What do you think?
Rate this book
Peril In Paradise: Theology, Science, And The Age Of The Earth
Young Earth verses Old Earth. The debate has gone on for centuries, with most modern Christians disputing the scientific claim of an ancient earth. But is an old earth truly inconsistent with Scripture? Dr. Mark Whorton seeks to give biblically based answers and challenge the modern thinking that to be an evangelical Christian is to believe in a young earth. Using evidence as diverse as the bombardier beetle and St. Augustine, Dr. Whorton, a Christian apologist and genuine rocket scientist, provides a compelling answer to one of the most difficult and heated issues for modern Christians.
233 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2005
6 people are currently reading
23 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
November 25, 2025
WAS THERE ANIMAL DEATH BEFORE THE FALL? EVIDENCE FOR THIS POSITION
Dr. Mark Whorton is (was?) an Adjunct Professor of Practice, School of Aerospace Engineering, at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2005 book, “Why do Christians divide themselves so strongly on the issue of science and faith?… The answer can be boiled down to one issue… the age of the earth… the young-earth and old-earth creation camps are built on two very different theological frameworks. Essentially the difference boils down to two small words: ‘very good.’ What did the Creator mean when He pronounced His creation very good? This question bears directly on the philosophical problem of pain and suffering, the proper role of redemption, the nature of end times, and the ultimate reason we were created. How one treats the age of the earth impacts virtually every major Christian doctrine… my goal in writing this book is, ‘so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.’ [Lk 1:4].” (Pg. ix-x)
He states, “The Bible does actually imply that Satan fell before the physical world was created. Jesus indicated that Satan rebelled before creation began when he said that the devil ‘was a murderer from the beginning’ (Jn 8:44). Likewise, John also tells us ‘the devil has sinned from the beginning’ (1 Jn 3:8). If the devil sinned from the beginning, then the fall of Satan occurred before the beginning and not some time after creation was declared ‘very good.’” (Pg. 48)
He suggests, “The language of millennial kingdom prophecy [e.g., Isa 11:7, 65:25] is not always to be taken literally... astute readers will note that in another passage describing the peace and safety of the millennial kingdom, Isaiah says, ‘no lion will be there’ (35:9)… If the statements are literal, then there is a clear contradiction. But… his point is to paint a picture of serene tranquility, a place of perfect peace. This picture of a future time when man and beast blissfully live together is not meant to describe life as it was in Eden… Human death is still inevitable in the millennial kingdom (Isa 65:20). There will be animal death as well. Isaiah’s prophecy simply is not a description of the final restoration of the way things were in Eden… Ezekiel says that there will be rivers … so full of fish that all along its banks ‘there will be a place for the spreading of nets’ (47:10, 12). So even if there is abundant fruit, there will also be abundant fish to be killed and eaten, as well. Millennial kingdom prophecy simply does not establish that animals were immortal before the fall.” (Pg. 61-62)
He points out, “the notion that herbivores could degenerate into carnivores is false. Carnivorous digestive systems are fundamentally distinct from herbivore systems. The mouth of a typical carnivore contains incisors, canines… whereas a typical herbivore has flat molars set in both jaws and incisors only in the lower jaw. The jaws of a carnivore move up and down to tear and crush food while the jaws of a herbivore move in a circular motion to grind food. Furthermore, herbivores are able to digest the cellulose that forms the cell walls of plants while carnivores are not. The stomach of a carnivore is also much smaller then the chambered stomach of a ruminant herbivore… Quite clearly, the carnivores that have existed since the fall are fundamentally different animals than those creatures that are suggested to have existed in the Perfect Paradise.” (Pg. 124-125)
