The article "The Day-Age Theory" critiques the popular attempt to reconcile the Genesis creation account with geological timescales by interpreting the six "days" of creation as lengthy geological ages. The author, Henry M. Morris, argues that this interpretation is flawed both exegetically and scientifically. He emphasizes that the Hebrew word yom, while occasionally used in a general sense of "time," almost always refers to a literal day, especially when modified by a numeral and the phrase "evening and morning." Genesis 1:5 explicitly defines yom as the period of light in the day-night cycle, further solidifying its literal meaning. Morris contends that the day-age theory undermines the clarity and emphasis of the Genesis text, which intentionally depicts creation occurring in six literal days. Furthermore, he points out scientific contradictions within the day-age theory. For example, it necessitates the existence of vast spans of geological time between each creation day, yet the Genesis account already covers the creation of all major components of the universe. He also raises theological concerns, arguing that the day-age theory implies a God who creates through random, wasteful, and cruel processes, contradicting the Biblical depiction of a purposeful, orderly, and loving God. Morris concludes by refuting two variations of the day-age theory: the idea of lengthy periods between each literal day and the concept of the days representing periods of revelation. He maintains that the day-age theory, in any form, is biblically, scientifically, and theologically untenable and urges its rejection by Christians.