NATURAL HISTORY

Natural History is one of those things saturated in a secular worldview. This, too, is the age of ideas. Everyone has their own views on certain things and it can be quite a challenge to see exactly eye-to-eye with anyone. That being said, I would like to lay out exactly what my standard is regarding some of the key foundations of my perspective in natural history.

1. The Age of the Earth

The age of the earth is touchy subject for a lot of people, including Christians. Many Christians feel that the scientific evidence so strongly supports the view that the earth is millions or billions of years old, that they feel that they must fit it into the Bible, even though a plain reading would never suggest such an interpretation. Personally, I am not sure anyone can be dogmatic at the exact age of the earth. The plainest reading of the Bible (here regarded as the ultimate authority on all things, including science) suggests that the earth is only about 6,000 years old (this can be determined quite simply by counting up the genealogies that the Bible so eloquently records up to the time of Jesus). It could be argued that there are some gaps in these genealogies which could extend the age of the earth to about 10,000 or even 12,000 years old. 20,000 years is getting far to large for a plain reading of scripture. There is no Biblical reason to assume there is any thousands or millions of years excluded from somewhere in the first chapters of Genesis. Likewise, if the Bible is taken at face value, the geological column cannot represent any length of time more than a few thousand years (it must be included within the time spans mentioned within the Bible). Indeed, the Bible is very clear, as far as a straightforward reading is concerned, that the earth was created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago.

The badlands of Arizona are a great example of
massive fossil graveyards. This area is especially known
for its fossil trees, some of which are polystrate
(mentioned in the text).

So, with a Biblical perspective established, we can look at the scientific evidence. The primary reason for the assumed millions or billions of years in scientific literature is the acceptance of Darwin's theory on evolution or modifications of it. A very old earth is needed for this thinking because the observed rates of speciation are said to be too slow for a whole world to evolve in just 6,000 years. So, if macroevolution isn't true, there is no reason to accept millions or billions of years for the age of the earth. There is no reason to believe Darwin's theory on evolution, however, unless one is seeking to explain the world without the existence of God (the observation that species change and diversify is looked at below).
It seems that the primary reason many Christians accept a very old earth is because of the geological column. The geological column is actually a rather blurred piece of evidence that is put together from many places across the globe. The basic idea, however, is that sedimentary layers laid closer to the bottom (that is, the base rock of the earth) are much older than those at the top. It is said that, as process today slowly deposit sediment in the bottoms of lakes or the banks of rivers, plants and animals, in a drought, flash flood, or accident, are also deposited there. Eventually, these layers of sediment solidify into stone and the organisms turn to fossils. It seems like a fine idea, except that there don't seem to be any such processes occurring in that way today. Anything that falls to the bottom of a lake rots, and rivers tend to continually change their course, carving out the carcasses they had deposited. And no mass graveyards, so commonly seen in the fossil record, are being deposited today. I guess the idea is that, given enough millions of years, anything could happen. We humans, caught in such a short instant compared to the grand billions of years of earth history, cannot see these processes in action.
So we young earth creationists are faced with the question of how to interpret these vast layers of sediment. If the earth isn't millions or billions of years old, where did the geologic column come from? The Bible does mention some interesting geological events, the most catastrophic being the global flood of Noah's day. The Bible, as it is with most of its narratives, very clear about what went on during this flood. First off, it covered the entire earth and every living thing died. Even the highest mountain peaks were covered with water deep enough for the ark to pass over. Thus, it is not at all unexpected that "billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth" (as Ken Ham, one of my heroes of the faith, would say) should be found in light of such a catastrophe. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that these layers called the geological column were laid down rapidly, not over millions of years. Polystrate fossils (such as fossil trees which, intact, are driven through many layers of rock strata that supposedly represent many millions of years), folded rocks (massive layers of sediment, again representing millions of years, that were apparently bent or folded while still soft and pliable), geological deposits traceable across entire continents and even onto other continents (such massive deposits indicate a massive amount of water to deposit them), and many more evidences point to the global flood as the source of the geologic column.

No place illustrates the geological
column more effectively than the
Grand Canyon.

I hope I have made myself clear on these points. There are many mysteries and unexplained features of the geological column to date (not problems, so to speak, they are just not addressed, at this point, within my perspective). Nevertheless, the young earth/global flood certainly seems to be the best explanation for the geological column ever proposed. It is the view that I hold with the greatest amount of confidence, both Biblically and scientifically.

2. The Diversification of Life

The second foundational point to natural history is the diversification of life. It should be much more brief than the above topic. The hypothesis of macroevolution holds that, over that long time period of billions of years, all life formed from one single common ancestor. How this original organism, supposedly a single, simple cell, came to be is completely unsolved. Theories abound on the subject, but evidence is quite absent. There is no reason to believe that life evolved from non-life unless you have already made up your mind that it was not created. Likewise, there is no evidence to suggest that one kind of animal would evolve into another kind. By "kind" I don't mean "species." Rather, the Bible says, quite specifically that all life would "reproduce after their kinds." So, there are many ancestors to todays organisms; not just one.
Once again, because the past is relatively unobservable, the present is observed. Life has not been observed to change "kinds." And if it is noticed that certain animals can hybridize or there is other good evidence that two organisms do share the same ancestor, it is assumed, from my perspective, that they would belong to the same "kind." When it comes down to it, whether there are many ancestors or just one, is dependent on your own interpretation of the evidence. However, there are some serious obstacles to overcome if one believes that all organisms descended from the same ancestor. First, they must assume that a lot of new information has been added to the genetic code (or that the original "simple cell" instantly had the genetic capacity to diverge into all living things - but this is impossible, since such an organism would look nothing like a simple cell). Today, it is never observed that new information is added. Rather, all organisms are progressing downhill. That is, with each generation, they are loosing information. Even mutations, supposedly the hero in creating new genetic information, only ever rearrange or delete the information already present.
So, it is certainly observed that animals change and diversify, but they are never gaining new information. Rather, their code is being narrowed down, or selected for their given ecological niche. The idea of millions of years of earth history for macroevolution to take place is not supported by evidence but, rather, by the will of men to find an explanation of natural history that excludes their Creator. If readers have any questions, feel free to contact me by leaving a comment. I realize that these topics are far more complex than merely what I have presented.