is absolutely nothing in Walsh’s podcast which has not already been dealt with extensively in our publications (like Refuting Compromise and The Genesis Account).

The Genre of Genesis

He begins by stating that both sides (young and old-earthers) agree that not all the Bible must be taken strictly literally. He appeals to the parables of Jesus for an example of this. We would not disagree here. However, he quickly goes off the rails when he begins to state that Genesis need not be understood as part of a literal genre. He implies that it may be, like the book of Psalms, a book of poetry. Good Old Testament scholarship does not view Genesis as poetry; Genesis is a historical narrative.

The Hebrew use of the word ‘yôm’ (day)

Walsh argues that the Hebrew word for day need not always mean a literal 24-hour period. That’s true, but what about context? Walsh completely ignores the issue of context in his argument here, and follows in the footsteps of progressive creationist Hugh Ross by committing the fallacy of an unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic range. Just because a word can mean something in some other context does not mean it does in this particular context! Dr. Jonathan Sarfati writes,

When modified by a cardinal number (for example, one, two, three …) or ordinal number (for example, first, second, third …), as used 359 times in the OT outside Genesis 1, yôm always means a literal day of about 24 hours, or the light portion of the day-night cycle. This is true in narrative, legal writings, prophecy, wisdom literature, and even poetry. So there must be extraordinary reasons to justify an extraordinary exception, if Genesis 1 is indeed an exception.2,3

A long tradition of old earthism?

Walsh, again, just like Ross, makes the misleading claim that there is long tradition of Christians not interpreting the days of Genesis literally. While it’s true that there were some early church fathers that did not hold to literal 24-hour days, Walsh is flat out wrong when he implies these were old-earthers. As we have pointed out, these particular theologians were motivated by philosophical considerations to believe that 24-hour periods were too long! The truth is that belief in deep time has really only crept into Christianity as a result of an attempt to compromise with the prevailing secular viewpoint.

What about light before the sun?

Walsh attempts to make much of the fact that God created light on day 1 before the sun on day 4. He views this as a knock-down proof that these could not have been literal 24-hour periods, since that is defined by the earth’s rotation with respect to the sun. But this is, logically speaking, a complete non-sequitur. Is God somehow incapable of keeping track of time without the help of the physical sun? Is anything too hard for God? Since the grammar of the narrative is clear that these are regular, literal days, we have no reason not to take the first three days in the same sense as the rest! God is capable of dividing light from darkness and evening from morning even without the help of the physical sun. In Exodus 20:11, God specifically draws a parallel between his own work week (the creation week) and the work week of the nation of Israel. If God didn’t work for a literal week, then this comparison makes no sense.

Did Adam and Eve literally die?

Another argument brought forth is that God promised Adam and Eve that “in the day you eat of it [the forbidden fruit] you shall surely die.” (Gen. 2:17). Walsh reasons that since they didn’t literally die that day, it must refer only to spiritual, not physical death, repeating another Hugh Ross argument. But the consequences of the Curse are clearly not merely spiritual, but physical as well. God curses the very ground for our sake. He introduced pain in childbirth as well as thorns and thistles in nature. Are those spiritual thorns and thistles? What would that even mean? He displays no awareness of the fact that the literal translation of the Hebrew there should read, “dying you shall die.” God was basically saying that the penalty for sin would be the loss of immortality; that the process of death would begin at that moment—not that the process of dying would be completed in one day. Walsh also ignores the difference in grammatical construction here: “in the day,” as opposed to “day one,” “day two,” etc.

A “day with the Lord …” lasts 1000 years??

Walsh predictably trots out the well-worn misapplication of 2 Peter 3:8, “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years…” He uses this to try to imply that God does not have to mean literal days when he uses the word ‘day’. But the full reading of the verse brings us back – a thousand years are like a day. This is synonymous parallelism. Peter is merely making a point about how God is not limited in his perspective of time as man is; but that has no bearing on the debate about how the Hebrew is to be interpreted in Genesis 1.4 It’s just a red herring.

A gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2?

Another argument that Walsh alludes to, but doesn’t fully flesh out in the podcast, is that there may be a gap of possibly billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. He is unaware that this argument is thoroughly refuted when scripture is allowed to interpret scripture. Jesus affirmed that God created mankind “from the beginning of creation” in Mark 10:6. How can we possibly insert a gap of billions of years before the creation of mankind when God made it clear we were here “from the beginning of creation”? Only by twisting scripture can one justify taking that approach.

Do we reject science?

Towards the end of the podcast, Walsh really puts his cards on the table. He unloads this whopper of an elephant-hurling5 statement: “In order to defend the 6-day creationist view, we must essentially reject the fields of modern astronomy, cosmology, geology and biology. We must declare that all but a very tiny fraction of experts in these fields are deluded fools … we must wage an all-out war on modern science.”1 Is that really true? Must we choose between science and the Bible? Walsh would have us believe that the science supporting old earth and evolutionary views is indisputable, but that is far from the case. What we have a problem with is not science, but rather the secular consensus views when it comes to the age of the earth and evolution. Walsh clearly shows that secular science is his authority, not Scripture that he is purportedly trying to defend.

