This Day In History

Rate This
Article
[click here]

Publish
YOUR
Article
[click here]

Does the Population Count Prove a Young Earth?

See Also

• Young Earth Evidence
• Young Earth Challenge
• How Old is the Earth?
• Biblical Dating
• Discussion Group Age of the Earth

Contents

• Young Earth / Creation View
• Old Earth / Evolution View
• Henry Morris Method
• Conclusion
• References

Young Earth / Creation View

Mathematical calculations show that at the current rate of population growth, the current world population would be produced from only a few people in 4,000 years, thus showing evidence that the current world population was started at the time of Noah's flood (about 2348 BC).  Henry Morris advocates this view in his book Scientific Creationism.  See below.

Variation: Some claim that an 'average' (as opposed to 'steady') rate of population growth shows that the Earth is only about 4,000 years old.

Old Earth / Evolution View

For this YEC claim to be valid, the world population would have to have increased at a steady rate.  History tells us that this simply isn't true.  The YEC equation does not take into account population limiting factors, such as the ability to provide food, and population reducing events such as disease and catastrophe.  Plagues have wiped out huge populations, sometimes as much as 40% in some areas, in a matter of years.

The YEC equation simply ignores historical evidence that the population growth has been quite small until recent times.  In the fourteenth century the population may have even decreased due to Black Death.  Clearly it has not been a steady increase as stated by this YEC claim.

Variation: Some claim that an 'average' (as opposed to 'steady') rate of population growth shows that the Earth is only about 4,000 years old.

We can calculate what the average rage of population growth is using the following formula:

Pn = S *  (1 + r)ⁿ 
S = starting population (Noah and his family = 8)
n = years (2005 = 4,353 years starting from flood in 2,348 BC)
r = growth rate per year
Pn = population after n years

To get a world population of 6.5 billion in 2005, then the average rate of growth (r) must equal  0.004725. 

What this means is:  in order to get 6.5 billion people in 2005, starting with 8 in the year of the flood, the population must increase by 0.004725 (or approximately 0.5%)  people every year. 

Since this is an average increase, then it also specifies what the world population would be for other dates.  And it gives us some interesting numbers.  These numbers are extremely ridiculous, showing how absurd this method of proving a Young Earth is.  For example:

• Great Flood (2348 BC) = 8 people - Noah and his family (according to the Bible).
• Tower of Babel (2242 BC) = 14 people
• Moses leads the Exodus from Egypt (1491 BC) = 455 people in the world.
• Israelites enter Canaan (1000 BC) = 4,600 people.
• The destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon (586 BC) = 32,380 people
• Time of Jesus (30 AD) = 590,681 people.
• Year 2005 = 6.5 billion (the correct current world population).

Even the Bible (Exodus 12:37) disagrees with this method, since it says Moses led 600,000 men out of Egypt.

As you can see, this population method produces absurd numbers, showing just how absurd it really is!.

One could, and should, criticize the above numbers by stating that the population growth was much higher early on, therefore these early populations would have had higher numbers.  But that's exactly the point.  Population growth rates have varied dramatically for various time periods.  Therefore, any attempt to predict when a population started based on the assumption of a steady or average rate of growth, as this YEC claim does, is meaningless.

These facts clearly show the fundamental flaws of this particular Young Earth "proof."

Henry Morris Method

Henry Morris poses a similar argument for a Young Earth in his book Scientific Creationism to show that the current population could have come from just a few people 4,000 years ago.  According to Morris:

"If we assume, for simplicity, that only one generation is alive at any one time, then the world population at the nth generation will also be 2c^n people."

In his equation Morris uses the following values:

• 2c = number of children per couple (2.46)
• n = number of generations (100 for 4,000 years).
• 40 years per generation.
• Two initial people.

Using Morris' calculations starting with two people (as Morris does) 4,000 years before 1974 (the year of his book) we get the following results (Keeping in mind these numbers, according to Morris, only include the last generation, not their parents, etc.).

• 2026 BC (4,000 years ago) = 2 people
• Year 1974 = 2 billion.
• Moses leads the Exodus from Egypt (1491 BC) = 32 people in the world.
• Israelites enter Canaan (1000 BC) =  405 people.
• The destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon (586 BC) =  3,448 people
• Time of Jesus (30 AD) =  88,030 people.

These results are just as absurd as the results above, clearly showing that Morris' method is just as meaningless.  How Morris can honestly claim that his method makes sense or is any way realistic is almost beyond belief.

Just for the sake of comparison to the previous numbers, let's use Morris' calculations starting with two people (as Morris does) after Noah's flood.  We get the following results.

• Great Flood (2348 BC) = 2 people - See Above.
• Year 2005 = 12 billion.
• Moses leads the Exodus from Egypt (1491 BC) = 168 people in the world.
• Israelites enter Canaan (1000 BC) = 2,142 people.
• The destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon (586 BC) =  18,253 people
• Time of Jesus (30 AD) = 442,475 people.

Again, Morris's method is just nonsense.

Conclusion

While it is certainly mathematically possible that the current population could have started 4,000 years from a few people, this method shows no evidence that it did so.  Only that it is possible.  For this method to be useful in showing the age of the Earth, the growth rates would have to have maintained the average used in the calculations.  History shows that this is not true.  From  1 AD to 1500 the world population barely doubled, yet it more than doubled from 1950 to 2000, thus showing that the growth rate has varied dramatically.

Since this method is not valid, it doesn't tell us much of anything about how old the Earth is, one way or the other.

Send comments and suggestions for this page to epicidiot

References

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/people.asp#f6

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/populate.htm

http://members.aol.com/BobSBend/popgrowth.htm

World Historical Population Chart

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html#pop

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9359625

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher-Lightfoot_Calendar

 

Crowd Photo from http://gimp-savvy.com/PHOTO-ARCHIVE/

Viewer Feedback

2006-01-17 Josh (Young Earth Creationist) wrote
Interesting, Fair and Balanced
To be sure, an assumption that begins with parents having 2.4 kids is ridiculous, even as far as the Bible is concerned. It is common knowledge, that in ancient times, children were EVERYWHERE...they just kept pumping them out...I am in favour of a higher population rate than the one suggested here. And we DO have biblical and historical explanations for the population rate being not much higher than it is. Disease kills, as does the infant mortality rate which was estimated to be around 60% This article simply discounts ONE aspect of an opinion, it does not throw out Young Earth Creationism.

epicidiot reply: I totally agree with you that this does not throw out Young Earth Creationism.  It simply points out that an arbitrary population rate can not be used to determine the age of the Earth, be it young or old. This is even stated in the Conclusion section.

2006-12-15 konstantin, Young Earth Creationist, wrote
So So
there were also wars, starvations, disasters, etc. That could slow down the growth.
I think Morris is alright with his calculations.
There are NO missinlg links until now. And pople are more or less alike. Inanimate matter cannot accidentally 'self-assemble' into living organism. And if it somehow could, there is no way of assembling DNA, or even eny actual progress.
Population growth do not prove creationsim, but shows it to be a possible (and I think more porbable) explanation of human origins.

epicidiot reply: I agree with you on the fact that wars, starvations, etc. make this method of dating the Earth invalid.  That's really the point of this article - That creationists are making an invalid Young Earth claim.  One that they should know is baseless.

Note: Inanimate matter can assemble into living organisms under natural conditions (this has been clearly demonstrated), and RNA does assemble into DNA.  There are still questions about how RNA is formed, but the answers appear to be on the way.

Add your Comments
Submit a Rebuttal
Submit an Article on another topic