He argues, “Speculating about what happened after the fall, Ken Ham notes, ‘Maybe some animals started eating each other.’ This simplistic suggestion is no solution to a serious problem with the paradigm… More than mere behavior was involved. Nothing less than total systemic change would be required for animals perfectly created as plant eaters to become highly adapted carnivores after the fall…. Moreover, entire ecosystems would have had to change in concert to ensure the survival of the changing species. These coordinated changes would have had to change in concert to ensure the survival of the changing species. These coordinated changes would have had to take place rapidly in order to ensure the survival of the changing species in a rapidly changing ecosystem… Simply put, animals designed for the world of today would not thrive, and many could not survive in the perfection of the paradise envisioned by young earth creationism.” (Pg. 135)
He summarizes, “The atoning death of Christ is not affected by the death of animals prior to the fall of Adam. The death of animals prior to man’s sin does not alter the consequences of sin nor render its atonement meaningless. The Bible states that sin brought death to man. The death of an animal in relation to atonement only has meaning as a picture of the death of God’s only Son. Clearly the death of animals is not a necessary element of atonement but is only a type, pointing to the death of Christ. The principle of Ham and [Henry] Morris is not correct---the basis of the gospel is not that God ‘brought in death and bloodshed (of animals)… so that man could be redeemed.’ God used the sacrificial death of animals as a picture to illustrate the Redeemer, the only Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world. This, not animal death, is the basis of the gospel.” (Pg. 189)
He asserts, “God is the one who commands the eagle to make a nest on high. He is the one who provides food for the young eagles. But the food he provides is bloody. These carnivores eat the flesh of slain animals, all by the command of God. Certainly God would not command animals to behave in a way that is contrary to His nature and point to it as an example of His glory. The clear implication is that the natural order of predator and prey is part of the eternal plan of God and not a result of the curse. The Bible demonstrates the truth that animal predation is part of God’s provision for creation.” (Pg. 202)
He notes, “The singular moral prohibition to Adam was a dietary restriction from a single tree. Animals are not moral creatures and hence had no moral restrictions placed upon them. They could have eaten freely from the forbidden tree without consequence. Likewise they would have eaten from the Tree of Life without its consequent blessings. Neither tree was intended for them. The intention of the Creator was not to prohibit or proscribe the diet of animals; it was to establish a context of bounty for man’s singular prohibition.” (Pg. 212)
He concludes, “there is a better paradigm, one that recognizes the eternal purpose for creation, a purpose that will not be fully realized until the final consummation. The historical foundation of orthodox Christian theology is that this world was created with a specific end in view. In full anticipation of the unfolding drama of creation, the world was created with the ultimate end of glorifying the Creator. It was never intended to be a pristine paradise, a place of unblemished tranquility for man to enjoy forever. This world was created for a purpose, and it was perfectly suited to accomplish the Creator’s perfect purpose. It was in light of that perfect, eternal purpose that the finished creation was declared ‘very good.’ But until the time our temporal, light afflictions give way to an eternal weight of glory, all creation groans with eager anticipation.” (Pg. 223)
This book will be of great interest to Christians studying such questions related to ‘old earth’ and ‘young earth’ versions of Creation.