The all-important distinction: Operational and Historical Science

As we have tried so many times to point out, there is a fundamental distinction to be made between operational and historical science; Walsh never displays the slightest awareness of this, however. He creates a false dichotomy: science or biblical creation. In reality, good science supports the Bible, and there are many scientific reasons, not only theological ones, to reject an old earth. Reasons like soft tissue being found preserved in dinosaur bones that are supposedly millions of years old, for example. We know from science that the soft tissues and proteins that are being found in these supposedly ancient specimens cannot last that long!

Distant Starlight

Walsh believes that distant starlight is an insurmountable problem for the young earth view, since obviously mathematics requires it! He doesn’t even attempt to engage with, or even show he knows about, any of the possible solutions that creationists have put forward to this conundrum. He also fails to mention that the Big Bang theory suffers from its own version of this same problem: the horizon problem.

Where did dino fossils come from?

He goes on to make a fleeting allusion in one statement to the question of how all the dinosaurs could have fit on the Ark. Even more shockingly, he seems to believe (spoken at around 35:00) that creation geologists think that dinosaur fossils are the remnants of the dinosaurs that survived the flood (rather than the ones killed by it)! He seems to have no understanding of the process of fossilization and how it requires catastrophic, watery conditions—exactly like what we would expect if there was a global flood as the Bible says.

A blatant strawman argument: the ‘deceptive god’

He attacks the strawman position that creationists believe God deceived us intentionally, in order to test our faith, by creating a universe that looks old (but is actually young). He actually refers to this as, “one of the most prominent explanations for a young earth.” Yet this is an anti-intellectual position that no informed creationist in modern times would ever put forth! In reality, there is a difference between God creating a deceptive appearance of age (which we do not believe) and God creating things with functional maturity.

Christians beware

Disappointingly, Walsh’s entire podcast on this topic comes off as a poorly-informed rant against a viewpoint he has never bothered to actually study. At no point does Walsh refer to the writings of any informed creationist, past or present. At no point does Walsh give even the slightest hint that he has taken the time to see what arguments informed creationists actually use, either scripturally or scientifically. This is why it is so important for people to get the word out about biblical creation, and get the works of creationists, like those of us here at CMI, into the hands of as many people as possible. If Walsh had been informed of the real evidence supporting biblical creation, then this disgraceful embarrassment of a podcast may never have happened.

We don’t want to seem overly negative here, but the point needs to be driven home: opponents of biblical creation are all too often guilty of this sort of ‘smear campaign’ tactic where our positions get mischaracterized and misunderstood. This rebuttal should not be interpreted as a personal attack against Mr. Walsh in any way, but we want to make faithful Christians aware of this challenge, and able to answer the sorts of questions that will be engendered by it, particularly as he is setting himself up as a teacher of God’s Word.

References and notes

  1. Walsh, M., Ep. 126 – Why I’m Not A Young Earth Creationist, dailywire.com, 18 October 2018. Return to text.
  2. See also: creation.com/semantic Return to text.
  3. Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, Creation Book Publishers, Powder Springs, GA., p.73. Return to text.
  4. See Ref. 2, pp. 86-87. Return to text.
  5. When a debater ‘hurls an elephant’ they mention an alleged huge quantity of evidence supporting their position without actually elaborating on any of it. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

The Genesis Account
by Jonathan Sarfati
US $29.00
Refuting Compromise, updated & expanded
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati
US $15.00

