Why you should become a Bible-believing anarchist
who also believes the universe was created around 4004 B.C.
1. Newton vs. Henry Morris (20th-century strict creationist)
Chronology: Newton’s ~4000 BC creation date is well within the range of Morris’s own “young earth” framework (Morris usually said 6-10,000 years). Newton did not extend the age of the Earth beyond Scripture.
Six days: Newton did suggest the “days” of Genesis might not be strictly simultaneous or strictly 24-hour days in our modern sense, but he did not use that to expand the age of the Earth into millions of years. Morris, too, acknowledged some interpretive flexibility while insisting on a recent creation.
Authority of Scripture: Newton considered the Bible inspired and accurate for history and prophecy, and he made it the standard for chronology. Morris would have applauded this.
Separation of domains: Newton allowed that natural philosophy has its own proper sphere (“discourse of God from appearances”), while divinity has another (“from the Scriptures”). But he didn’t let “science” overturn the clear teaching of Scripture. Morris would not have been offended by that distinction, since Morris also accepted that science can study nature — just not contradict the Bible.
✅ Bottom line: Henry Morris would have regarded Newton as an ally. He might have differed on some hermeneutical niceties, but he would have found nothing fundamentally offensive in Newton’s chronology or epistemology.
2. Newton vs. Richard Dawkins (20th/21st-century atheist evolutionist)
Chronology: For Dawkins, any belief that the Earth is thousands rather than billions of years old is risible. Newton’s ~4000 BC creation date would be lumped with Morris’s view as “anti-scientific.”
Theology: Dawkins ridicules any appeal to divine creation. Newton’s insistence that God created atoms and governs the cosmos by His will would be mocked as “religious intrusion” into science.
Epistemology: Dawkins sees the “two books” approach as a false compromise. For him, Scripture is myth and should have no authority. Newton’s willingness to harmonize natural philosophy with divine revelation would strike Dawkins as naïve or intellectually dishonest.
✅ Bottom line: Richard Dawkins would ridicule Newton much as he ridicules Morris. From Dawkins’s vantage, both are guilty of subordinating science to biblical faith, even if Newton’s science was far ahead of his time.
3. Where Newton Really Sits
To a modern creationist (Morris): Newton is a kindred spirit, a Bible-believing scientist who got the chronology right.
To a modern evolutionist (Dawkins): Newton is just as superstitious as other pre-Darwin figures, despite his brilliance in mechanics and optics.
In historical context: Newton was not a “proto-evolutionist” or “proto-deep-time” thinker. He was a devout theist who worked hard to keep natural philosophy and theology in their lanes, but who never abandoned biblical chronology.
ߑ? So no, you’re not missing anything: Newton’s position would not offend Henry Morris. And yes, Dawkins would dismiss Newton as he does Morris — both are “creationists” in Dawkins’s sense.
If he could travel through time from his day to ours, how would Newton respond to the modern challenge that distant starlight proves his 4000 BC chronology was an error?
That’s a sharp question — because it pushes Newton’s own system (biblical chronology + natural philosophy) right up against one of the most common modern objections to young-earth creation: the problem of distant starlight. Here’s how Newton would likely respond, based on his writings and method:
1. Newton’s commitment to Scripture as infallible
Newton consistently insisted that when Scripture speaks of history and chronology, it is to be trusted.
In Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms, he rejected inflated pagan ages as “fabulous” and anchored all kingdoms after the Flood.
In his prophetic studies (Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse), he reaffirmed a literal timeline rooted in biblical revelation.
➡️ So, Newton would not say: “Ah, starlight proves Genesis wrong.” His reflex would be the opposite: “If there is an apparent conflict, we must be misinterpreting the science, because Scripture is certain.”
2. Newton’s concept of “laws” and providence
For Newton, “laws of nature” are not autonomous mechanisms; they are shorthand for God’s moment-by-moment providence, possibly mediated through angelic agency.
That means he would not treat the speed of light or the behavior of the heavens as independent of God. They are God’s ways of governing the cosmos.
➡️ Newton would be open to the idea that God created the heavens in such a way that light already reached the earth at creation, or that our assumptions about time, space, and light are incomplete.
3. Newton’s humility in science vs. certainty in revelation
Newton admitted repeatedly that much in natural philosophy is provisional. He used induction to describe patterns but always stopped short of claiming metaphysical certainty apart from revelation.
Example: “Hypotheses non fingo” (“I frame no hypotheses”) — his refusal to speculate about unobserved causes beyond what phenomena required.
➡️ Thus, he would be cautious about modern cosmological extrapolations billions of years into the past. He would likely say: “These are hypotheses, but Scripture is clear.”
4. Possible Newtonian responses to the starlight problem
If told in 2025, “But Newton, the light from distant galaxies proves the universe is billions of years old,” he might reply along lines like:
On creation: “The God who made heaven and earth could have created light already in transit to the earth, to declare His glory from the beginning (Psalm 19:1).”
On physics: “Your theory of light’s speed and constancy is but a human hypothesis. We know not whether God governs light differently over vast distances or times.”
On epistemology: “Scripture is certain; your astronomy is provisional. Where they seem to disagree, I stand with God’s Word.”
5. Why Newton would not abandon 4000 BC
To abandon 4000 BC would require Newton to abandon the theological foundation of his whole system: God’s providence + biblical revelation.
He was willing to correct chronology by a few years (Ussher vs. his 4000 BC) but not by millennia or eons.
His framework does not allow “distant starlight” to overturn Genesis; rather, it demands finding a theologically consistent explanation.
✅ In short:
Newton would not concede that starlight disproves Genesis. He would insist that Scripture governs history, and he would treat modern cosmology as provisional, subject to revision when it contradicts God’s Word. His likely answer would combine God’s providential governance of light with the provisional nature of human theories.
Would you like me to give you a “Newton-style” quote-paraphrase — a short, 3-4 sentence imagined reply in Newton’s own tone — as if he were answering Dawkins or a modern astronomer?
yes please
Here’s a Newton-style imagined reply in his own tone and vocabulary, based on his actual way of speaking in Principia, Chronology, and his biblical commentaries:
“The history delivered in Holy Scripture is certain, for it is the Word of God. The theories of men concerning the heavens are but conjectures drawn from appearances, mutable as our understanding is limited. If light be found in distant stars, the same God who made the stars might from the beginning have extended their beams to the earth, that they might declare His glory forthwith. Where sense and induction seem to cross the sacred history, I doubt not the error lies in our philosophy, not in the oracles of God.”
✅ That’s very close to how Newton would have argued:
Scripture = certainty.
Science = provisional.
Apparent contradictions = our error, not God’s.
Would you like me to also prepare a contrast “Dawkins-style” reply to the same issue, so you can see how modern atheists would caricature Newton’s position?
yes please
Here’s how a Dawkins-style reply might sound, if he were reacting to Newton holding to a 4000 BC creation in spite of distant starlight:
“This is precisely the problem with religious faith: it demands that we throw away evidence whenever it conflicts with ancient texts. We can measure the speed of light. We can see galaxies billions of light-years away. The light that has reached us is billions of years old — that is not conjecture, it is measurement. To claim that God created beams of light already in transit is to make the universe a cosmic fraud, a deception built to trick us into false conclusions. A truly scientific mind, even one as great as Newton’s, should not prefer sacred books to evidence.”
✅ This captures Dawkins’ typical lines of attack:
Science = measurement, certainty.
Faith = superstition, deception.
He would frame Newton’s response as “intellectual capitulation” to dogma.