Dr. Mark Whorton is (was?) an Adjunct Professor of Practice, School of Aerospace Engineering, at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2005 book, “Why do Christians divide themselves so strongly on the issue of science and faith?… The answer can be boiled down to one issue… the age of the earth… the young-earth and old-earth creation camps are built on two very different theological frameworks. Essentially the difference boils down to two small words: ‘very good.’ What did the Creator mean when He pronounced His creation very good? This question bears directly on the philosophical problem of pain and suffering, the proper role of redemption, the nature of end times, and the ultimate reason we were created. How one treats the age of the earth impacts virtually every major Christian doctrine… my goal in writing this book is, ‘so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.’ [Lk 1:4].” (Pg. ix-x)
He states, “The Bible does actually imply that Satan fell before the physical world was created. Jesus indicated that Satan rebelled before creation began when he said that the devil ‘was a murderer from the beginning’ (Jn 8:44). Likewise, John also tells us ‘the devil has sinned from the beginning’ (1 Jn 3:8). If the devil sinned from the beginning, then the fall of Satan occurred before the beginning and not some time after creation was declared ‘very good.’” (Pg. 48)
He suggests, “The language of millennial kingdom prophecy [e.g., Isa 11:7, 65:25] is not always to be taken literally... astute readers will note that in another passage describing the peace and safety of the millennial kingdom, Isaiah says, ‘no lion will be there’ (35:9)… If the statements are literal, then there is a clear contradiction. But… his point is to paint a picture of serene tranquility, a place of perfect peace. This picture of a future time when man and beast blissfully live together is not meant to describe life as it was in Eden… Human death is still inevitable in the millennial kingdom (Isa 65:20). There will be animal death as well. Isaiah’s prophecy simply is not a description of the final restoration of the way things were in Eden… Ezekiel says that there will be rivers … so full of fish that all along its banks ‘there will be a place for the spreading of nets’ (47:10, 12). So even if there is abundant fruit, there will also be abundant fish to be killed and eaten, as well. Millennial kingdom prophecy simply does not establish that animals were immortal before the fall.” (Pg. 61-62)
He points out, “the notion that herbivores could degenerate into carnivores is false. Carnivorous digestive systems are fundamentally distinct from herbivore systems. The mouth of a typical carnivore contains incisors, canines… whereas a typical herbivore has flat molars set in both jaws and incisors only in the lower jaw. The jaws of a carnivore move up and down to tear and crush food while the jaws of a herbivore move in a circular motion to grind food. Furthermore, herbivores are able to digest the cellulose that forms the cell walls of plants while carnivores are not. The stomach of a carnivore is also much smaller then the chambered stomach of a ruminant herbivore… Quite clearly, the carnivores that have existed since the fall are fundamentally different animals than those creatures that are suggested to have existed in the Perfect Paradise.” (Pg. 124-125)
He argues, “Speculating about what happened after the fall, Ken Ham notes, ‘Maybe some animals started eating each other.’ This simplistic suggestion is no solution to a serious problem with the paradigm… More than mere behavior was involved. Nothing less than total systemic change would be required for animals perfectly created as plant eaters to become highly adapted carnivores after the fall…. Moreover, entire ecosystems would have had to change in concert to ensure the survival of the changing species. These coordinated changes would have had to change in concert to ensure the survival of the changing species. These coordinated changes would have had to take place rapidly in order to ensure the survival of the changing species in a rapidly changing ecosystem… Simply put, animals designed for the world of today would not thrive, and many could not survive in the perfection of the paradise envisioned by young earth creationism.” (Pg. 135)
He summarizes, “The atoning death of Christ is not affected by the death of animals prior to the fall of Adam. The death of animals prior to man’s sin does not alter the consequences of sin nor render its atonement meaningless. The Bible states that sin brought death to man. The death of an animal in relation to atonement only has meaning as a picture of the death of God’s only Son. Clearly the death of animals is not a necessary element of atonement but is only a type, pointing to the death of Christ. The principle of Ham and [Henry] Morris is not correct---the basis of the gospel is not that God ‘brought in death and bloodshed (of animals)… so that man could be redeemed.’ God used the sacrificial death of animals as a picture to illustrate the Redeemer, the only Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world. This, not animal death, is the basis of the gospel.” (Pg. 189)
He asserts, “God is the one who commands the eagle to make a nest on high. He is the one who provides food for the young eagles. But the food he provides is bloody. These carnivores eat the flesh of slain animals, all by the command of God. Certainly God would not command animals to behave in a way that is contrary to His nature and point to it as an example of His glory. The clear implication is that the natural order of predator and prey is part of the eternal plan of God and not a result of the curse. The Bible demonstrates the truth that animal predation is part of God’s provision for creation.” (Pg. 202)
He notes, “The singular moral prohibition to Adam was a dietary restriction from a single tree. Animals are not moral creatures and hence had no moral restrictions placed upon them. They could have eaten freely from the forbidden tree without consequence. Likewise they would have eaten from the Tree of Life without its consequent blessings. Neither tree was intended for them. The intention of the Creator was not to prohibit or proscribe the diet of animals; it was to establish a context of bounty for man’s singular prohibition.” (Pg. 212)
He concludes, “there is a better paradigm, one that recognizes the eternal purpose for creation, a purpose that will not be fully realized until the final consummation. The historical foundation of orthodox Christian theology is that this world was created with a specific end in view. In full anticipation of the unfolding drama of creation, the world was created with the ultimate end of glorifying the Creator. It was never intended to be a pristine paradise, a place of unblemished tranquility for man to enjoy forever. This world was created for a purpose, and it was perfectly suited to accomplish the Creator’s perfect purpose. It was in light of that perfect, eternal purpose that the finished creation was declared ‘very good.’ But until the time our temporal, light afflictions give way to an eternal weight of glory, all creation groans with eager anticipation.” (Pg. 223)
This book will be of great interest to Christians studying such questions related to ‘old earth’ and ‘young earth’ versions of Creation.