Readers’ comments

S H.
Another question for theistic evolution I've often thought about is the issue of who exactly Jesus died for. If we evolved over millions of years, were all the other non-humans, part-humans or half-humans (on the way to becoming full humans) covered by the sacrifice of Jesus? Or were these poor creatures simply 'canon fodder' for 'true' humanity? Did Jesus die for humanity (homo sapiens) alone, or for others such as 'neanderthals'? Or to put it another way, Adam was the first Adam and Jesus was the last Adam. Jesus was fully human (and of course fully God), so isn't it logical to assume that Adam (the first human) was also fully human in the same way? Any other reading of the Bible would against the character of God and undermine God's Word.
Paul Price
I think you have a very good point there. I would only offer the correction that the evidence supports neandertals being fully human.
Graham P.
Great review. It's difficult to hold a discussion with someone who knows almost nothing about the topic in question, like this guy Walsh. They only have their own feelings and prejudices to go on: as king Solomon said 'the fool's beginning is folly and his conclusion is madness'.
I have a relative who is very similar to Walsh, a well-known evangelical who has absolutely no grasp of basic science, language or history. He simply cannot hold a conversation defending the bible against modern or post-modern attacks.
With people like that, CMI can at least appeal to authority (in that you have been certified by the secular academia as experts in your own field). However, the problem of intellectual weakness is hard to overcome: how do you communicate with church people who can't be bothered to think things through?
Anthony W.
I did see on my social media feed that Matt Walsh had posted a video on this subject, though I didn't bother to watch it.
Reassuringly though many of his readers pushed back in the comments section, stating that on this they strongly disagreed.
Hopefully Matt Walsh takes notice of that, and this article.
Phil M.
I find it intriguing that theistic evolutionists will quote 2 Peter 3:8 to justify interpreting the days of Genesis 1 as long evolutionary ages. The verse is essentially saying “with the Lord one solar day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one solar day”.
And I guarantee that is actually how theistic evolutionists mentally read it, by which they have immediately destroyed their own argument by using this verse to justify long evolutionary ages, because they are rightly reading the term ‘day’ to mean ‘solar day’. Any definition of the word ‘day’ other than ‘solar day’ here renders the statement meaningless. The statement itself is a simile, it is not defining the word ‘day’ to mean ‘a thousand years’.
Roger G.
CMI should be thanking Mr Walsh for making his recent podcast denouncing the Biblical creation story. This CMI article points out his ignorance and states most reasonable truths on the several issues raised. The reason for thanks is that Mr Price's response pitched in easy to understand English, shows clearly the error of Mr Walsh's statements, educates the reader with reasonable truths and on top of that supplies active links to other sources so the reader can pursue their own deeper research to see whether these things are true. If Mr Walsh had not made his podcast then this responsive article, pointing out the sundry erroneous and ignorant ideas, would have remained unexposed. If Mr Price's responsive article not been made, unchallenged errors of an influential person in Christian circles would have held the stage. I suggest that many influential Christian leaders in all sorts of small local and/or large national positions have similar false ideas like Mr Walsh. This refutation of Mr Walsh now educates many, so thank you, Mr Walsh, for making your podcast and thank you, Mr Price, for your response.
Paul Price
You're very welcome! Thanks for your kind remarks and for your readership.
Richard G.
Thankyou Paul and CMI. Creation science is only a small portion of the gospel, the basis, even though important. Notice that most people believe in the Lord Jesus without great knowledge of creation science. Let us preach widely not wasting too much energy on a detailed knowledge of science. It is their faith in God and His Word that saves them.
Paul's article was helpful and comprehensive and easily understood. I also appreciate that CMI doesn't require a doctorate for the author of articles they publish. There's hope for me yet.
I urge all evangelists and would-be contributors of articles to obey First Corinthians 14:9, "Unless you utter by the tongue speech easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken for you will be speaking into the air." PHD's beware. Uneducated people beware. Self beware.
I am surprised that so many of your correspondents assume that people will heed the scientific answers they give unbelievers. And how do they remember the scientific detail?
Oh for your magazine(s) in Japanese! I have two sons who interpret Japanese & English; they could translate CMI material. But they might just tell me to let them continue preaching the gospel. Let's be careful of over-exerting ourselves for the sake of rascals who disregard 'inconvenient' evidence. Note that Walsh seems to have ignored CMI almost entirely. I do it myself; it seems to work. Jesus said, "Don't throw your pearls in front of pigs." Finally from Jesus Himself: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation."
Paul Price
We are always on the lookout for people who would be willing to translate our articles into other languages. ありがとうございます!
Garry W.
What Walsh has displayed in his apologetic is the truth of what happens when a fallen man thinks too highly of his own opinions, rather than take the clear context of Scripture at face value. Compromise! It's deadly in the hands of sinful men.
Brandon E.
I like Walsh a lot, which is why I didn't watch the video. Keep responding to these false claims and putting them out there so that we can refute the lies of evolutionists. Hopefully, one day the mainstream will catch on to the truth.
Charles G.
Someone from CMI should challenge Walsh to a debate?
Don J.
Thank you for your concise response to Matt Walsh. Some points to add.

Re: What about light before the sun?

I usually respond by quoting Revelation 22:5. "And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever." The light of God probably illuminated the earth before the sun. In the new heavens and new earth there will be no need for the sun.

Re: Do we reject science?

The notion of the earth being millions and billions of years old has nothing to do with the weight of any real empirical evidence. Charles Lyell, the father of modern geological uniformitarianism, in his “Principles of Geology” expressly set out to "free the science from Moses”. Thousands of feet of strata covering the earth with animals and plants buried in them is exactly what we see--and would expect to see--if a world-wide deluge occurred as described in Genesis. Lyell formalized a religious dogma of an ancient earth that attempted to explain these observations in terms of processes we see today with no need for a global flood. Modern man was all too willing to embrace this new uniformitarian religion that explained the world without a God who judges it.

Re:A blatant strawman argument: the ‘deceptive god’

Evolution is an attempt to explain the origin of all order and complexity in the universe without the need for a creator. If evolution is "God's method of creation" as theistic evolutionists believe, then how can God justify holding man accountable for seeing his divine nature in what was created (Romans 1:19-20) if he created things in such a way as to make it appear as if he never existed in the first place?
Garnett G.
Well stated response to Mr. Walsh. Thank you.
Chris S.
It's as if Matt Walsh went into a coma in the late 1950s, and has just woken up from it and not had time to acquaint himself with what has been happening in creation science in the intervening decades.
David S.
I’m sorry, but I obviously need God to do a supernatural work in me when it comes to guys like this. If so called leading defenders of the Bible can’t be bothered believing it as written, I have no use for them. A little leaven ruins the entire lump, in this case. I wish the church would just move on from these wolves until they repent of their unbelief. I know sweet old saints that have a better grasp of Scripture than these so called experts because they simply believe what it says. Christians, quit giving all these guys the time of day and maybe they’ll go away and take their damnable lies with them. I truly struggle with this because I feel like we treat too many bad Bible teachers with kid gloves. I feel like the prophets of old and even Jesus himself would have much less patience toward those propping themselves up as scholars of some sort when they refuse to believe the basics about God as creator. Consider that their position on this redefines the foundational truths of the gospel and touch on the very nature of Christ and His role in salvation and it becomes about more than distant starlight and fossils. We have to stop giving guys like this respect as apologists just because they get some of it right. It’s like saying someone is a good surgeon because they fixed my bad heart, but while I was under they cut off my legs. I’m glad to be alive, but let’s not let him do surgery anymore . Let’s look to Bible teachers who won’t do as much damage as they do good. Am I too harsh?
Paul Price
I don't disagree with your sentiment that Christians should start being more discerning, but with regards to this being a 'salvation issue', please see:

Can Christians Believe Evolution?

Do We Hate Evolutionists?
Terry I.
Walsh looks about the age of a millennial. This age group has been heavily indoctrinated through an educational system which promotes evolution as science and all religion, particularly Christianity, as superstitious fables. It therefore is no surprise that he quickly abandons his religion for another- that of science.

Fact is, most millennials are enamored with science through the operational science which created the devices they use to communicate to the world with, through social media. Since, evolutionists conflate their faith based beliefs with every day, operational science many millennials quickly exchange Christianity for science assuming it is more credible.

Education is the key here and thank heavens that we have organizations like CMI to provide sound science framed correctly by pointing out that the real difference between evolution and Creationism is world view- not operational science. Walsh's world view has been exchanged for another religion. His lack of education on the issue is the result. Unfortunately, he is in a position to do much damage to other uninformed millennials.
Paul Price
I'm a millennial, but I, like most millennials, choose not to identify as one. ;)
Bill P.
The Word of God is True and set in stone. Have not heard this man speak but I have heard of Mr. Ross. About 25 yrs. ago (the early days of my faith in The Gospel) I heard Mr. Ross give his opinion on creation, and even though I was fairly new in my faith I knew something was wrong w/his opinion and stopped listening to him.
Now we have Mr. Walsh who is supposed to be a major spokesperson for the Christian faith, I don't believe so. This is also only the beginning of him trying to take apart and cause doubt of The Word of God.This will have a bad effect (we have evidence of this already), w/the biggest example of this today of those who have no respect for God's Word now trying to convince the world that there is no such thing as male and female but that there are many genders and types.
I've always loved the sciences even in the days of my education attending a college prep school, being taught evolution as truth. I was not a believer in those days but I still remember sitting in class being taught evolution and thinking to myself something just does not make sense.
Now as the decades pass reading and meditating on The Word of God, and still studying biology, geology, zoology, etc...the only thing that makes sense and rings true is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Hope you guys are allowed to keep informing all who would take the time to study your work until the day The Lord sets His Kingdom here on earth. The Lord has been more than fair in that not only has He left us His Word to teach "The Truth" but He has left us much in the way of physical evidence that His Word is True and literally set in stone. Keep up the good work.
Chris M.
I guess the only point he makes that I have somewhat questioned myself is how most “scientist” seem to all share the same belief in evolution/Big Bang. Why? Are you mislead as an undergrad in these fields from the get-go and so it distorts their views of the evidence from early on? I understand there are a lot of great scientist who don’t believe in evolution and what not, but they aren’t the majority are they?
Paul Price
Yes, it can seem intimidating!

But remember what Paul wrote: "For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong." (1 Cor 1:26-27)

Don't let yourself get peer-pressured by the majority, who are unbelievers, into rejecting God's truth. Unfortunately many believers are also pressured into accepting compromise views that mingle truth with error. Jesus also said, "If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." (John 15:19)

Andrew W.
Thank you for this most informative and disturbing article about Mr. Walsh's views and misconceptions of Creationism. He should be contacted by CMI and gently corrected and engaged in his erroneous views and how his views do to help the Christian cause but only tip the hat toward evolutionary views and compromising. A lot of us were theistic evolutionists at one time. I was one of those but saw the light eventually. The God of Genesis is the God of the New Testament miracles and He is still on the Throne. Thanks for CMI and your great work.
Paulette B.
Phil M....from your.... 2 Peter 3:8 to justify interpreting the days of Genesis 1 as long evolutionary ages. The verse is essentially saying “with the Lord one solar day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one solar day”
Let me say....people make simple things so hard...my understanding, simple as it is, is this...GOD MADE TIME. HE CONTROLS IT. TIME DOES NOT CONTROL HIM. In HEAVEN, a day may be a 1000 years or just a day. Here, He made it so man could understand it...a day is 24 hours. No sinful natural man would live a whole day if it were a 1000 years! OMGosh...think of the wrinkles! (Sorry, had to add a little humor)
Paul Price
Actually, Methuselah nearly made it that long.
Richard D.
I have never listened to this Matt fellow. If he has a large following, wow!!! What a mess. His talk regarding creation science- was.... well I felt embarrassed for him. Babbling "literally". He spoke from total ignorance, and I would have to conclude, willful ignorance. He does not understand the scripture or the power of God, and he definitely demonstrated his ignorance on what you all at CMI teach regarding Genesis 1-11 or the fact that it is an historical narrative and how to interpret the evidence from that perspective.
He definite has been conformed to the secular humanist worldview of origins. Then pastes a God label on it. Wow!!! Very sad,,,and he is an apologist???? What a stumbling block for the church!!!!---Get behind me!!!
Would he be willing to invite Sarfati on the show to be educated regarding the scriptures and the forensic science on how to interpret the evidence from a scriptural historical perspective???? To be educated on what creation science really is.
Please ask him if he would be willing to learn what you are actually saying, and go point counter point with you, Then let us know if he is willing to truly "dialogue" with a creation scientist. - Wow- listening to his blog has been very painful......
James K.
Dailywire is a largely atheistic conservative think tank headed by a compromising ‘Orthodox’ Jew. If Walsh becomes a biblical creationist he will likely be fired from his job. I read articles on dailywire all the time. Most of the writers are atheistic at least in respect to what they believe about origins. Now the readers, oh don’t get me started on those, most of them are Jordan Peterson fanboys, that should tell you all you need to know.
Lester V.
Exodus 14:20 describes the cloud that God used to separate the Egyptians from the Israelites prior to the crossing of the Red Sea. It says "It was a cloud of darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night." God simply focused the light, so that it was toward the Jews (light), and away from the Egyptians (darkness). He did the same thing from Day One until Day Four, when He created the physical bodies to take over the job. That's no problem for God, just as it will be no problem for God to provide continuous light in the New Jerusalem. God created the heavens and the earth, in the beginning, and started the earth rotating on its axis, to make possible a day-night cycle, and focused the light so that it came from a particular direction, which would coincide with the location of the sun when it was created on Day Four. What's so hard to understand about that?
Mitch C.
In response to Chris M., I would add Michael Crichton's insightful analysis of "consensus science" ...

"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
Daniel P.
It seems to me that Walsh's reasoning can be boiled to down a simple syllogism:

(1) If we are to abide merely what Genesis 1 invokes,
(2) as most YEC's claim to do,
(3) Then there is no way to be SO sure what it means as to conclude that it surely must mean what YEC's say it must mean.
Cowboy Bob S.
Excellent article. Peter Heck had a good response the other day, but this has valuable information, and I will be gladly posting it at The Question Evolution Project.

Matt Walsh has informed and entertained me for quite a while, and many of us are thankful for his pro-life arguments. However, he has been at odds with Bible-believing Christians and had "debates" on Twitter over his Roman Catholic beliefs. I suspect his worldview is the motivating factor in his prejudicial conjecture ("I know little about the topic, but I'm against it and will express opinions anyway") against biblical creation.

Further damage can come from Walsh's diatribe because old earthers, theistic evolutionists, atheists, and others who saddle up and ride for the Deny Biblical Authority brand will most likely be sharing his material as an attempt at refuting biblical creation.
Harry B.
Another little objection; the suggestion that God deliberately deceived creationists. Somebody please do correct me if I am wrong here, but wouldn't such a thing turn God into a liar? Which by the way is impossible, both Old and New Testaments state very clearly it is impossible for God to lie (Numbers 23:19 for OT and Hebrews 6:18 for NT). Or am I making a mistake here?
Don C.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to show that evolution does not have a basis in authentic science.
When they reject out of hand competing theories like Intelligent Design or Specified Complexity, and merely dismiss them, labeling them "religion and not science." the general public, who doesn't think about it very much anyway, believes that I.D. and indeed, any theory that leaves room for God, has been weighed in the balances and found wanting!
In the public's mind, the competing theories have been objectively put to the test - and evolution won!

This is profoundly not the case. The reason the other side cannot allow a side by side comparison is because no criteria exists to show the data that would allow "X" to be shown as clearly from evolution, and most definitely, not from God.
What would the protocols, the standards, the criteria look like that would show it belonged to one source, and not another?
They don't have the criteria and cannot allow a side by side comparison. This explains why they must resort to censorship, bullying and intimidation. And why they cannot allow other views in the schools. The children are required to go to school. When only one view is allowed, it is the textbook definition of indoctrination and brainwashing. How much longer will they get away with it? Our website, [link deleted per feedback rules] offers many reasons to believe in God. What are the other sides reasons not to believe? Why because "science" (Here they mean evolution) Has "proved" no God. Give me a break! They wrote the books that they claim disproves God! And they wrote from the perspective that only the physical exists. And then use that to prove no God. And they are getting away with it. So far. How long, O Lord?
James M.
I’m uneasy with this article as although the issues certainly need addressing, I think it errs on the side of attacking the person.
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.” Matt 18.15
I hope that an approach to Mark has been made and an offer to show and explain some of the things addressed. I know it is hard to keep to the principal when much happens in public and access to the person may not be possible but please try to win him over rather than the argument.
Feel free not to print this comment for the same reasons, or to print it if you think it would be helpful.
Paul Price
I appreciate your feedback, but I have to respectfully disagree with you. I made every effort to make it clear that I was not attacking Walsh personally, but merely responding to his public statements. This is not a matter of a personal interaction within the membership of a church; this is an instance of a person with a wide sphere of influence who claims to represent Christianity making public statements that are erroneous and damaging to the church. In such a case I think it is more than warranted to offer a public rebuttal as soon as possible, for all the reasons I stated in the article itself.
Nick T.
Keep on kidding yourselves guys....
Patrick A.
I have several friends (or they used to be) that have national and international platforms as apologists for the Christian faith. These individuals have swallowed the uniformitarian position having never considered the implications for their faith. I have told them that their position is antithetical not only to scripture but also to science. Not only this, but the corrosive fallout from their position will erode the faith of their listeners and empty the churches. I have begged and pleaded with them to engage with biblical creationist arguments, but they simply refuse. I send CMI articles and links to these issues and they won’t read them. I know these people are sincere in their faith, but I really believe they are falling prey to Satan’s oldest lie: Did God REALLY say that? It’s truly exasperating. Thanks CMI for having our backs.
Dan M.
Were we created by a loving, merciful, truthful God or an omniscient trickster? The bible is written history delivered to us by God through selected men and without it we have no idea how things happened in the past. Secular humanist uninformative history is just imaginary stories cooked up to explain things without God. They are always scrambling to answer challenges to or rescue their made up point of view and theirs, (evolutionist's) is the real fairy tale. The bible when considered without prejudiced makes good sense of the world. God is either serious in relaying a true history to us or He is a cruel trickster! Do you trust Him or not!
Peter C.
Great response - thank you CMI (generally) and Paul Price (specifically).
Just a couple of thoughts:
i) If a "day" in Gen: 1 represents millions of years - what is a night?
ii) If the word day in Gen: 1 v 14 is not a literal day then years in the same verse must be meaningless
Chris F.
I could go on and on but it looks like your team has done a fine job of giving a defense already. Two things come to my mind when I see who this article is about and the things he's, Matt Walsh, has said. 1) It's my understanding that Matt is Catholic and I believe the pope accepts evolution and of course anything the pope believes to be true is also believed as truth by diehard practicing Catholics. Unfortunately and sadly it's not an excuse for Walsh not to research into these things, especially knowing how well learned he is on so many other biblical, moral matters. It makes me wonder if there's a spiritual blind there.

2) It saddened me to see him belittle those with a young earth creation position. That in itself is stirring away from Christ's command to love each other, especially other brothers in Christ. This whole conversation/article has me excited to ramp up on my young earth biblical creation defenses! More importantly however, it makes me want to really make sure I'm not belittling someone whom with I'm sharing such things with. I've seen such behavior with Matt Slick over at CARM and sadly with, whom I greatly respect, Ken Ham and some things he's said about Bill Nye. We've got to really watch how we deliver a message that we remain Christ-like when we do. The world's watching and so is Father!

You folks do great work, blessings to you and your ministry!
Jo L.
Interesting that Mr Walsh is Catholic. An Catholic apologist posted a vlog just about a week ago on evolution. In it he implied that the RCC had always been a rather scholarly institution and had always taught Genesis as myth. Predictably, he misused a quote fromAugustine to back this up. This person is a progressive Catholic who also denies eponymous authorship of the gospels, clearly stated that Paul’s statement that death entered the world through one man was a metaphor, and, in response to a comment, mused on the idea that through long ages subhumans might have had partial or developing souls along with bodies. As with most all progressives who identify as Christian he has denied substitutionary atonement, asserting the Example theory or the Moral Influence theory instead. Therefore he doesn’t “need” Genesis with its literal fall and original sin, and can dismiss it and “believe in science.” (He claims, mistakenly I think, that this position represents historic Catholicism; I’m not educated enough on that topic to say much.) I’ve come to suspect that this is the actual reason they are brick walls when you try to engage them on Genesis. It’s not necessarily that they don’t see the link to Jesus’ work on the cross, it’s that they don’t believe that either. I know it’s possible to be a (weak) Christian and believe evolution but I think they may be preaching a “different gospel” as Paul says in Gal 1:8. I fear for them, and for the evangelicals who are heading down that same road. Thank you for your work.
Victor M.
I take it Matt Walsh is not a relative of Rod Walsh (aka 'Ark Man')...
Jo L.
I hope my earlier comment did not come across as disparaging of Catholics, I certainly did not mean to do that! I was only speculating on a possible connection for why Mr Walsh brought the topic up recently. I am aware that both Catholic and Protestant progressives hold very similar views on this, but I did not want to stray too far off topic.
Perry S.
On the "speed of light" question, is it possible that the speed of light also began to decay at the time of the fall? The late Chuck Missler stated years ago that the speed of light could have been instantaneous at the creation, Now, scientist are questioning whether the speed of light is not a constant. See [link deleted per feedback rules].
David G.
Light before the sun is an often raised issue. Light is a synecdoche for the complete energy spectrum. Has to be as light is radiant energy and it would seem irratrional for just the part visible to humans was created without the rest of the spectrum. The general energy field is essential to the structure of the physical universe. It would have to be created early so that everything else could work.
Kathy A.
I usually appreciate Matt Walsh's blogs - but I'm so glad you addressed this one from a young earth creationist point of view. Sometimes people speak when they'd seem a lot smarter if they said nothing. Creationism has been a rock solid foundation for our family in our making sense of the world, life, values, truth and education.
Michael V.
John 3:12 "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"
Thank you for posting this response. Compromising Biblical teaching with secular world views is a dangerous path to go down, and this is what old age earth "interpretations" attempt to do. Unfortunately, this type of compromise is not without Biblical president as ancient Israel attempted to compromise worship of the true God with that of the paganism around them by combining the two. A practice that God took great exception with. I think that Christians today are heavily tempted to make similar compromises with evolutionary teaching. Thank you for taking the forefront on this.
Dale S.
Christian greetings!
I am sorry that Matt Walsh is not a Bible-believer but a "scoffer" that is mentioned in 2 Peter 3:3. God created time ("In the beginning" Genesis 1:1). On the sixth ( 24 hour) day from the beginning of that time God created Man (Adam & Eve) (Genesis 1:26-28). Jesus (God manifest in flesh : John 1:14, 1 Timothy 3:16) said that He created fully human mankind "from the beginning of creation" (Mark 10:6). No where can billions of years of time fit between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Not one Scripture in The Word of God (Holy Bible) supports the notion of a "gap" between these Scriptures. Genesis 1:1-31 gives us the historic account of Creation and tells us plainly that it took only six days for God to create from the beginning (Exodus 20:11). My hope and prayer for Matt Walsh that his eyes can be open to the truth of God's Word instead of man's word (philosophy) ( Colossians 2:8).
Sincerely in Christ,
Dale Stuckwish
Paul Price
Thanks! With regards to this being a 'salvation issue', please see:

Can Christians Believe Evolution?
Mike F.
I remind Biblical Christians about your site all the time. I tell them please go there whenever you have a question about the latest "fake news" concerning "proofs" of evolution and/or supposed "old earth" science. I attended a local event where Dr. Sarfati (Maryland). His presentation was wonderful and it was over all too quickly. There many members of the CMI writing essays and articles on this site (old and new). I am very blessed by them. You are in my prayers.
Courage and Godspeed
Dean R.
When I look at the earth ravaged by water and catastrophe across the sphere it is apparent that things happen very rapidly indeed, and with great power. Also the modern examples of rapid formation and the rapid smoothing of rocks is undeniable.

And the 'long agers' & 'deep timers' assume they have science and time on their side when more often than not it is mis information,bias & boldness by the bucket load. Nice to hear/see the other side of the story again from CMI dedicated to giving God the glory with good theological and scientific reason.
Scott S.
“But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’” Mark 10:6.

The word “creation” cannot refer to the creation of the world because God only created man on the sixth day at the very end of the creation of the world.

Contextually, “creation” refers to the creation of man. “The beginning of the creation” is a genetive of apposition. An accurate paraphrase would be “But from the beginning, that is, from the creation of humanity, God made them male and female.”

Citing this verse in defense of a young earth is grasping at straws.
Paul Price

I do not accept your paraphrase. The text does not limit itself in any way to the creation of mankind only--that is a limitation you are artificially imposing on the text, apparently in order to avoid the clear implication of a young earth. This term "creation" is a noun which is used all throughout the New Testament in reference to God's general creation (of everything).

The text does not say "the beginning of the creation of the world" (which is an addition to the text you have attempted to subtly slip in to the discussion here). It just says "the beginning of creation", which would indicate the beginning of all things. In the scope of many thousands of years, 6 days is not enough to justify disqualifying this as "from the beginning" (that would be grasping at straws!). On the other hand, many billions of years would certainly prevent this description from being accurate.
Dave L.
Has anyone at CMI attempted to contact Matt Walsh in order to provide him with a better informed perspective on the YEC position?
Paul Price
As far as I know, none of us at CMI has a direct line of communication to Walsh. I personally have not been a follower of his prior to this (nor do I plan to become one now), but I have read a few of his articles from time to time over the years, and they have mostly been of a political nature. This response has been posted as a comment on his facebook, so perhaps he may read it himself. If so, one can always hope that he might reconsider his viewpoint.
Shane H.
I don't understand why Christians are arguing amungst each other. The enemy is evolution and how it destroys people. It's very simple, believe the bible and stop trying to take things out of context and disprove things, Mr Walsh. Spend your time trying to lead non Christians to Jesus not doing podcasts about the gap theory.
John P.
This bloke's an apologist? What for, evolution? Certainly not Christianity.Unfortunately pride prevents these types of people humbling themselves and believing God'd truth and this is certainly true of these types who set themselves up as "bible scholars", We need to discern wolves in sheeps clothing and those who are ignorant of the truth spouting out lies and halftruths. Evolution as a concept began in the Garden of Eden when the serpent-the devil- told Adam and Eve they could become like God. Everything began its downhill slide after that. Compromised views erode God's inerrant truth and strip the Lord's sacrifice for our sins of its potency and meaning.
When the Bible is meant to be taken as poetry or whatever else God tells us- you just need to see the context of the text and you should be clear. Moses could not have been any clearer in Genesis right from Chapter 1 verse 1 and only pride prevents these scholars from believing it
Pat B.
Me thinks the maiden squeals too much. What annoyance you display, what angst you wring your hands over..he didnt consult one reputable creationist...who would that be... Ken Ham ? Hugh Ross ? or did you mean yourselves or perhaps someone you approve of.? How did you rise to be the final arbiter of what is right in these areas, is it self appointed or do all your critics confirm that though they have differences mostly you are correct.? I think you have done really well to establish what you have done but your whole existence rests on 2 chapters of the bible...there are 5 times more covering the giving of the Torah and 13 chapters covering the making of the Mishkan ( tabernacle) so perhaps some balance from you would remove my initial comment. There are many other things that God pays more attention to than creation itself and tells us so , this in itself should be our guidance (Torah).
Paul Price
Let's see if I understand you correctly: the Torah should be our guide (the first 5 books of the bible), but since the Creation Week is only mentioned in a small percentage of the overall content of the Torah, we should not bother talking about what God meant by it. The importance of scripture is measured by the volume of text devoted to any particular proposition. Oh, and by the way, anyone who defends the historic, straightforward understanding of Creation is a 'squealing maiden'. Is that right?
Peter C.
Great article thank you Paul Price.
Just to add a couple of thoughts:
i) If a "day" represents millions of years - what is a night?
ii) If the word day in v14 of Genesis 1 is not a literal day then "years" in that same verse must be meaningless.
Yelena T.
It is obvious from the Scripture that there was no death before the men sinned. Evolution states there were countless deaths of creatures before the appearance of human beings. These statements evidently contradict each other. Thank all of you for your work and faithfulness to God's truth/
Paul Price
Спасибо большое!
Pat B.
Hello Paul, you misunderstood me....TORAH means "guidance" we very woodenly translate it as "law" My statement was that in the amount of scripture that God has authorised , we should take our guidance (torah) from that, 2 chapters on creation , 11 on the giving of the law and 13 on the manufacture of God's dwelling place on earth. You have done really well on the 2 chapters , but to maintain balance where are your views on the other subjects , or dont you see yourselves as teaching the full word of God ? Thats fine but then How do you know you are right in your interpretation..and Ken Ham or Hugh Ross or even Matt Walsh are wrong ? Secondly , you have specialised yourself into a tiny area of scripture , even God has only authorised a small part to cover that, my comment about squealing too much covers the fact that a prominent (was it God who made him prominent) person has a different view to you on that small part of scripture and you mount a campaign against him. Suppose he is right , then how would you answer to God ? The tone of your rebuttal indicates how you view others who hold this point of view. We are supposed to correct our opponents with gentleness.
Paul Price
When you talk about the Torah, it almost sounds as if you're suggesting that is the only scripture God has authorized. Hopefully I'm not understanding you correctly on that point, either, because that would be a major error. The bible contains 66 books, and all of them are equally correctly called the word of God.

CMI is a ministry focused specifically on the doctrine of creation. We acknowledge and hold to all of the Scriptures (the 66 books of the Bible), but our ministry focus is primarily on creation and related issues (thus our name, Creation Ministries International).

How do we know that we are right on these positions? Well, that is the point of our articles: to make that case. This is an important issue to the Christian faith, and that's why we do what we do.
Patricia A.
Romans 16:17
Now I urge you brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned,
and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth
words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.
Richard Y.
Ask yourselves, what Mr. Walsh's motives are for not investing more time in Creation Scientist ' Science.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.