[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the April issue. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

Reason #4: We Want to Be Rational.

Scientists pride themselves on being rational, basing their conclusions on the evidence. Christians wish to do so as well, in keeping with Scripture’s teaching on the subject (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1). “Blind” (i.e., evidence-less) faith is unbiblical.¹

So, if Creation as it has been taught for thousands of years is correct, we want to know that fact, because we want to be rational, drawing the right conclusions. If Creation as it has been taught is incorrect, we want to know that, too! We want the truth, because we want to be rational. We want to, “Prove/test all things, hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Is the pursuit of sound conclusions a worthy reason to oppose Evolution when Evolution has proven to be an irrational theory?

Reason #5: We Want to Teach the Truth.

It is clear that “truth” is a theme in Scripture, on par with faith: coming to know the truth (1 Timothy 2:4); believing the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:12); obeying the truth (1 Peter 1:22); preaching the truth (Ephesians 4:15); telling the truth (Ephesians 4:25); walking in truth (2 John 1:4); doing the truth (John 3:21); working for truth (3 John 8); practicing the truth (1 John 1:6); following the way of truth (2 Peter 2:2); standing in the truth (John 8:44); girding our waist with truth (Ephesians 6:14); rightly dividing the truth (2 Timothy 2:15); worshipping in truth (John 4:24); and rejoicing in the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6). The truth is what sets us free (John 8:32). Jesus is described as “the Truth” (John 14:6).

According to 2 Thessalonians 2:10, loving the truth leads to salvation. Do we love the truth? If a person loves the truth taught in God’s Word—be it the truth about Creation or the Cross—will he not want to oppose those ideas he believes to be false and only teach true ideas to others (regardless of their popularity)?

Reason #6: Teaching Error is Sinful.

The Bible is explicit in its condemnation of teaching error regarding biblical matters. “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). When we want to believe or do what we want to believe or do, it is tempting to try to force the Bible to say what we want it to say, injecting our own ideas into the text (eisegesis), instead of letting the text interpret itself without our own preconceived biases (exegesis). Peter, however, warns about the result of “untaught and unstable people” twisting the Scriptures to fit their agenda. It will bring on their own “destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). Genesis 1 is as much Scripture as the rest of the Bible. Teaching error about Creation is just as wrong as teaching error about anything the Bible teaches.

In Job 13:7, Job defends himself against the accusations being made by his friends, who had claimed that God was punishing him for sinning. He warns his friends about putting words in God’s mouth saying, “Will you speak falsely for God?” (ESV). Would we want to attribute something to God that He did not do, or say He did something that He did not say? Would we want to claim that He did something—like Creation—in a way that He did not do it? In so doing, we become false witnesses for God!

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul gives a defense of the fact that, in the end, there will be a resurrection from the dead. Souls are not annihilated at death: there is an afterlife. Paul argues that, if there is no afterlife, then, contrary to the testimony of Paul and the apostles, Jesus was not resurrected. “Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not raise” (vs. 15). Would we want to be false witnesses of God, claiming He used Evolution, the Big Bang, and deep time, if He did not do so? If God did not use Darwinian Evolution, and Christians say He did, then are they not giving false testimony for God?

Undoubtedly, some people simply have not thoroughly examined the evidence concerning Evolution, deep time, and the Bible. Perhaps they have no opinion on the subjects because they do not care or because they humbly recognize that they currently have insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. Perhaps they lean for or against belief in Evolution due to the evidence they currently possess. We would not suggest that every person must necessarily passionately believe in a young Earth and a literal Creation to be saved. However, the moment a person begins definitively teaching and encouraging others to accept as true a particular position with biblical implications, he is bound by Scripture to “speak the oracles [i.e., utterances (NASB)/very words (NIV)] of God” (1 Peter 4:11). No matter the topic, a person should be careful to speak the truth in all things. If the truth can be known about something, the truth should be taught. If a person knows he is not, or cannot be, certain what the truth is on a subject, he should be careful not to speak definitively, instead using disclaimers (e.g., “might be,” “could be,” “seems,” etc.). On the other hand: if the evidence conclusively substantiates a truth, he should unashamedly teach it. We have yet to see a solid, reasonable case made for how Evolution and deep time should be drawn from the biblical text or injected into it. On the contrary, they have been shown to be lacking in essential scientific and biblical evidence. Should we not, therefore, if desiring to speak the oracles of God, teach against them?

Reason #7: Evolution Is a Dangerous Doctrine.

When a person thinks about Evolution academically and superficially, without considering its heinous implications and inevitable, deleterious effects on a society, he might fail to see the inherent danger in not speaking against it, much less promoting it. One might think that Evolution and morality can co-exist, especially if Theistic Evolution is accepted, instead of Naturalistic Evolution. However, as mentioned in Part I, belief in Theistic Evolution is a “gateway doctrine” which tends to lead towards faithlessness and belief in pure naturalism, as it did for Charles Darwin. While Darwin was a self-espoused orthodox Christian when he first wrote Origin of Species, upon dwelling on Evolutionary ideas, he “very gradually, with many fluctuations, became weaker” in his faith, ultimately becoming an agnostic. Later, he stated, “Then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions [i.e., belief in God—JM]?”² Evolution devastates faith, as it did its “Father.”

We have documented extensively elsewhere³ that when Evolutionary thinking is carried to its logical implications, society becomes dark, indeed. If students are taught their whole life that Evolution is true and, therefore, only the most fit will tend to survive by tooth and claw, what would we expect those students to be like after roughly two decades of indoctrination? If they are taught that “might makes right” in the Evolutionary paradigm (as opposed to Scripture defining what is right) and that humans are merely hairless apes, why would we not expect the emergence of a society populated by violent animals? Why would we not expect an immoral populace that uses weapons instead of intellects and takes what they want if they have the power and opportunity to do so?

Is it coincidence that over the last several decades, as Evolution (including Theistic Evolution) began being taught in earnest in U.S. public schools and churches, that the percentage of Americans who believe the Bible is the actual Word of God and is to be taken literally has steadily declined, while the percentage of Americans who believe the Bible to be a book of fables, history, and moral precepts recorded by man has steadily increased?⁴ Simultaneously, starting in the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. index crime rate, which includes the reported crimes of murder/manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft, began to skyrocket. The crime rate climbed from a steady yearly average of roughly 700 crimes per 100,000 people in the 30s-50s, to 6,000 crimes per 100,000 people—over 800% growth in 20 years.⁵ No doubt there were several contributing factors to the explosion of crime, but one would predict that the widespread teaching of Evolution would result in immorality and violence, since, as leading Evolutionists have acknowledged (including Darwin, himself), Evolution and morality are incompatible.

Famous evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins said, “Absolutist moral discrimination is devastatingly undermined by the fact of evolution.”⁶ Cornell University evolutionary biology professor William Provine, keynote speaker at the Darwin Day event at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, said, “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent…. The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them.”⁷ Charles Darwin said, “A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.”⁸ Is it any wonder that more and more people in society would live out the implications of Evolution if they are taught to believe that it is true?

What kind of things are implied by Evolution that would lead to a dark society? Consider Darwin’s own words in The Descent of Man:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature…. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.⁹

But why must we “bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind,” if there is no morality if Evolution is true? From serial murderer Jeffrey Dahmer¹⁰ (who murdered and dismembered 17 men and boys) to Pekka Auvinen (who massacred eight people in his school in Finland in 2007), calling himself a “natural selector” eliminating “all who I see unfit…, failures of natural selection,”¹¹ many have carried out the logical implications of their belief in Evolution. In 1999, Columbine High School shooter Eric Harris made his plans to put on his “natural selection” T-shirt and enter his high school to shoot dozens of students and teachers, stating in his personal writings that he would “kick natural selection up a few notches,” killing “whoever I deem unfit.”¹² Nazi Germany was, of course, the most notorious of those carrying out the implications of Darwinian Evolution, killing 6,000,000 Jews in Europe for being, in their view, “unfit.”¹³

As Richard Dawkins said concerning Evolution, “My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live.”¹⁴ If Evolution is false (along with its necessary foundation of an old Earth), would not a rational, moral person do everything in his power to oppose it?

Conclusion

Should a Christian accept Evolution and an old Earth to make the Bible more “palatable” and win more converts? Worded another way: if the Bible does not teach something, should we claim that it does if it will make more people happy with it? Should Christians adjust and compromise every Bible teaching that people have a problem with? Is that how God wants humans to treat Scripture?

One would think that the fallaciousness of such an approach would be self-evident. People have a problem with many more biblical doctrines than Creation and a young Earth. From miracles to the divinity of Christ to the Bible’s teaching about sexual immorality and divorce—the bulk of the world will not choose to accept God’s way. It has always been that way. Should Noah have adjusted his teachings to “save” more people on the Ark with him? We should not go beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6). We should not twist the Scriptures, or we are inviting our destruction (2 Peter 3:16).

Jesus certainly did not adjust His teachings to make them more palatable to people (which, ultimately, is why He was killed). Should we? Certainly not. In fact, Jesus directly warned His disciples that the world would hate them and their message (John 15:18-20). It will be considered foolishness to the world (1 Corinthians 1:18-25). It will be laughed at. Peter warned that scoffers who wish to live immoral lives will “willingly forget” Genesis 1 (Creation) and Genesis 6-9 (the global Flood of Noah’s day). They will belittle and make fun of the teachings of Christians on those subjects (2 Peter 3:3-6), but Peter warned that God “is not slack concerning His promise”: Judgment Day is coming just as certainly as Creation happened and the judgment of the Flood came, whether or not they wish to “willingly forget” that truth (vss. 7-13).

Few passages more directly apply to the mindset of those who advocate for Evolution than 2 Timothy 4:3-4: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” “Sound” doctrine refers to teachings that are healthy, logical, and rational—reasonable conclusions that follow from the evidence. Paul warns that some people would not just reject the evidence, they would not endure (“put up with”—NIV) it. By implication, they would actively try to fight it, because the implications of that evidence run counter to “their own desires.” They want to live the way they want to live without being accountable. They want to do that which is right in their own eyes. Their solution: surround themselves with “experts” who will tell them what they want to hear. With enough “smart people” bolstering their view, they can, with little bother from their conscience, believe in something that is not supported by either the Bible or legitimate scientific evidence.

If we are warned that many people will not accept the truth (regardless of how it is packaged), the Christian should realize that the packaging is not the real issue. Some people will not accept the truth. Period. So, why try to change the packaging to suit those who are not searching for the truth anyway and invite our own judgment? Why join the anti-Christian, ungodly forces of the world who wish to “suppress the truth [including Creation—JM] in unrighteousness” so that they can live as they want (Romans 1:18-32)? A Christian should never forget that Evolution is, first and foremost, a theory championed by “haters of God” (Romans 1:30). One should be very certain Evolution is true before endorsing such a dangerous doctrine (Romans 1:32) and supporting its promoters (2 Chronicles 19:2).

Christians should understand that most people are not going to like or accept what the Bible teaches on many subjects (Matthew 7:13-14), but boldly and lovingly teach them anyway. “Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech” (2 Corinthians 3:12). We should not be ashamed of the Bible’s teaching on any subject, nor should we be shaken by those who scoff at us. Evolution not only has no evidence to support its most basic tenets, it actually stands against mounds of scientific evidence which refutes it.¹⁵ Belief in Evolution is, therefore, not only dangerous, but irrational. “Buy the truth, and do not sell it” (Proverbs 23:23). Defend the truth (1 Peter 3:15), contending earnestly for it (Jude 3). “Preach the word” always (2 Timothy 4:2), regardless of its popularity.

Endnotes

_¹ Dave Miller (2003), “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/blind-faith-444/.

² Charles Darwin (1887), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin: Volume 1, The Project Gutenberg EBook of the Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume I (of II), by Charles Darwin, Chapter 1.VIII.—Religion, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2087/2087-h/2087-h.htm.

³ Kyle Butt (2008), “The Bitter Fruits of Atheism (Part 1),” Reason & Revelation, 28[7]:49-55, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/0807.pdf.

⁴ Lydia Saad (2017), “Record Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God,” GALLUP On-line, May 15, https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx.

⁵ “Uniform Crime Reports, 1933-1998,” Federal Bureau of Investigation, https://www.jrsa.org/projects/Historical.pdf.

⁶ Richard Dawkins (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin), p. 301.

⁷ William Provine (1998), “Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life,” emp. added, http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/DarwinDayProvineAddress.htm.

⁸ Charles Darwin (1958), The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Barlow, (New York: W.W. Norton), p. 94.

⁹ Charles Darwin (1874), The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, The Project Gutenberg EBook of the Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, Natural Selection as Affecting Civilised Nations, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2300/2300-h/2300-h.htm, emp. added.

¹⁰ Stone Phillips (1994), Interview with Jeffrey and Lionel Dahmer, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjW7bezdddE.

¹¹ “Teen Dead Who Opened Fire on Finnish Classmates, Police Say” (2007), CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/07/school.shooting/ index.html.

¹² “Eric Harris’ Journal,” transcribed by Peter Langman, 2014, https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/harris_journal_1.3.pdf. 

¹³ Kyle Butt (2001), “Hitler—The Ultimate Evolutionist,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/hitlerthe-ultimate-evolutionist-866/.

¹⁴ Richard Dawkins (1989), The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 2-3, emp. added.

¹⁵ Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

The post Should Christians Accept Evolution and an Old Earth to Win Converts? (Part 2) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is the first installment in a two-part series. Part II will appear in the May issue of R&R.]

We regularly encounter secular individuals who scoff at our strong stand against Evolution¹ and its claim of a billions-of-years old Universe. From time to time, however, we encounter Bible-believing, self-identifying Christians who vehemently oppose our work on those subjects as well. They often argue that our teaching on a literal six-day Creation week 6-8,000 years ago causes many people immediately to reject Christianity and the Bible, since such positions seem far-fetched to some. They believe we should “back off” of such subjects so that more people will consider Christianity to be palatable and come to Christ. We should, they argue, accept, along with the Bible, mainstream scientific thinking on Evolution and the age of the Earth, allowing for compromises like “theistic evolution” and “progressive creationism.” Why do we oppose Evolution and an old Earth? Should we? Are we running off potential converts and keeping people from Christ?

In truth, we can show, through our correspondence with our audience over the years, that our positions on Evolution and the age of the Earth have actually caused many to develop more faith in Scripture and, subsequently, come to Christ. It is, however, no doubt true in some cases that there are people who “write off” Christianity because of “Young Earth Creationist” teachings. So, should we teach Creation/anti-Evolution more and help strengthen faith? Or should we teach the subjects less and “run fewer people off”? Ultimately, the answer is not up to us and our opinion. We must use reason and revelation from God to determine what God would have us to do. Here are seven reasons we believe it to be essential to oppose Evolution and an old Earth.

Reason #1: If Evolution Is Right, then the Bible Is Wrong

First, if evolutionary theory is true, then the Genesis account of Creation is, at best, misleading and, at worst, inaccurate—which would categorize the Bible as uninspired. Genesis 1-11 is straightforward in its declaration that the Universe was created in six literal days, and it gives no indication that it should be taken in any other way. It is not couched in figurative or poetic language, like that found in other places in Scripture. It is narrative, reporting history, and is treated as such throughout the rest of Scripture, by virtually every New Testament writer and by Christ, Himself.²

Some, attempting to inject a figurative meaning of “day” into Genesis 1, argue “The days of Genesis 1 could be millions of years each, because, with God, a day is the same thing as a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8—‘…with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’). So, God could’ve meant that each day was long.” Is 2 Peter 3:8 truly justification for inflating the days of Genesis 1? A careful study of 2 Peter 3:8 (e.g., the dual use of the word “as”) and the surrounding context³ reveals that 2 Peter 3:8 is utilizing simile, a figure of speech not to be taken literally, comparable to that used in Psalm 90:4—“For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night.” Second Peter 3:8 in no way teaches that every time the word “day” is used in conjunction with God’s activity in the Bible, we must convert the word “day” into 1,000 Earth years—as though God simply is not capable of communicating with humans using human language. Even if such were the case, 1,000 years is a far cry from 2,300,000,000 years, which is closer to the length each Creation day would have to be to attempt to make Genesis 1 fit with the current conventional age of the Universe.

In truth, Moses used practically every means at his disposal in the Hebrew language to convey the idea that the Creation of the entire Universe consisted of six normal days, not millions or billions of years in length, and without gaps before or in between them.⁴ The Hebrew word for “day” that is used in Genesis 1 is yom, and it almost always means either a full 24-hour day or the 12-hour period of daylight. Some argue, however, that in some cases, yom can mean a general, rather than specific, period of time like, for example, “In my day, we walked everywhere.”⁵ As in modern English, the context of a statement must be used to determine how a word that has multiple meanings is being used. We do so constantly, without a second thought. “In my day, we went to the store during the day, and we didn’t wait three days to get it done.” We have no problem understanding what that sentence means, even though “day” is used in three different ways in the same sentence. Contextual clues help the reader to interpret the uses of “day” correctly.

Similarly, Moses helped his audience to understand his use of the word “day” in reference to the six days of Creation by, for example, modifying it with numbers: “So the evening and the morning were the first day” (1:5); “…second day” (1:8); “…third day” (1:13); etc. Using numbers in conjunction with the word “day” limits its meaning to normal days. Moses further helped his audience by using the words “evening” and “morning” in conjunction with “day.” In the words of Hebrew scholar, Justin Rogers, “While it is true that the Hebrew term ‘day’ can be used in a nonliteral sense in other contexts, the terms ‘evening’ (‘erev) and ‘morning’ (bōqer) are always used in a literal sense…. There is to my knowledge no place in the Bible in which the terms ‘evening and morning’ refer to a broad scope of time. They are always literal….”⁶ Ironically, Moses could have used the Hebrew word, dor, which refers to a long period of time (an “age” or “generation”), but he did not. He used yom, modified it with numbers, and used “evening” and “morning” with the word, clearing up any confusion about its meaning. There is little more he could do to communicate to his audience on behalf of God that the days of Genesis 1 were normal days.

Later in his writings, in Exodus 20:11, Moses clarified his meaning in Genesis 1 once again. “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the Earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day….” One would have to be unwilling to accept Moses’ clear declaration to misunderstand his meaning. What aspect of the Universe is left outside of the heavens (i.e., space), the Earth, the sea, and all that is in them? According to Moses, the Universe was not created gradually, in steps over eons of time.⁷ Everything was created in six days, not six billion years, and God rested on the seventh day.

Notably, the seven-day week concept, which characterizes Jewish and Christian calendars, is based on that idea, with the Jews celebrating the Sabbath on the literal seventh day of every literal week, not the seventh billion “years.” Question: did the Jews get it wrong? Did they misunderstand Moses? No. The Jews kept the Sabbath day after every six literal days of every literal week, and if they did not keep the Sabbath Day correctly, they would have been executed (Exodus 31:14), as was the case in an incident recorded in Numbers 15:32-36. Proper observance of the Sabbath Day was crucial to the Jews. They recognized that they were to mirror their weeks after Creation week.

If Evolution and deep time⁸ are right, then Moses was wrong in his writings, implying that the first five books of the Bible are uninspired. But that would not be the extent of the damage. Was Paul wrong when, in referring to man, he highlighted in Romans 1:18-32 that God’s attributes have been clearly seen “since the creation of the world”? If man did not arrive until roughly two million years ago, then he was not around anywhere near the Creation of the world based on the deep-time Evolution timeline. If Paul is wrong, then how can Romans through Philemon—the bulk of the New Testament—be inspired?

But it gets even worse: in Luke 11:50-51, Jesus said that the shedding of Abel’s blood occurred at “the foundation of the world.” According to Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and deep time, the Earth formed roughly 4.54 billion years ago. Humans, once again, did not arrive on the scene until roughly two million years ago. In other words, humans arrived on the scene at the very end of the world as we know it, not its “foundation.” According to the Big Bang model, 99.96% of the Earth’s existence was spent without humans. In Mark 10:6, Jesus said God made man “from the beginning of creation, male and female,” quoting from Genesis 1:27—the creation of humans. Again, according to modern “science,” the Universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old, meaning that humans were not around “from the beginning of creation.” Instead, 99.99% of the time that the Universe was in existence passed prior to the emergence of humans. Was Jesus wrong? If so, He is not deity, and our faith is in vain.

The Hebrew language does not allow for Evolution and an old Earth in the Bible. The Bible writers do not allow them. Jesus, Himself, does not allow them. And, ironically, Evolution itself will not allow a merger with the Bible, either.

• According to Genesis 1, the formless Earth was created initially (1:1), prior to the creation of the stars on Day 4 (1:14-18). The Big Bang model has our solar system beginning to form roughly nine billion years after the first stars began to form.
• According to the Bible, the Earth was initially covered with water (Genesis 1:2,6),⁹ while popular science today argues that the Earth was initially molten.
• The Big Bang model postulates that our Sun formed roughly 3.9 billion years before the first land plants evolved on Earth. The biblical model places the creation of plants on Day 3 and the Sun on Day 4. If there was a gap of time between Days 3 and 4 (i.e., Multiple Gap Theory) or if each day was millions of years in length (i.e., Day Age Theory), how did the plants survive without photosynthesis throughout the long period of darkness/night (1:5)?
• Many plants require pollination and symbiotic relationships with flying creatures, but flying creatures were created two days after the plants (1:11-13,21-23), according to Genesis 1. If these days were millions of years in length, or if gaps of time existed between the Creation days, how did the plants survive for millions of years without their pollinators?
• The Big Bang model claims that fish preceded the evolution of fruit trees by hundreds of millions of years, while the biblical model states that fruit trees (1:12) were created two days prior to the swimming creatures (1:21).
• The evolutionary model claims that birds evolved from the dinosaurs, while the biblical model states that the flying creatures were created on Day 5 (1:21) and land creatures (including the dinosaurs) were created on Day 6 (1:24).

Bottom line: the Bible does not allow for Evolution or the injection of billions of years into Genesis 1. Either Evolution/old Earth are right and the Bible and Christ are wrong, or Evolution/old Earth are wrong and should be rejected as false and taught as such. Question: should we cease opposing Evolution to attract more potential converts, if such a position implies that the Bible and Christ are wrong and the basis of our faith is null and void?

Reason #2: Belief in Creation Is A Matter of Faith

If a person without any preconceived ideas about the origin of the Universe picks up the Bible and simply reads Genesis 1, taking it at face value, he will not arrive at the conclusion that Evolution or the Big Bang Theory are responsible for the origin of the Universe and life. Let an eight-year-old child read Genesis 1 and wait to see if he decides on his own that the text teaches the Gap Theory, the Day-Age Theory, the Modified Gap Theory, the Multiple Gap Theory, or Progressive Creationism. Obviously, that would not happen without prompting from others. In fact, the unambiguous teaching of Genesis 1 about Creation is surely the reason why few have dreamed up such theories after reading Genesis 1 without prompting from some other (non-biblical) source. Now, the important question: what changed?

The answer is clear, is it not—especially to naturalists, skeptics, and atheists? In the 1800s, anti-Bible sentiment was gaining popularity in the world, and individuals like Charles Darwin and James Hutton arrived on the scene, developing and popularizing naturalistic (rather than supernaturalistic) science, Darwinian Evolution, and uniformitarian geology (all of which require an old Universe). Literal, biblical Creation and catastrophism (the global Flood) had been the mainstream beliefs in “Christian” nations, and naturalism, Evolution, and uniformitarianism began to replace them. Since such beliefs were becoming mainstream in scientific circles and anything involving supernatural activity was beginning to be viewed as “unenlightened,” preposterous, and outdated, many scientists felt compelled to believe them. As scientists within Christendom began considering the new theories and feeling pressure from their peers, their biblical positions were naturally affected. Their faith in what Scripture plainly teaches was shaken.

