Population Study Standoffby Brian Thomas, M.S. *Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Life Sciences › Man Was Created by

God› Man Was Recently and Miraculously Created in the Image of God

In 1975, ICR's founder and hydrological engineer Dr. Henry Morris made some interesting human

population calculations. He demonstrated the feasibility of obtaining today's world population in only

about 6,000 years.1 A new science study presents a very different version of human history—one in

which the population grew very slowly for 200,000 years.2 Which should we believe?

At stake lies the truthfulness of biblical statements such as "These were the families of the sons of

Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the

earth after the flood."3 Does the science in this new report debunk Dr. Morris' 40-year-old argument

and, by extension, the Bible?

H. Jabran Zahid of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge led a study that

estimated ancient human population growth rates. Their results, published in the Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), referred to 7,900 radiocarbon dates for burial sites in Wyoming

and Colorado. Their formulas showed an annual growth rate of 0.041%, or a human population

doubling every 1,700 or so years—far too slow to generate 7 billion people since the Flood about 4,300

years ago.

The study authors wrote, "A 0.04% rate of growth retrodicts a global human population of a few

individuals 50,000 years ago."2 However, Dr. Henry Morris' article noted that the actual growth rate

between 1650 AD and 1800 AD was about 0.33% per year. The rate has spiked to around 2.0%

worldwide in the last few centuries. Morris also noted that to obtain today's population from Adam

and Eve in only 6,000 years suggests a growth rate of about 0.5% per year. Basically, the biblical and

historical rates are both an order of magnitude (about ten times) faster than the one tied to secular

radiocarbon age estimates.

Which estimate should be trusted and why?

One quote gives the answer. According to PNAS, "To measure the rate of growth for 6,000-13,000 cal

BP [calibrated radiocarbon years before present],4 we fit a linear model to the logarithm of the SPD

[summed probability distribution] as a function of time. The slope of the fit is the exponential rate of

growth, which we report as an annual percentage."2 So, they fitted a model to time. Which timeline did

they use? The evolutionary timeline, of course.

These researchers assumed that ancient radiocarbon age estimates from the Western United States

generally correspond to actual calendar dates. In other words, they calculated growth rates by placing

population size estimates on an extra-long timeline. This circular procedure ensures a very slow

human population growth. No wonder it conflicts with biblical history.

In the same 1975 article Dr. Morris also wrote about secular scientists' speculations on ancient human

population growth, saying, "Such guesses are useless, however, because they are based on a

discredited model, that of human evolution."1 This new study confirms that secular ideas about ancient

humans, masked under complicated scientific procedures, still lean on human evolution as a

foundational assumption—four decades later.

The evolutionary idea that our population has grown so slowly that it would have taken over 50,000

years to reach today's numbers assumes the very age it asserts. It also flies in the face of historical

population growth rates—two good reasons to reject it. If rejected, then the old argument for biblical

history from human population growth rates still stands tall.5

References

1.Morris, H. M. 1975. Evolution and the Population Problem. Acts & Facts. 4 (1).

2.Zahid, H. J., E. Robinson, and R. L. Kelly. Agriculture, population growth, and statistical analysis of the radiocarbon record. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences. Published online before print December 22, 2015, accessed December 28, 2015.

3.Genesis 10:32.

4.This calibration procedure adjusts raw radiocarbon dates to more closely match a mixture of science-based and evolution-based expectations, shown

as a curve of radiocarbon age estimates on a timeline.

5.See also Thomas, B. Earth Hit the 7-Billion Mark Too Late. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org October 27, 2011, accessed December 29, 2015.

*Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.