July 24, 2013
Mark has written a manual on the two philosophies that confront people who try to interpret the creation story in Genesis. Some of Genesis is ambiguous and is rigorously debated among Young Earth and Old Earth believers. Interpretations are often based on philosophical preferences such as there being no death before the Fall.
Peril in Paradise cuts to the chase and outlines two positions: the perfect purpose paradigm and the perfect paradise paradigm. His insight is backed up by proper methods of Biblical interpretation.
I recommend this book to anyone who is not sure about the Genesis debate, and to all those are are sure.
Peril in Paradise cuts to the chase and outlines two positions: the perfect purpose paradigm and the perfect paradise paradigm. His insight is backed up by proper methods of Biblical interpretation.
I recommend this book to anyone who is not sure about the Genesis debate, and to all those are are sure.
November 11, 2021
A theological argument for an ancient earth
Wharton does a credible job of putting forward the reasons in support of an old earth creationist view. The underlining theme is one of the Perfect Purpose Paradigm (OEC) vs the Perfect Paradise Paradigm (YEC). Which boil down to what we interpret from God declaring his creation "very good". This is book gives theological reasons as opposed to more popular scientific reasons which I found very insightful. My only criticism is it can be very repetitive. He uses the same exact quotes from the same Young Earth Creationist e.g. Ken Ham, several times. Although this gets the desired effect of hitting the nail in the coffin so to speak, I feel I would have benefited from more quotes from other YEC proponents. All in all this is a must read for anyone interested in the theological discussion of creation and the age of the earth.
Wharton does a credible job of putting forward the reasons in support of an old earth creationist view. The underlining theme is one of the Perfect Purpose Paradigm (OEC) vs the Perfect Paradise Paradigm (YEC). Which boil down to what we interpret from God declaring his creation "very good". This is book gives theological reasons as opposed to more popular scientific reasons which I found very insightful. My only criticism is it can be very repetitive. He uses the same exact quotes from the same Young Earth Creationist e.g. Ken Ham, several times. Although this gets the desired effect of hitting the nail in the coffin so to speak, I feel I would have benefited from more quotes from other YEC proponents. All in all this is a must read for anyone interested in the theological discussion of creation and the age of the earth.
March 3, 2016
The problem of suffering and evil is one of the most persuasive challenges against the Christian worldview. As defenders of the true worldview, Christians need to be prepared to address this challenge. Interestingly enough, this challenge does not only come from unbelievers but also from those within the Church. The idea that animals died before humans arrived on the scene (and fell into sin) is a stumbling block for many to coming to Christ, yet the natural world tells of a history of animal suffering and death prior to humanity. It seems as though the scientific evidence and the claims of Christianity are at odds with one another. In his book "Peril In Paradise" Mark S. Whorton addresses this supposed incompatibility directly. His confrontation of the issue is in the context of a long discussion with Christians who support such an incompatibility (which appears to give the unbelievers' concern credibility).
See the full chapter-by-chapter review here: http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2015/...
See the full chapter-by-chapter review here: http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2015/...
June 2, 2016
Science and Faith go hand in hand.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews