Seven Myths about Ussher | NCSE

So why exactly would some religious dude's writings from 1650 have any bearing on modern day apologetics or in our case, counter-apologetics? Well, when one considers that some Young Earth Creationist (YEC) - who use Ussher's Chronology - accuse those of us who hold to the scientific view ("notion") of a 4.6-billion-year-old Earth as being circular in our argument, it poses a we bit of a conundrum (in the mind of the YEC).

You see, a YEC may say that in order to hold our scientific view (4.6 billion) and not the "biblical" view of 6,000-year-old earth, our scientific view is based on a prior rejection of the Biblical account. Makes sense, huh?

If P, then Q (If age of earth is 4.6 billion years, then Ussher is wrong)
P (Age of the earth is 4.6 billions years)
Therefore, Q (Ussher is wrong)

The problem with this, YECs are operating from the mind-set that all philosophical systems start with axioms, and deduce theorems from them. When in reality, science has only one axiom: that the scientific method is the best way of knowing things about the natural universe.

In other words, we know P to be true and valid. We know the age of the earth based on science and utilizing the scientific method. Unless you're willing to deny science,,,oh wait, they are!!

But anywhoo, this little piece by Glenn Branch is nice for two reasons.  It gives a bit of history of the Chronology as well as dispelling some of the myths.  Here are two I was guilty of:

Myth 4: Ussher’s estimate relied only on Biblical genealogies. In fact, if you try to add the ages and dates in the Bible, you’ll be stymied at various turns. Not only are different ages and dates given in different texts, but also there are gaps in the data (from the reign of Solomon to the Babylonian captivity; from the fifth century BCE to the birth of Jesus). Accordingly, Ussher consulted ancient records beyond the Bible; in fact, according to Martin Rudwick’s excellent new book Earth’s Deep History (2014), “[b]y far the greater part of Ussher’s evidence, like that of other chronologists, came not from the Bible but from ancient secular records” (emphasis in original).

Myth 5: Ussher’s chronology was antiscientific. On the contrary, while Ussher—who rejoiced in the ecclesiastical titles of Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland—certainly accepted the truth of the Bible, his purpose was to provide a scholarly, evidence-based, detailed history of the world. Stephen Jay Gould remarked in his “Fall in the House of Ussher” (1991) that “Ussher represented the best of scholarship in his time,” and Rudwick argues, “what 17th-century historians such as Ussher [or Newton!] were doing is connected without a break with what Earth scientists are doing in the modern world.” The fact that he lacked the tools available to today’s chronologists is not to his discredit.

Seven Myths about Ussher | NCSE