It is likely the case that evidence was presented to the Bible-believer that caused him to question and, ultimately, re-interpret Scripture’s clear meaning. Every evidence that has been brought forth to substantiate Evolution and an old Earth, however, has been shown to be erroneous, irrelevant, or inadequate.¹⁰ Logically, then, why would a person attempt to twist the Scriptures to force an unwarranted interpretation? Is peer pressure a legitimate reason to re-interpret Scripture? Certainly not (Exodus 23:2). Should a person put his faith in popular scientists over the straightforward teaching of God’s inspired Word?¹¹

Notice, then, that if a person capitulates to the irrational, self-contradictory worldview¹² of the admittedly naturalistic scientific community over Scripture, it becomes a faith issue.¹³ Such a person is failing to believe what God said and is putting his faith in naturalistic science instead. “But without faith it is impossible to please Him…” (Hebrews 11:6). That truth makes opposition to Evolution an essential aspect of apologetics and evangelism, does it not?

Reason #3: If Evolution Is Right, Then We Can’t Trust Anything in the Bible

Since Genesis 1 has all the indicators of being a description of literal history,¹⁴ if Evolution is true anyway, then Genesis 1 cannot be what it seems to be. It must be figurative, poetic, mythic, and non-literal, despite its narrative indicators. Hebrew scholar Steven Boyd conducted a statistical analysis of words in 97 poetic and narrative biblical texts and showed that Genesis 1:1-2:3 unquestionably belong in the narrative category.¹⁵

So, if Genesis 1 should be interpreted as being non-historical, despite the evidence against that interpretation, then how can the proper interpretation of anything in the Bible be conclusively known? Anything and everything in the Bible becomes questionable as to whether it should be taken literally. Did the miracles of Christ actually happen, or are they to be taken figuratively? Was He really born of a virgin, or are Matthew and Luke speaking hyperbolically? Are murder or adultery prohibitions to be taken literally? Accepting Evolution causes faith in Scripture to crumble, leading man to do what is “right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6).

In many cases, Evolution is a doctrine that, in the long run, undermines faith in the Bible and, therefore, leads many into total faithlessness.¹⁶ Why? One reason is summarized well by famous skeptic Michael Shermer: “[I]t doesn’t take a rocket scientist—or an English naturalist—to understand why the theory of the origin of species by means of natural selection would be so controversial: If new species are created naturally, what place, then, for God?”¹⁷ Further, the Bible becomes less trustworthy when we reject its straightforward teachings. If a person cannot trust the Bible’s most basic, clear, obvious teachings, how can he trust any of the Bible? How can he know with certainty what the Bible actually teaches?

In John 5:47, Jesus, in discussing the writings of Moses, said, “if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” If a person is unwilling to believe Moses’ account of Creation, then, according to Jesus, it will ultimately impact his faith in Christ. Is that not an important reason to oppose Evolution?

(to be continued)

Endnotes

¹ In this article, by “Evolution” (uppercase “E”) we mean “molecules-to-man Evolution,” which generally includes the Big Bang Theory coupled with Darwinian Evolution (i.e., the Theory of Evolution or Macroevolution). We distinguish “Evolution” in that sense from “evolution” (or microevolution). Microevolution (which, unlike Evolution, has been demonstrated in the real world and which does not contradict the Bible) refers to small changes within clearly established groups of creatures, amounting to mere variety. Microevolution occurs within phylogenic boundaries that disallow evolution beyond divinely defined limits (Genesis 1:24; Galatians 6:7).

² Dave Miller (2020), “Genesis: Myth or History?” Reason & Revelation, 40[5]:50-57, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2005-web.pdf.

³ Eric Lyons (2007), “‘With God One Day is a Thousand Years’?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/with-god-one-day-is-a-thousand-years-2191/. 

⁴ Cf. Justin Rogers (2015), “Does the Hebrew Word Yom Endorse an Old Earth?” Reason & Revelation, 35[9]:98-100, September, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1509w.pdf; Justin Rogers (2015), “Is Gap Theory Linguistically Viable?” Reason & Revelation, 35[12]:134-141, December, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1512.pdf.

⁵ Cf. Genesis 26:18; Joshua 24:31; Genesis 2:4.

⁶ Rogers, “Does the Hebrew…,” pp. 99-100, emp. in orig.

⁷ Contrary to the Gap Theory and its varieties.

⁸ i.e., a billions-of-years-old Universe.

⁹ Or possibly composed of water (cf. 2 Peter 3:5, ESV).

1⁰ See www.apologeticspress.org.

¹¹ For evidence of the Bible’s inspiration, see Kyle Butt (2022), Is the Bible God’s Word? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press); Dave Miller (2020), The Bible is from God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

¹² Jeff Miller (2012), “The Atheistic Naturalist’s Self-Contradiction,” Reason & Revelation Resources, 31[5]:53, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1205.pdf.

¹³ This is not to say that all Evolutionists have accepted Evolution due to peer pressure.

¹⁴ Cf. Dave Miller, “Genesis: Myth of History?”

¹⁵ Don DeYoung (2008), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books), pp. 157ff.

¹⁶ Jeff Miller (2012), “Literal Creationists Holding Their Ground in the Polls,” Reason & Revelation, 32[9]:94-95, September, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1209w.pdf.

¹⁷ Michael Shermer (2007), Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design (New York, NY: Henry Holt), Kindle edition, Loc. 115.

The post Should Christians Accept Evolution and an Old Earth to Win Converts? (Part 1) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Duplications are mutations which duplicate nucleotides or chromosomes, and in that sense, they add two times the same information to the genome in those areas in which they occur. Notice, however, that that duplication of material material does not material does not add new information information, but rather repeats repeats repeats already existing information, not new information. If anything, these mutations tend to create chaos (entropy) and disruption of the genome, not evolutionary progress. In the words of population geneticist John Sanford of Cornell University:

It is widely recognized that duplication, whether within a written text or within the living genome, destroys information. Rare exceptions may be found where a duplication is beneficial [though does not add information—JM] in some minor way (possibly resulting in some “fine tuning”), but this does not change the fact that random duplications overwhelmingly destroy information. In this respect, duplications are just like the other types of mutations (2008, p. 194, emp. added).

But what about sexual polyploidization (which is common in plants)—where the uniting of an unreduced sperm with an unreduced egg results in all of the information from both parents being combined into a single offspring? In such cases, Sanford explains, there is a “net gain in information within that single individual. But there is no more total information within the population. The information within the two parents was simply pooled” (p. 195). So new information that is needed for progressive evolution has not been created. Inter-kind or macroevolution has not occurred.

Symbiogenesis theory results in a similar effect. Some evolutionists believe that two separate, symbiotic organisms (e.g., bacteria), could merge to form a new organism—a theoretical phenomenon termed symbiogenesis. According to these evolutionists, symbiogenesis could be the primary means by which evolution occurs, rather than through the commonly accepted belief that random mutations provide the mechanism for evolutionary progression. Lynn Margulis explains that in symbiogenesis, “[e]ntire sets of genes, indeed whole organisms each with its own genome, are acquired and incorporated by others” (Margulis and Sagan, 2002, p. 12). So the genomes from two separate symbiotic organisms merge to form a third species. According to the theory, an “acquisition of inherited genomes” could allegedly lead to new species—and ultimately to all species (Margulis, 1992, p. 39).

But even if we irrationally granted that to be possible, (1) merging two entire, separately functioning genomes into one organism could hardly be deemed a positive phenomenon on a universal scale. Rather, it would be catastrophic. Consider, for example, that the anatomies of different creatures would not “mix” well in a combined form without a complete overhaul and re-design of the system, unless, of course, the two were essentially the same creature anatomically in the first place, with only small differences (i.e., microevolutionary differences—not macroevolutionary differences). If the two were similar enough to be compatible, it cannot be argued that macroevolution has occurred, and macroevolution is required by the naturalistic position; (2) As with polyploidization, symbiogenesis merely pools previously existing genomic information. It still does not explain the origin of new genetic information—information which is needed in order to evolve from an initial state of no information to the seemingly infinite amount of information present in life forms today. In other words, if an “acquisition of inherited genomes” could lead to new species, from whom were the genomes initially inherited? A genome-less organism? How could a genome be inherited from an organism without one? Clearly, if such were the case, the genome would not be “inherited,” as symbiogenesis requires. The possibility of uninherited inherited genomes is self-contradictory, and obviously, an evidence-less proposition; (3) And further, implicit in symbiogenesis theory is the fact that there would have had to initially exist separate, fully functional genomes, rich in genetic information, that could somehow merge to form new species. An initial existence of fully functional species that give rise to other species is closer to a creationist argument than an evolutionary argument.

Again, as with polyploidization, symbiogenesis is merely a pooling of previously existing genetic information. It is far from being the creation of new genetic information. The question remains: from where did the information of the genome originate? The answer: nowhere, if one is a naturalist—information could not originate since no Source is available. And yet the information had to come from somewhere. Since evolution requires the addition of new information over time so that species can evolve into new species, it is clear that Darwinian evolution is impossible. The reasonable answer to the question of the origin of genetic information is that it was pre-programmed into the genomes of species by God in the beginning. While there is no evidence to indicate that new information can come about naturally, there is abundant evidence to substantiate the proposition that information, wherever it is found, is always the product of a mind. Why not stand with the evidence? God exists. Creation is true.

REFERENCES

Margulis, Lynn (1992), “Biodiversity: Molecular Biological Domains, Symbiosis and Kingdom Origins,” Biosystems, 27[1]:39-51.

Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan (2002), Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species (New York: Basic Books).

Sanford, J.C. (2008), Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications), Kindle file.

The post “Don’t Duplications, Polyploidy, and Symbiogenesis ADD Material to the Genome?” appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In the nineteenth century, German scientist Rudolf Virchow expanded scientific understanding of the Law of Bio­genesis. Virchow “recognized that all cells come from cells by binary fusion” (“Definition…,” 2006). In 1858, he made the discovery for which he is well-known—“omnis cellula e cellula”—“every cell originates from another existing cell like it” (Gallik, 2013, emp. added). The Encyclopaedia Britannica says, concerning Virchow, “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’…ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (‘every living thing [arises] from a [preexisting] living thing’) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology” (see “Rudolf Virchow,” 1973, 23:35, emp. added, parenthetical items and brackets in orig.). So, in nature, life comes from life of its own kind.

In the words of the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, “biogenesis” is the “development of a living organism from a similar living organism” (2003, p. 239, emp. added). In the words of Stephen Meyer, whose doctoral dissertation at Cambridge University was in origin-of-life biology, “From ancient times, humans have known a few basic facts about living things. The first is that all life comes from life. Omne vivum ex vivo. The second is that when living things reproduce themselves, the resulting offspring resemble their parents. Like produces like” (2009, Ch. 3, italics in orig., emp. added). For the same reason that dog-like creatures do not give birth to cats, horse-like creatures do not produce pigs, and frog-like creatures do not have snakes, it is also true that ape-like creatures do not give rise to humans. However, if evolutionary theory is true, this is, in essence, what happened.

Even if a miraculous occurrence of abiogenesis were granted, this chasm still remains for the evolutionist to cross in order for his theory to be true. Perhaps you have seen the standard pictures illustrating the gradual evolution of man from ape-like creatures? Evolutionists draw such pictures and proudly pronounce such ideas to be plausible and even factual. The result: Millions of disciples have been made. However, the Law of Biogenesis stands in the way of this assertion, because evolution requires that creatures do not give rise to other creatures like themselves.

In the field of philosophy, there is a law of logic known as the Law of Excluded Middle, which says that every precisely stated proposition is either true or false (Jevons, 1888, p. 119). As long as one precisely states a proposition, it can be known to be either true or false. If we define a bald person as a person having fewer than 200 hairs on his head, then every person is either bald or not bald. Similarly, as long as we precisely define what a human being is (and scientists have done so), every creature either is or is not human. In order for evolution to be true, the evolutionist must argue that a non-human has, in fact, given rise to a human at some point in the past—either by birth or by transformation (i.e., a non-human suddenly transformed into a human while alive). A proponent of transformation would likely be scoffed at, and the birth of a human from a non-human would violate the Law of Biogenesis. So, again, evolutionary theory is left with a gaping chasm that it cannot cross in hopes of attaining validity.

In the timeless 1976 debate on the existence of God, philosopher and creationist Thomas Warren asked renowned, atheistic, evolutionary philosopher Antony Flew, of the University of Reading in England, questions pertaining to this quandary. Did a non-human being ever transform into or give birth to a human being? Flew could not answer this question in the affirmative and still retain credibility, in light of common sense, as well as the Law of Biogenesis. So, he rightly answered in the negative—tacitly yielding the evolutionary position (Flew and Warren, 1977, p. 248). When pressed further about the implications of his admission, unwilling to concede God, Flew moved into the realm of irrationality. He stated:

The position is that there are of course lots of cases where you can say without hesitation: “It is a lion, it is a horse, it is a man or it is not a man.” But it is, it seems to me a consequence of evolutionary theory that species shade off into one another. Hence when you are confronted by marginal cases, you cannot say this is definitely human or this is not definitely human (p. 25, emp. added).

So, there are creatures that are neither human nor non-human? As Warren stated in his rebuttal, such an illogical position denies the firmly established Law of Excluded Middle. As long as a “human” is precisely defined, everything is either human or not human. It is logically impossible to be neither human nor non-human. The more Warren pressed Flew on this matter, the more illogical Flew was required to become in order to hold to his position.

In his final speech on the first night of the debate, Flew shocked the audience when he stated: “About whether I have met anyone who was not unequivocally either human or non-human: yes, I am afraid I have. I have met people who were very senile. I have also met people who were mad…. Can we say that these former people are people any longer?” (p. 65). Senile and mad people are non-humans? There are several problems with such a position. First, common sense dictates that such people are still human. Second, as long as “human” is precisely defined, the Law of Excluded Middle still applies. Third, Flew tacitly (certainly unconsciously) acknowledged that the “senile” and “mad” are actually human by using the word “people” in conjunction with them. “I have met people who were very senile. I have also met people who were mad.” Fourth, notice that he argues that such people may be considered non-human. He does not say that they are neither human nor non-human. “Can we say that these former people are people any longer?” He therefore admitted, unwittingly, that any being can be defined as human or non-human, even if his definition of a human is a ridiculous one. [NOTE: Flew’s examples (i.e., senility and madness), even if they were erroneously conceded as legitimate examples of Darwinian evolution, were actually counterproductive to his case, since they would only illustrate that digression occurs in evolution, rather than progression.]

The bottom line is that every being is either human or non-human. In order for evolution to be true, a non-human had to give rise to a human at some point in the past—either by transformation or birth. Based on the scientific evidence, neither is possible. And yet, there is no other option for the evolutionist, unless he contends that the first human just popped intact into existence spontaneously—like a fairy or like a mythical dwarf springing from the ground. And yet this assertion would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics (cf. Miller, 2013), the Law of Biogenesis (cf. Miller, 2012), and, of course, reason itself. Life comes from life of its own kind. Period.

Even the evolutionary textbooks admit as much. Concerning the reproduction of living organisms, Prentice Hall’s textbook, Life Science, states: “Another characteristic of organisms is the ability to reproduce, or produce offspring that are similar to the parents. For example, robins lay eggs that develop into young robins that closely resemble their parents” (Coolidge-Stolz, et al., 2005, p. 35, emp. added). Robins make robins. There may be small differences in color, height, beak size, etc. However, the offspring is still a robin—not a shark and not a hawk. Evolutionary theory is not in keeping with the scientific evidence. However, the biblical model, once again, is in perfect harmony with the scientific evidence. God, the Being Who wrote the Law of Biogenesis, created life (Genesis 2:7; Acts 17:25) and made it to produce after its kind (Genesis 1:11,24).

Genetics vs. Evolution

But hasn’t genetics proved that evolution can happen through genetic mutations? Gregor Mendel is known by many today as the “Father of Genetics” (Considine, 1976, p. 1155). His work led to the series of genetic principles known as “Mendel’s laws” (Davis and Kenyon, 1989, p. 60). After his work was published in the Transactions of the Natural History Society of Brünn, his work was left essentially untouched and unknown for some 35 years, until other well-known geneticists conducted research which cited his. One of those—Hugo de Vries, a Dutch evolutionary botanist—is credited with having discovered the existence of genetic mutations (“Hugo de Vries,” 2013).

The Evolution of Evolution

The Law of Biogenesis’ claim that life reproduces according to its kind, while arguably macroscopic in its application to biogenesis, is in keeping with the evidence at the genetic level as well. It provides further support for that important concept: life reproduces according to its kind.

Darwin’s theory of evolution has, itself, evolved over the decades. With further scientific investigation into the legitimacy of Darwin’s theory, time and again, evolutionists have been forced to admit that the current version of evolution cannot do what they previously thought it could. It never completely lines up with the evidence. The alleged evolutionary timeline, therefore, must be revised constantly: dates change as to when various animals lived in the distant past; the order of evolutionary development is endlessly revised; new theories attempting to explain why various animals developed particular body parts are constantly being developed. The theory of evolution evolves.

And truly, the evolution of evolution is not a process that has been in effect for only a few decades. Evolution itself did not originate with Charles Darwin. Forms of evolution have been considered for millennia, at least as far back as the 600s B.C., with Thales and his Milesian school and the Ionian school (Conford, 1957). And for millennia, those ideas have had to be continually revised to attempt to stay in keeping with the latest scientific understanding.

While it is true that one should expect scientific theories to be revised to a certain extent over time—revisions amounting to fine-tuning—the evolutionary model is not merely revised. It periodically requires complete overhauls in broad, fundamental areas of the theory that evolutionists had previously proclaimed as established fact (cf. Thompson, 1981; www.apologeticspress.org). The late, distinguished astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of astronomy and applied mathematics at University College, Cardiff, Wales, noted that we should “be suspicious of a theory if more and more hypotheses are needed to support it” (1981, p. 135). The Alcoholics Anonymous definition of “insanity” comes to mind: doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results. At some point, when attempts to prove a theory result in multiple, successive roadblocks, the sane person must surely ponder, “Maybe we should scrap this theory and start over.”

Regardless, Darwin came along at the right time in history for evolutionary theory to “take off” and gain followers. This circumstance was due to various reasons, not the least of which is surely the fact that he gave the irreligious a “respectable” reason to reject God. The result: Darwin is typically considered the “Father” of evolution.

Natural Selection and Neo-Darwinism

As is implied by the title of Darwin’s famous book (i.e., The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection…, 1859), the fundamental premise of Darwinian evolution was originally natural selection. Natural selection is the idea that nature selects those species that are most “fit” or suited to a particular environment for survival. Those species which are not as well-suited, and which do not migrate to environments more conducive to their anatomy, will die out. That idea is largely true and observable, and the creationist has no problem with it. It does not contradict the evidence or the Creation model.

The problem is that Darwin believed natural selection could be the means by which his evolutionary theory could happen—the mechanism that would accommodate the idea that all forms of life came about from previously existing, less complex life, starting with a single cell eons ago. But while natural selection might filter the unfit from a given population, it is not capable of creating anything—especially species that are not only complex, but more complex than their ancestors. John Sanford, co-inventor of the “Biolistic Particle Delivery System” (i.e., the “gene gun”), is one of the few elite individuals with the title of “population geneticist.” His Ph.D. in plant breeding and genetics, and years of further research in genetic engineering, as well as his position as a professor at Cornell University, placed him on the front lines of the scientific community in gathering evidence for and against natural selection and evolution. His work in plant genetics led him from being an ardent atheistic evolutionist to being a creationist. In his book, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, Sanford explained:

For many people, including many biologists, natural selection is like a magic wand. There seems to be no limit to what one can imagine it accomplishing. This extremely naïve perspective toward natural selection is pervasive…. [N]atural selection is not a magic wand but is a very real phenomenon, it has very real capabilities and very real limitations. It is not all-powerful (2008, p. 46, italics in orig.).

Scientists have realized today that Darwin was wrong. Natural selection alone would not suffice to cause evolution to occur. Evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University once explained, “The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well” (1977, p. 28, emp. added). Therein lies the problem. Evolutionists recognize today that they cannot even claim that natural selection could create the fit. Hugo de Vries long ago said, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest” (1905, pp. 825-826, emp. added).

Bottom line: evolutionists have realized that natural selection cannot provide the mechanism required for evolutionary change. Enter neo-Darwinism, the version of evolution that is now en vogue. Neo-Darwinism, also known as the “Primary Axiom” (Sanford, 2008), attempts to revise Darwinism by contending that natural selection coupled with genetic mutations—random DNA accidents—provide the mechanism for evolution to occur. In the words of molecular and cell biologist Jonathan Wells of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle,

It was not until the 1930s that Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics were combined in what became known as the neo-Darwinian synthesis. According to neo-Darwinian theory, traits are passed on by genes that reside on microscopic thread-like structures in the cell called chromosomes, and new traits arise from accidental genetic mutations (2011, p. 18, emp. added).

According to neo-Darwinism, random mutations could accidentally create new species over time, and natural selection could eliminate the unfit ones, leaving the better, more evolved species in existence.

Concerning neo-Darwinism, molecular biologist John McFadden wrote: “Over millions of years, organisms will evolve by selection of mutant offspring which are fitter than their parents. Mutations are therefore the elusive source of the variation that Darwin needed to complete his theory of evolution. They provide the raw material for all evolutionary change” (2000, p. 65, emp. added). Years ago, George Gaylord Simpson and his co-authors said, “Mutations are the ultimate raw materials for evolution” (1957, p. 430). One genetics textbook put it this way: “Mutations constitute the raw material for evolution; they are the basis for the variability in a population on which natural (or artificial) selection acts to preserve those combinations of genes best adapted to a particular environment” (Snyder, et al., 1985, p. 353, parenthetical item in orig.). Is it true that mutations can provide the raw material and mechanism for Darwinian evolution to occur over millions of years? Do mutations eliminate the need for a supernatural Source to explain the origin of species?

Creating Information: A Prerequisite for Evolution

Recall Stephen Meyer, origin-of-life biologist and doctoral graduate of Cambridge University. In his book on the origin of genetic information, he discussed one of the greatest discoveries of the twentieth century—the structure of the DNA molecule by James Watson and Francis Crick. He noted that “when Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, they also discovered that DNA stores information using a four-character chemical alphabet. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions—the information—for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive” (2009, Ch. 1). Information is packed into our genes, and its transfer during reproduction is critical. Without the transfer of information, there would be no such thing as life.

Information scientist, professor, and control engineer Werner Gitt, retired director of the Information Technology Division at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, noted that,

The concept of “information” is not only of prime importance for informatics theories and communication techniques, but it is a fundamental quantity in such wide-ranging sciences as cybernetics, linguistics, biology, history, and theology. Many scientists therefore justly regard information as the third fundamental entity alongside matter and energy (2007, Ch. 3).

Meyer argues that “[o]ur actions show that we not only value information, but that we regard it as a real entity, on par with matter and energy” (2009, Ch. 1). Indeed, “[a]t the close of the nineteenth century, most biologists thought life consisted solely of matter and energy. But after Watson and Crick, biologists came to recognize the importance of a third fundamental entity in living things: information” (Ch. 3).

How does this third “fundamental entity in living things” relate to the evolution question? In order for evolution to occur, information would have to be created—at the beginning of life and at every macroevolutionary jump between living kinds. This presents a problem for evolution, which Bernd-Olaf Kuppers, biophysicist, professor of natural philosophy, and director of the Frege Centre for Structural Sciences at the University of Jena, summarized: “The problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information” (1990, p. 170). In the book, In the Beginning was Information, Gitt makes the compelling argument that “[t]he question ‘How did life originate?’ which interests us all, is inseparably linked to the question ‘Where did the information come from?’… All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question” (Ch. 6). Neil Shubin, paleontologist and professor of organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago wrote:

I can share with you one true law that all of us can agree upon. This law is so profound that most of us take it completely for granted. Yet it is the starting point for almost everything we do in paleontology, developmental biology, and genetics. This biological “law of everything” is that every living thing on the planet had parents. Every person you’ve ever known has biological parents, as does every bird, salamander, or shark you have ever seen…. To put it in a more precise form: every living thing sprang from some parental genetic information (2009, p. 174, emp. added).

The scientific evidence indicates that genetic information is always passed from parents (even though if evolution is true, originally there could not have been parents). It does not spring into existence. So how did it originate? How could it originate, without an initial Parent capable of creating genetic information?

Obviously, the existence of genetic information, its transfer from parent to offspring, and the mechanism—the software and the hardware—by which it transfers are critical to life. More importantly, their origin must be explained, since the creation/evolution debate hinges on that explanation. Under the evolutionary model, the first life had to be information rich, though being the product of non-living matter. From that life, an immense amount of other information had to be “written” into the genome over time through mutations during reproduction in order for humans to be in existence today. And yet, in the words of Gitt, “There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter” (Ch. 6).

While there are proposals attempting to explain the origin of the genetic code through natural means, according to Gitt, those proposals are “purely imaginary models. It has not been shown empirically how information can arise in matter” (Ch. 6). Naturalism simply cannot explain the origin of information. Gitt continues, “The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded” (Ch. 11). Meyer explained, “[S]elf-organizational laws or processes of necessity cannot generate—as opposed to merely transmit—new information” (Ch. 15). After reviewing the many attempts over the years to explain the origin of information, Meyer summarized:

Every attempt to explain the origin of biological information either failed because it transferred the problem elsewhere or “succeeded” only by presupposing unexplained sources of information…. Every major origin-of-life scenario—whether based on chance, necessity, or the combination—failed to explain the origin of specified information. Thus, ironically, origin-of-life research itself confirms that undirected chemical processes do not produce large amounts of specified information starting from purely physical or chemical antecedents (Ch. 15, emp. added).

Several years ago, evolutionary scientists gathered in Mainz, Germany and discussed some of the problems that had yet to be solved by naturalists (and still have not been solved today) regarding origins. Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry at Johannes Gutenberg University wrote concerning the findings of the seventh “International Conference on the Origins of Life”:

A further puzzle remains, namely the question of the origin of biological information, i.e., the information residing in our genes today…. The Mainz report may have an equally important historical impact, because for the first time it has now been determined unequivocally by a large number of scientists that all evolutionary theses that living systems developed from poly-nucleotides which originated spontaneously, are devoid of any empirical base (1983, pp. 968-969, emp. added).

In other words, no scientist has any empirical evidence that biological information could spontaneously generate. But evolution requires the spontaneous generation of information. Without such a process, naturalistic evolution has no mechanism for the initial generation of information at the onset of life or for interkind transformation.

Mutations, Manuals, and New Information

Though neo-Darwinism has been proposed as the solution to rectify the inadequacy of natural selection in causing macroevolution, in reality, it has its own problems as well. Simply put, genetic mutations do not create new raw material or information—which is necessary for the kind of change required by evolutionary theory. Mutations cannot explain the origin of new information. Speaking to that issue, British engineer and physicist Alan Hayward, said years ago:

[M]utations do not appear to bring progressive changes. Genes seem to be built so as to allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to prevent those limits from being crossed. To oversimplify a little: mutations very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a new (though similar) species, but—despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to produce entirely new forms of life (1985, p. 55, emp. added).

Gould said, concerning mutations, “A mutation doesn’t produce major new raw material. You don’t make a new species by mutating the species…. That’s a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change” (1980, emp. added). A mutation does not “produce major new raw material”? What does that mean?

Sanford likens the genome to an instruction manual for making human beings. In his analogy, letters correspond to nucleotides, words correspond to small clusters of nucleotides, “which combine to form genes (the chapters of our manual), which combine to form chromosomes (the volumes of our manual), which combine to form the whole genome (the entire library)” (2008, p. 2, italics in orig.). In the printing, re-typing, or digital copying of a book, errors—or mutations—will sometimes appear when you examine the finished product. For example, individual words could be garbled—a few letters of a word could be changed to other letters, termed codon errors in genetics. Duplication could occur—the idea that words, sentences, and even entire paragraphs could be duplicated somewhere within the book. Translocation could occur—where sections from one part of the book are moved and inserted elsewhere in the book. Deletion could occur—where segments of the book are simply lost.

Though these kinds of errors or mutations (and others) can occur, no new material is written when they do. No new information has been added to the book. A new sentence has not been written into the story. The problem with evolutionary theory is that it requires new sentences and even chapters to have been written through mutations in the genetic “book.” In fact, it requires sequels of the book to write themselves into existence through random mutation.

[to be continued]

References

Conford, F.M. (1957), “Pattern of Ionian Cosmogony,” in Theories of the Universe, ed. Milton K. Munitz (Glencoe, IL: Free Press).

Considine, Douglas M. (1976), Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold), fifth edition.

Coolidge-Stolz, Elizabeth, Jan Jenner, Marylin Lisowski, Donald Cronkite, and Linda Cronin Jones (2005), Life Science (Boston, MA: Prentice Hall).

Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: John Murray).

Davis, Percival and Dean Kenyon (1989), Of Pandas and People (Dallas, TX: Haughton).

“Definition: Rudolf Virchow” (2006), Webster’s Online Dictionary with Multilingual Thesaurus Translation, http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/virchow.

De Vries, Hugo (1905), Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, ed. Daniel Trembly MacDougal (Chicago, IL: Open Court).

Dose, K. (1983), “The Origin of Life,” Nachrichten aus Chemie, Technik und Laboratorium, 31[12]:968-969.

Flew, Antony G.N. and Thomas B. Warren (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

Gallik, Stephen (2013), “Exercise 1. The Discovery of Cells. D. Schleiden, Schwann, Virchow and the Cell Theory,” The On-line Lab Manual for Cell Biology 4.0, http://stevegallik.org/cellbiologyolm_Ex001_P04.html.

Gitt, Werner (2007), In the Beginning was Information (Green Forest, AR: Master Books), Kindle file.

Gould, Stephen J. (1980), “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Hobart College speech, 2-14-80; quoted in Luther Sunderland (1984), Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego, CA: Master Books).

Gould, Stephen Jay (1977), “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, 86[5]:12-16, May.

Hayward, Alan (1985), Creation or Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies (London: Triangle Books).

Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1981), Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons).

“Hugo de Vries” (2013), Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/633337/Hugo-de-Vries.

Jevons, W. Stanley (1888), Elementary Lessons in Logic: Deductive & Inductive (New York: MacMillan).

Kuppers, Bernd-Olaf (1990), Information and the Origin of Life (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press).

McFadden, John J. (2000), Quantum Evolution: The New Science of Life (New York: W.W. Norton).

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Meyer, Stephen C. (2009), Signature in the Cell (New York: Harper Collins), Kindle file.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:1-5,9-11, January.

Miller, Jeff (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article= 2786.

“Rudolf Virchow” (1973), Encyclopaedia Britannica (London: William Benton Publisher).

Sanford, J.C. (2008), Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications), Kindle file.

Shubin, Neil (2009), Your Inner Fish (New York: Vintage Books).

Simpson, George G., C.S. Pittendrigh, and L.H. Tiffany (1957), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace).

Snyder, Leon A., David Freifelder, and Daniel L. Hartl (1985), General Genetics (Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett).

Thompson, Bert (1981), The History of Evolutionary Thought (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Wells, Jonathan (2011), The Myth of Junk DNA (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press).

The post God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part 1] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Just as most people who speak English can—rather effortlessly—understand how the English word “day” is used in a variety of contexts, most Bible readers can easily and quickly understand how the inspired writers used yom (day) throughout the Bible. Most people clearly comprehend if the word “day” is used in a defined manner (as a part of or an entire 24 hours) or in an undefined manner (e.g., “in the day of the Lord”). After the Flood, the Lord said, “While the earth remains…, winter and summer, day and night shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22). “Day” is obviously used here in reference to a defined time period—the part of a 24-hour period that is light (cf. Genesis 7:4; 29:7; Exodus 24:18). During the Flood, “the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days” (Genesis 7:24). Once again, “days” (yamim) is used in a defined sense, though instead of referring to the light period of the day(s), the emphasis is on the total 24-hour period(s)—specifically, 150 24-hour periods. In Deuteronomy 31:17, the Lord foretold how the Israelites would break His covenant, and “in that day” many troubles would come upon them. The emphasis here is on a less defined period of time—in the future, when the Israelites would begin worshiping the idols of the pagan nations around them.

As with most terms, the word “day” cannot be defined accurately without considering the context in which it is found. However, inspired penmen nearly always provided various indicators within a given passage of Scripture so that readers can understand the text rather easily—including accurately interpreting how the word “day” is used hundreds of times in a limited, defined sense.

One of the indicators throughout the literal, non-prophetic language of Scripture that yom refers either to a limited, defined time of 24 hours or less [i.e., whether it is used to refer to (a) daylight hours of a 24-hour period or (b) the 24-hour period itself], is if the words “morning” and/or “evening” are used to describe the particular day. The words “morning” (boqer) and “evening” (‘erev) appear 348 times in the Old Testament. (Boqer appears 214 times and ‘erev 134 times; Konkel, 1997, 1:711,716.) Again and again throughout the Old Testament these words are used in reference to specific, defined portions of regular 24-hour days.

• Noah “waited yet another seven days, and again he sent the dove out from the ark. Then the dove came to him in the evening” (Genesis 8:10-11).
• Moses judged Israel “on the next day…and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening” (Exodus 18:13).
• The Lord instructed Aaron and his sons in the book of Leviticus about the various offerings, including the laws concerning peace offerings. According to Leviticus 7:15, “The flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day it is offered. He shall not leave any of it until morning.”
• During the Israelites’ wandering in the wilderness, God caused a cloud to remain over the tabernacle “from evening until morning: when the cloud was taken up in the morning, then they would journey; whether by day or by night” (Number 9:21).

The only instances where evening and morning may not refer to defined portions of a 24-hour day are the relatively few times they are used in prophetic or figurative language (e.g., Genesis 49:27; Habakkuk 1:8). Otherwise, the evidence is overwhelming: when “morning” and/or “evening” are used in reference to a period of time (in literal, non-prophetic language) they always refer to regular, 24-hour days (or parts thereof). [NOTE: For a clear distinction between the literal, narrative, non-prophetic language of Scripture and the figurative, prophetic language of the Bible, compare the narrative of Joseph in Genesis 37-48 with what Jacob prophesies will happen to Joseph, his brothers, and their descendents in Genesis 49:1-27. For more information on the literal, historical nature of Genesis 1-2, see Thompson, 2000, pp. 133-161 and DeYoung, 2005, pp. 157-170.]

So what does this have to do with Creation? Many evolutionary sympathizers contend that the days of Creation were (or at least could have been) long periods of evolutionary geologic time (where each “day” was millions or billions of years long). One of the main problems (among others; see Lyons, 2012) with this bizarre interpretation, however, is that each day of the Creation was said to have one evening and one morning.

“So the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1:5).

“So the evening and the morning were the second day” (Genesis 1:8).

“So the evening and the morning were the third day” (Genesis 1:13).

“So the evening and the morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1:19).

“So the evening and the morning were the fifth day” (Genesis 1:23).

“So the evening and the morning were the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31).

Just as God spoke of limited, defined periods of days using the terms “evening” and “morning” hundreds of times throughout the Old Testament, He did so six times in the Creation account. If everywhere else in the literal, non-prophetic language of the Old Testament these words are used to refer to regular 24-hour days, why is it that some contend the days of the literal, non-prophetic Genesis account of Creation were undefined, vast periods of evolutionary time? Because their loyalty to the assumption-based, unproven theory of evolution means more to them than a serious, consistent, logical interpretation of the Bible.

“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

REFERENCES

DeYoung, Donald (2005), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Konkel, A.H. (1997), boqer, New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Lyons, Eric (2012), “Numbers…and the Use of the Word ‘Day,’” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3526&topic=327.

Saebo, M. (1990), yom, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

The post Evening, Morning, and the Days of Creation appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The pollsters highlighted a sobering connection between how religious a person is and their likelihood of being a creationist versus an evolutionist. According to the poll, “the most religious Americans are most likely to be [young earth—JM] creationists” (2012, emp. added). Of those who attend worship each week, 25% believe in theistic evolution and 67% believe in the creation of the Universe within the last 10,000 years. For those who attend almost every week or month, 31% believe in theistic evolution and 55% believe in creationism. Of those who attend seldom or never, 38% believe in theistic evolution and only 25% believe in creationism (2012). The implication is that the less religious a person becomes, moving away from a consistent contemplation of spiritual matters (i.e., the worship of God and a study of His Word), the more he will capitulate to the prevailing secular viewpoint instead of the biblical viewpoint.

One unfortunate finding from the Gallup poll was that the percentage of those who believe in theistic evolution, in one form or another, appears to have gradually declined over the years (from 38% to 32%), while the percentage of those who believe in secular evolution has increased by the same amount (from 9% to 15%) (2012). That’s 19,000,000 Americans! This finding supports the contention that theistic evolution is a gateway doctrine that leads many to atheism—which is a major reason why Apologetics Press has long sought to fight the spread of this debilitating doctrine. Darwinian evolution is not a belief which comes from a straightforward reading of the Bible. It is a theory that is championed by the secular world and that many religious people have felt pressure to accept. Many feel the need to attempt to squeeze  Darwinian evolution into the text of Genesis chapter one, in spite of its clear teaching that the Universe was spoken into existence in six, approximately 24-hour days.

Theistic Evolution—A Devastating Doctrine

This practice can be devastating in the long run, destroying one’s faith in the Bible and Christianity and giving ammunition to the Bible’s skeptics. How so? The theistic evolutionist often tries to get around the clarity of the Genesis account of Creation by contending that it is not a literal, historical account, but rather is figurative and symbolic. In other words, Genesis chapter one does not actually mean what it says. The Bible certainly uses figurative language at times (e.g., in the Psalms, Revelation, Daniel, etc.). However, the fact that we can know that such language is being used, proves that there are textual indicators that distinguish historical from figurative and symbolic genres of writing in the Bible.

For example, when Genesis 25 describes Esau’s appearance as being “like a hairy garment all over,” we understand that his skin was not literally a hairy garment. Rather, it was similar to the appearance and feel of a hairy garment. When the 23^rd Psalm says that the Lord “makes me to lie down in green pastures” and “leads me beside the still waters,” we understand that the text is not speaking literally, but figuratively. In Daniel chapter 2, Daniel interpreted King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, which depicted a “great image” with a head of gold, chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and its feet composed of iron and clay. Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar, “You are the head of gold” (vs. 38). We, of course, understand that Daniel was not speaking literally. He was explaining that the gold head of the image was symbolic and represented the greatness of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian empire in comparison to the lesser kingdoms that would follow his. We can know that Revelation is a book that is to be taken figuratively and symbolically, because John tells us so right at the beginning of the book (i.e., Revelation 1:1—“And He sent and signified it….” Revelation is a book filled with signs, not to be taken literally).

Similarly, one can easily distinguish the difference between a heavily symbolic account of Creation, like that given in Psalm 104, and the account given in Genesis one—which is given in straightforward, narrative terminology. Genesis one gives every indication of being a historical account of Creation. [NOTE: Biblical Hebrew scholar, Steven Boyd, in the book Thousands…Not Billions,engaged in a fascinating study, where he showed, using a statistical analysis of verb uses in 97 poetic and narrative biblical texts, that Genesis 1:1-2:3 unquestionably belongs in the category of narrative texts (DeYoung, 2005, pp. 157-170).]

That said, if a text like Genesis one, that has no indication that it is anything other than a historical narrative, is taken to be figurative, as the theistic evolutionary proposition requires, then what would keep a person from doing the same thing anywhere else in the Bible? How can we know for certain that Jesus was really born of a virgin, was crucified, and was resurrected? What would prohibit such accounts from being interpreted as figurative and symbolic as well? Some have gone so far! When the Bible tells us things that we should or should not do to be pleasing to God, what would keep us from interpreting those areas of Scripture as figurative as well? Interpreting Genesis one as figurative has far reaching implications.

In truth, one can come to know what in the Bible is figurative and what is not. When the evidence from the biblical text is weighed (cf. Thompson, 2000), it is clear that Genesis one relates a literal account of Creation in six, approximately 24-hour days, within the last 10,000 years. The scientific evidence supports this contention, as we point out on a regular basis at Apologetics Press. However, such issues highlight how critical the question of origins is, as it is fundamental to our interpretation of Scripture. Reading things into the biblical text that are not warranted can be a very slippery slope. Such practices are just as forbidden as adding man-made doctrines and practices into the church of the Bible (cf. Matthew 15:8-9; Colossians 3:17; 1 Corinthians 4:6; John 4:24; Revelation 22:18-19; Galatians 1:8-9).

Consider further, if theistic evolution is true, then Moses was in error in his writings and was, therefore, not inspired by God. Moses clearly stated in Exodus 20:11 that everything—“the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them”—was made in six days. When the plural form of the Hebrew word for “day” (yamim) is used in Old Testament non-prophetic literature, like Exodus 20:11, it always refers to literal 24-hour periods of time. The same can be said when this Hebrew word is preceded by a numeral, as in Exodus 20:11 (cf. Thompson, pp. 188-201). Why? Because it would make no sense to speak of six “long periods of time.” So, according to Moses, the entire Universe, with everything in it, was created in six, literal, 24-hour periods of time. If theistic evolution were true, then Moses’ writings—a significant section of our Bibles—would be in error, and the skeptic would be accurate in concluding that Moses was not inspired by God. And further, any other biblical characters who quoted from Moses’ writings as though he was an inspired author (including Jesus, Himself—Matthew 4:4,7,10), would also be in error.

If theistic evolution were true, Paul also would be in error. Speaking of mankind, Paul said in Romans 1:20 that certain attributes of God have been “clearly perceived” by mankind “ever since the creation of the world” (ESV). If theistic evolution is true, mankind would not have been around to “clearly perceive” or see the world until billions of years after “the creation of the world.” So, either theistic evolution is false, or Paul was in error and was not inspired by God—a contention which would eliminate much of the New Testament.

And further, Jesus, Himself, said in Mark 10:6 concerning Adam and Eve, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female’” (cf. Matthew 19:4; Genesis 1:27). Again, if theistic evolution were true, man was certainly not around “from the beginning of creation.” Evolutionary theory supposes that mankind was not around for the vast majority of the Universe’s history. If theistic evolution is true, Jesus, Himself—the Son of Almighty God—is in error and not worthy of our worship. Indeed, theistic evolutionary positions strike at the very heart of the Christian faith—the integrity and inspiration of the Bible, the inspiration of Moses and Paul, and the deity of Christ Himself.

Several have said to Apologetics Press personel over the years, “Does it matter? What’s the big deal if someone believes in theistic evolution?” This latest poll, and the implications of belief in this devastating doctrine with regard to the biblical text, make it clear that this matter is no “little thing.” It is critical that the Christian prepares himself for the defense of the truth on any topic (1 Peter 3:15). We are commanded to “prove” or “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). The proper interpretation of the first chapter of the Bible is no exception to this command. The Christian should be ready to cast “down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).

REFERENCES

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Newport, Frank (2012), “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins,” GALLUP Politics, June 1, http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx.

Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/cre_comp.pdf.

The post Literal Creationists Holding Their Ground in the Polls appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[In light of the coming debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on February 4^th, we wish to recall your attention to Bill Nye’s statements several months ago regarding Creation and evolution.]

wikipedia.org (Ed Schipul) 2012 CC-by-sa-2.0

Many of us who are scientists grew up watching “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” and learned to love science in the process. Sadly, Bill Nye came out in 2012 with a video that indicates he is vehemently opposed to parents who teach children that evolutionary theory is false. In a YouTube video posted by BigThink.com, Nye said:

Denial of evolution is unique to the United States…. People still move to the United States, and that’s largely because of the intellectual capital we have—the general understanding of science. When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in that, it holds everybody back. Really. Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science. In all of biology. It’s like, it’s very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You’re just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place…. Once in awhile I get people that really, or, that claim, they don’t believe in evolution. And my response, generally, is, “Why not? Really. Why not?” Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution. Here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils. Here is radioactivity. Here are distant stars that are just like our star but that are at a different point in their life cyle. The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy. Just untenable. It’s self-inconsistent. And I say to the grown-ups: If you want to deny evolution and live in your, in your, uh, world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the Universe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and tax payers for the future…. We need engineers that can build stuff—solve problems…. In another couple centuries, that world view, I’m sure, will be, just won’t exist. There’s no evidence for it (Fowler and Rodd, 2012).

Such comments, though not surprising, certainly are unfortunate, since so many young people have long hung on Bill Nye’s every word about science.

Several points are worthy of mentioning in response to Mr. Nye. It is true that widespread denial of evolution seems to be somewhat unique to the United States (see Miller, 2012), although there are other contenders (cf. Le Page, 2008). It is also true that many people clamor to get into the United States and that the United States has been the leader in the technological revolution over the last century. What’s unfortunate is that Nye totally ignores the fact that America has become the superpower that we are in science and in every other field—while largely not believing in evolution. America has historically been Christian and pro-Bible (and thus, anti-evolution), and in truth, it is due to that stance that America has flourished. Becoming more pro-evolution would actually move us in the opposite direction from the direction that has made us great in the first place. Believing in evolution will actually “hold America back”—while believing in Creation has not.

Nye believes that dinosaur fossils, radioactivity, distant stars, and deep time prove evolution and disprove Creation. As you know, we address such matters on a regular basis (e.g., Lyons and Butt, 2008; DeYoung, 2005; Lyons, 2011; Miller, 2010) and have shown that the scientific evidence supports the Creation model rather than the Evolutionary model. The Creation model can offer reasonable explanations, in keeping with the scientific evidence, for the existence of matter, energy, life, the laws of science, design, beauty, religious intuition, morality, “anomalies” in the geologic column, and many other things, while the evolutionary model falls far short. It is the evolutionary model that is “completely inconsistent” with much of what we observe in the Universe. In truth, it is the evolutionary model that is holding back the progress of science. If evolutionary scientists would stop spending time and money in pursuit of unscientific notions (like trying to figure out how abiogenesis could happen, even though science has already disproven that idea time and again; or how something material could come from nothing or exist forever, even though science has already disproven those ideas time and again; or trying to find “missing link” fossils that prove that we came from ape-like creatures, when over 130 years of exploration into the geologic column has not helped in that pursuit), and begin interpreting the scientific evidence in light of the Creation model, much more progress could be made, as was the case in America’s past.

Evolutionary theory spawned the false concept of vestigial organs. That idea would have all but stopped scientific research on those organs, since according to evolutionary theory, those organs are now useless or nearly so. Now we are realizing that those organs are not vestigial, but important, and we are reaping the effects of evolutionists’ lack of emphasis on those organs for over a century. Little research has been done on many of those organs in the past century due to the vestigial argument. On the other hand, when scientists have turned their attention towards the created order for scientific inspiration—as creationists do since we understand that the Chief Engineer designed it—they are discovering that the Universe is replete with fully functional, amazing designs worthy of mimicking. The Creation model is hardly a hinderance to scientific progress. Contrary to Nye’s charge to parents—we encourage parents to continue to advocate the creationist mindset! The fruit of that pursuit has been the emergence of the most advanced and prosperous country in the history of mankind (cf. Skousen, 2009). Teach your kids the truth! “We need scientifically literate voters and tax payers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff—solve problems.”

In a CBS interview after the release of the video, Nye talked about his passion concerning evolutionary theory.

I feel passionate about it for the betterment of the United States, the United States economy, and our future. What makes the United States great—the reason people want to live in the United States, move here still—is because of our ability to innovate. This goes back to Ben Franklin and Thomas Alva Edison and George Washington Carver, let alone landing on the moon—Neil Armstrong. All these people believed in science (“Bill Nye on Creationism Critique…,” 2012).

While we disagree that the “reason people want to live in the United States” is solely our ability to innovate, we certainly agree that the freedom and encouragement to engage in innovative endeavors in this country is a significant perk in coming here. However, Nye has failed to realize that the freedom to innovate in this country stems from the fundamental belief held by the Founders of this country—that men have been “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These unalienable Rights, according to the Founders, were derived from the God of the Bible, in which, the Founders, en masse, believed (see Miller, 2008b). Belief in the Bible has resulted in fewer evolutionists in America—since Darwinian evolution and the biblical account of Creation cannot be harmonized (see Thompson, 2000). And yet, again, America is still greater than, perhaps, any other country in the history of the world.

Ironically, Nye mentions Franklin, Carver, and Armstrong among the great scientists of history. Franklin, though less religious than many of the Founders, was still a strong proponent of biblical morality in America and believed in the God of the Bible. Carver was a well-known Creation scientist, and Armstrong was among this country’s pioneering astronauts who even read from the Bible from space during television broadcasts (see Miller, 2008a). Nye failed to mention the fact that many great scientists from history have made significant contributions to the field of science, even though they were firm believers in God and Creation. Johannes Kepler, the father of modern astronomy and modern optics, was a firm Bible believer. Robert Boyle, the father of chemistry, was a Bible believer. Samuel F.B. Morse, who invented Morse Code, was a believer. Wernher Von Braun, the father of the space program at NASA, was a strong believer in God and Creation, as well as Louis Pasteur, the father of biology, Lord Kelvin, the father of thermodynamics, Sir Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics, and Faraday, the father of electromagnetism. Dozens of other well-known scientists from history could be cited (see Morris, 1990).

Although numbers ultimately mean nothing in regard to truth, creationists can certainly come up with an impressive list of qualified scientists living today who have examined the scientific evidence and concluded that the evolutionary model falls short in explaining our existence. Creation Ministries International posted a list of some 187 scientists alive today (or recently deceased) who believe in the biblical account of creation (“Creation Scientists…,” 2010). The scientists who are listed all possess a doctorate in a science-related field. Over 90 different scientific fields are represented in the list, including several types of engineers, chemists, geneticists, physicists, and biologists. Astronomers and astrophysicists; geologists and geophysicists; physicians and surgeons; micro-, molecular, and neurobiologists; paleontologists and zoologists are represented, and the list goes on. Jerry Bergman amassed a list of more than 3,000 individuals. Most have a Ph.D. in science, and many more could be added, according to Bergman.

On my list I have well over 3,000 names including Nobel Prize winners, but, unfortunately, a large number of persons that could be added to the public list, including many college professors, did not want their name listed because of real concerns over possible retaliation or harm to their careers (2006).

For over 30 years, we at Apologetics Press have conducted numerous seminars and published hundreds of articles by qualified, credentialed scientists who speak out in support of the biblical account of creation as well—scientists with graduate degrees in geology, astrophysics, microbiology, neurobiology, cell biology, biochemistry, aerospace engineering, nuclear engineering, and biomechanical engineering. Creationists can certainly speak with credibility in scientific matters—and we can show with confidence that the scientific evidence does not support Bill Nye and his evolutionary theory.

Concerning a recent NASA conference he attended, Nye noted how extraordinary it is that anybody in the world could attend that conference in a sense, since it was broadcast all around the world using technology that did not exist in the past, but now does, thanks to science. “That’s a result of science. That’s not a result of thinking the Earth is some extraordinarily short number of years old” (“Bill Nye on Creationism…,” 2012). It is true that our technology is a result of science, and in a sense, it is not necessarily all due to “thinking the Earth is some extraordinarily short number of years old,” since not all technological breakthroughs or hang-ups are necessarily the result of one’s belief on the age of the Earth. However, technology is also not a result of thinking the Earth is some extraordinarily long number of years old either. One’s belief about how old the Earth is does not necessarily directly affect the findings of science. Even prominent evolutionists recognize that one does not need to believe in Darwinian evolution in order to be a scientist. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University said, “a student of, say, nerve cells, might decide that he is not aided by thinking about evolution. The nerve specialist agrees that his nerve cells are the products of evolution, but he does not need to use this fact in his research…. That is a defensible position…. A physicist certainly doesn’t need Darwinism in order to do physics” (1996, p. 283, emp. added). A person’s stance on evolutionary theory may not directly affect his scientific findings, but it certainly can indirectly affect his findings through God’s Providence—as has been manifested throughout the history of this country and the blessings that Almighty God has bestowed upon us through scientific advancement. When God is happy with the decisions of a country, the country is blessed with prosperity and advancement (Psalm 33:12). So, Bill Nye and people like him are a hindrance to scientific progress. Why? (1) Because his views foster the acceptance of false information and hinder the free exchange of ideas; (2) Because many scientific man hours are wasted on pursuing pseudo-science; and (3) Because his unbiblical view of the origin of the Universe will ultimately lead to the drying up of the fountain of God’s providential scientific blessings in this country. May God help us to boldly fight this war for the soul of America.

REFERENCES

Bergman, Jerry (2006), “Darwin Skeptics,” [On-line], URL: http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html.

“Bill Nye on Creationism Critique: I’m Not Attacking Religion” (2012), CBS News, August 28, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505270_162-57501492/bill-nye-on-creationism-critique-im-not-attacking-religion/.

“Creation Scientists and Other Specialists of Interest” (2010), Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/creation-scientists.

Dawkins, Richard (1996), The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton).

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Fowler, Jonathan and Elizabeth Rodd (2012), “Bill Nye: Creationism is Not Appropriate for Children,” BigThink.com, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU.

Le Page, Michael (2008), “Evolution Myths: It Doesn’t Matter if People Don’t Grasp Evolution,” New Scientist, 198[2652]:31, April 19.

Lyons, Eric (2011), “Common Sense, Miracles, and the Apparent Age of the Earth,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4082.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2008), The Dinosaur Delusion (Montgomery: AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Dave (2008a), “American Astronauts: From Belief to Unbelief,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=2490.

Miller, Dave (2008b), The Silencing of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Jeff (2010), “Inevitable—Given Enough Time?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3729.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “Literal Creationists Holding Their Ground in the Polls,” Reason & Revelation, 32[9]:94-95, September (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Morris, Henry M. (1990), Men of Science Men of God: Great Scientists Who Believed in the Bible (El Cajon, CA: Master Books), third printing.

Skousen, W. Cleon (2009), The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World (Malta, ID: National Center for Constitutional Studies), 17^th printing.

Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), second edition, http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/cre_comp.pdf.

The post Bill Nye: The (Pseudo-)Science Guy appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Did the trees of the Garden of Eden have rings?

A.

According to the Creation model, based on biblical chronologies, the Universe can be known to be roughly 6-8,000 years old. However, the question is sometimes asked, “But why does the Earth have the appearance of age?” [NOTE: In actuality, the Earth has a “young” appearance in some ways as well, but it is true that there are some visual characteristics of the Earth that would seem, on the surface, to indicate an old age for the Earth.] Among other things, the creationist’s response to such characteristics typically includes a discussion of the concept of a mature creation (i.e., God created the Universe fully functional for its intended purposes from the beginning). Man was walking, talking, working, and even able to procreate from the first day he was created (Genesis 2:15-25). Even though he was less than a day old, a passerby would have mistaken Adam as a man of several years strictly by observing his physical appearance. Even though light from stars billions of light years away from the Earth would take billions of light years to reach it on its own, God made the stars with their light already visible to living beings on Earth in order to fulfill the design He had for them (Genesis 1:14-19). [NOTE: See Lyons, 2011 for more discussion of the “appearance” of age in the Universe.] But what about the plants? Did they have an appearance of age? Did trees already have “rings” in them starting on day three? We cannot know for certain, but reason and revelation can shed some light on the subject.

In order for Adam and Eve to have the nourishment necessary to sustain their lives (apparently, they were not authorized to eat animals until after the Flood—cf. Genesis 1:29-30; 9:3-4), and in order to make sense of God’s command to eat the fruit from certain trees in the Garden (Genesis 2:16), it stands to reason that those trees would have already been mature on day six—fully grown, bearing fruit, and even potentially containing rings—in the same way that light from far away stars was already on the Earth. Moses’ general description of God’s workings with the plant life in the Garden is documented in Genesis 2:9 as simply that He “made every tree grow.” Clearly, that was a fast process during the Creation week.

But this raises a potential concern. Dendrochronology is the study of tree rings to determine the age of a tree. Dendrochronology tells us that each tree ring found in the trunk of a tree represents approximately one year of age for that tree. A tree with ten rings should be roughly ten years old. The oldest tree as measured by tree ring dating is from California’s White Mountains and is dated to be over 4,000 years old (Owen, 2008). Now, if the purpose of tree rings is to tell the age of a tree, would it not have been deceptive for God to create trees with rings when they were not old enough to have them? What would be the point of His creating trees with rings, if not to give a false appearance of age?

A quick internet search of the phrase, “purpose of tree rings,” brings up many articles, most of which are on the subject of dendrochronology. It is common knowledge that the primary purpose of tree rings today is to tell the age of the tree. Most of the study being done by scientists on tree rings is in dendrochronology, dendroclimatology, dendroecology, and dendropyrochronology. And that is where the confusion lies. How humans are using the information from tree rings today is very different from their purpose and function for the tree itself as designed by God.

A closer look at the tree ring reveals that it is formed as a result of the climate changes that occur during the seasons. The dark ring that we typically think of as the “tree ring” is known as “late wood” and is formed during the summer and autumn seasons. This area of wood is more dense and helps provide strength to the tree (Wimmer, 2011; Premyslovska, et al., 2007, p. 118). As the tree grows larger, year by year, more rings are added to the tree, providing it with more late wood and thus, more strength to stand. Therefore, if God created a fully mature, large tree, one would expect Him to create it with rings to give it strength—not as a deception to make Adam think that the Earth is actually older than it appears. After all, how could one reasonably charge God with deception anyway, considering that in Genesis 1 He told us through the hand of Moses exactly what He did and how long it took Him? [NOTE: Years or geographical areas in which seasonal changes are subtle result in little to no distinction between the commencement of new tree rings (and subsequently add potential error into the tree ring dating equation). If the Earth’s climate was closer to a tropical environment year round in the past, as some have theorized, tree rings may not have been clearly visible to the human eye. The whole core of the tree would be composed of a denser, stronger wood without clear distinctions between rings. Regardless, it is clear that the creation of tree rings in the trees of the Garden would have been reasonable and useful, not deceptive.]

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric (2011), “Common Sense, Miracles, and the Apparent Age of the Earth,” Reason & Revelation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), 31[8]:77-80, August, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=997&article=1670.

Owen, James (2008), “Oldest Living Tree Found in Sweden,” National Geographic News, April 14, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080414-oldest-tree.html.

Premyslovska, E., Slezingerova, J., and L. Gandelova (2007), “Tree Ring Width and Basic Density of Wood in Different Forest Types,” Proceedings of the DENDROSYMPOSIUM, May 3-6, Riga, Latvia, pp. 118-122.

Wimmer, R. (2011), “Wood Quality: Causes, Methods, Control,” The University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, http://www.boku.ac.at/botanik/wood/woodquality/Chapter2.pdf.

The post Did the Trees of the Garden of Eden Have Rings? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The Age of the Earth and the Universe

One of the core teachings of atheistic evolution is that the Universe is billions of years old. All of those involved in the discussion recognize that without such vast eons of time, the supposed naturalistic processes at play in the evolutionary scheme would not have time to accomplish their work (even though, we would contend, all the time one could imagine would be insufficient to accomplish the impossibilities associated with atheistic evolution). Atheist David Mills wrote:

Despite widely divergent viewpoints, creationists and evolutionary biologists agree on a crucial fact: Six-thousand years is insufficient time for evolution to have produced the complex lifeforms we observe on Earth today. Homo sapiens could evolve only if given hundreds of millions of years to accumulate selective advantages. A 6000-year-old Earth means therefore that Genesis and the Theory of Evolution are forever irreconcilable (2006, p. 137).

Mills suggests that those who adopt the Day-Age Theory do so only in order to avoid being labeled as atheists, what he calls the “dreaded ‘A’ label.” While his equivocation of the concept of an old Earth with atheism is unfounded, he goes on to state that those who wish to force the Genesis text to accommodate an ancient Earth are involved in “a pompous intellectual charade” designed simply so they can “‘have it both ways’—imagining themselves to be both religious and scientific at the same time” (p. 151).

Countless other atheistic and/or evolutionary scientists have written concerning the opposition between modern “science” and biblical teaching. [NOTE: The word “science” is in quotations, because what is often called “science” in the modern sense is actually evolutionary, assumption-based science that is not founded on fact, and what is routinely discounted as being unscientific is often much more rigorously verifiable than the modern idea of “science.” Thus, when most atheists/evolutionists speak of “science,” the meaning of “evolutionary or materialistic false science” should be understood.] Co-discoverer of the DNA double helix structure, Francis Crick, wrote:

I realized early on that it is detailed scientific knowledge which makes certain religious beliefs untenable. A knowledge of the true age of the earth and of the fossil record makes it impossible for any balanced intellect to believe in the literal truth of every part of the Bible in the way that fundamentalists do. And if some of the Bible is manifestly wrong, why should any of the rest of it be accepted automatically? (1988, p. 11).

In truth, Crick’s and Mills’ assessment that much of modern atheistic/evolutionary-based “science” is directly opposed to a straightforward reading of the biblical text is correct. That being the case, what would we expect to see if certain scholars wanted to “have it both ways” and appear both religious and scientific? We would expect to see a massive reinterpretation of key aspects of the biblical text, especially as it relates to God’s creative activities. In addition, we would not be surprised if multiple ways of cramming billions of years into the text of Genesis were explored by different authors.

In truth, numerous ways have been invented in an attempt to fit millions of years into the biblical text including the Gap Theory, Progressive Creationism, Modified Progressive Creationism, the Modified Gap Theory, the Non-world view, the Multiple Gap Theory, and the Framework Hypothesis (see Thompson, 2000, pp. 275-306). The fact that multiple ways are attempted to accommodate the billions of years advocated by modern “science” is a tell-tale sign that the deep-time scenario did not derive from the Bible, and is only being forced into the text in an attempt to syncretize the Bible with modern “science.” In order to see this trend of syncretism, consider the writing of David Snoke, an advocate of the Day-Age Theory.

David Snoke and the Day-Age Theory

David Snoke’s book, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, published by Baker Books in 2006, provides an excellent example of an attempt to syncretize the biblical account of Creation with the evolutionary-based scenario of an Earth measured in millions or billions of years. Snoke explains in his preface: “This book presents the case of a ‘day-age’ view that takes Genesis 1 as giving a real chronological sequence, but not necessarily of twenty-four-hour days” (p. 9). Snoke’s primary contention is that the biblical account of Creation can legitimately be interpreted to allow for billions of years of Earth history. He believes that certain scientific evidences call for a reinterpretation of the days of Creation to allow the days to be unidentified ages of extended time.

The primary scientific evidences that he believes point toward the conclusion that the Earth is old are presented in chapter two of his book and include such concepts as distant starlight, geological layers, and tree-ring dating methods (pp. 24-46). He contends that these scientific evidences for an old Earth have no other possible answer than “God made them look old.” And while he believes that God could do that, he does not believe that is what God did, and thus he maintains that we must interpret the biblical text to accommodate the billions of years that modern science supposes.

While Snoke is aware of the many highly qualified scientists who advocate a young Earth, and who believe the scientific evidence points to a young Earth, he believes these scientists are in error. He believes that since, by and large, these scientists have not been successful at being accepted in peer-reviewed (read that as evolutionary-based) journals, and have attempted nonetheless to present their views to the general public, they have bypassed the rules of modern science. He stated:

Young-earth creationists engage in scientific practices widely considered unethical by mainstream scientists. This sounds like quite an accusation, but I see it as intrinsic to the young-earth science movement. Young-earth creation scientists say that an enormous amount of modern science is wrong, either through a conspiracy or through shared beliefs that lead scientists to unconsciously suppress or alter data. Therefore, young-earth creation scientists must bypass the modern science establishment…. Most scientists feel that bypassing other scientists to market your scientific claims directly to the public is highly unethical, since the public is not qualified to evaluate scientific claims (pp. 187-188).

Snoke manifests his true feelings and his mode of operation in the above quote. He cannot bring himself to say that an “enormous amount of modern science is wrong.” One wonders why it would be difficult to say that. If the Bible is correct that Satan is the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), and he is the father of lies (John 8:44), and he has blinded those who do not believe, what better way to “blind” people to the truth than by using the respected “scientific” avenues to propagate misinformation? In reality, many of those who suggest that the available scientific evidence points to a young Earth have not bypassed the scientific process. On the contrary, they have been excluded from the process by those who refuse to accept anything that allows for a straightforward reading of the Bible to be correct (see Butt, 2008). Credentialed scientists such as Henry Morris have critically assessed the scientific evidence and have demonstrated that it favors a young Earth (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961). Others such as John D. Morris and Don DeYoung have done the same (Morris, 1994; DeYoung, 2005). In fact, John Ashton edited the book, In Six Days, in which 50 credentialed scientists give their reasons for believing in a Creation that happened in six, literal days (Ashton, 2000). Additionally, Kurt P. Wise, who earned an M.A. and Ph.D. in paleontology from Harvard University while studying under Stephen Jay Gould, maintains that the scientific and biblical evidence converge to show that the Earth’s age is measured in thousands of years, not billions (2002).

The scientific case for an old Earth is not nearly as convincing as Snoke suggests. It is fraught with error. But it is the prevailing idea maintained by the majority of scientists. That is why, it seems, that Snoke and other old-Earth advocates feel the burden to conform to it. In his attempt to justify the avenue he has taken, Snoke appeals to the concept of contextualization (though he does not call it that). He states:

As hard as it may be, we must work to convince the scientific world, not bypass it. This means we must take the time to learn the basic rules of the secular scientific world, even while we question the unproven assumptions we hear. Many missions experts affirm that to impact a culture, the church must address the top elements of society, lest it be permanently marginalized (p. 191).

Snoke, in essence, is contending that if we write off a majority of the “evidences” for an old Earth as faulty, then the bulk of the scientific community is not going to listen to what we say. In order to gain an audience with the “top elements of society” we must work within the “rules” of the “secular scientific world.” It is unfortunate that in his attempt to keep Christianity from being “marginalized” he has failed to correctly identify the “unproven assumptions” that the evolutionary-based scientific community is foisting on the public.

Snoke’s “Biblical” Case

Snoke contends that his understanding of the Bible is not driven by his scientific observations, but is somewhat based upon them. He admits that his “experience in science has affected” his interpretation of the Bible, and he says, “To put it another way, it is very improbable that I ever would have come up with the view that the earth is millions of years old if I had never studied science” (p. 11, emp. added). Even though Snoke contends that his mode of operation in this instance is justified, it seems evident that Snoke allowed his (faulty) understanding of modern science to dictate his interpretation of the Bible.

He further suggests that while all scientific observation is apt to change or be adjusted by new observations, “theological systems are provisional works of human beings, too…. While we must not take lightly the Bible interpretation of faithful scholars of the past, we can also hope that new generations have something to add as well” (pp. 22-23). What Snoke, as a representative of the “new generation” adds, unfortunately, is a biblical interpretation that forfeits much of its truth because it is driven by modern evolutionary science.

The Day-Age Theory advocated by Snoke and a host of others suggests that the days of Creation in Genesis one were not 24-hour periods, but were long, extended periods that would have taken millions or billions of years to complete. Much of the “biblical” case for this theory stems from the idea that the Hebrew word yom, which is translated as “day” in Genesis one and two, can have various meanings. One of those meanings is “an unidentified period of time,” as in the phrase “the day of the Lord.” In this phrase, “day” does not connote an exact 24-hour timeframe. Those who advocate the Day-Age Theory maintain that such a usage could also extend to the days of Creation in Genesis one. After Weston Fields cited a quote from Wilbur Smith, who advocated the Day-Age Theory, Fields said about Smith’s statement: “Most importantly, the primary argument for the Day-Age Theory is shown to be based merely on the fact that the word ‘day’ can (not must!) be used either literally or figuratively in the Bible, the argument most commonly used by those defending this position” (1976, p. 169, italics in orig.).

The problem with attempting to force the days of Creation in Genesis one to mean anything other than literal, 24-hour days is that the context simply does not allow for it. First, the word yom, when used with numeric adjectives such as one, two, three, etc. always means a literal 24-hour day in non-prophetic biblical literature. Arthur Custance, though an old-Earth proponent of the Gap Theory, in critiquing the Day-Age Theory, alluded to the fact that the Hebrew word yom, translated “day” in Genesis one, always refers to a literal 24-hour period when coupled with numeric adjectives such as those that are used in Genesis 1:5,8,13, etc. (1977, p. 100). Snoke actually conceded: “It is true that we can find no other passage in Scripture in which days are numbered and have a generic sense” (2006, p. 145, emp. added). But he then attempts to show why Genesis one might be the only instance in all of Scripture in which this is the case. Needless to say, when a novel rendering of a recognized literary construction is appealed to in order to justify a belief that stems, not from the text, but from a view of modern “scientific” observation, the special pleading required is immediately suspect.

In addition to the fact that the word yom is coupled with numeric adjectives, other contextual factors verify that the word means a literal, 24-hour day. Thompson provides an excellent list of at least nine reasons why the days of Genesis one must logically be viewed as literal, 24-hour periods (2000, pp. 181-211). Custance emphatically argued that the context demands a literal reading for the word “day.” He stated: “The fact is that the Hebrew language just does not have any other way of expressing the exact idea of a true day!” (1977, p. 100). Fields emphatically states: “It is our conclusion, therefore, that the Day-Age Theory is impossible. It is grammatically and exegetically preposterous. Its only reason for existence is its allowance for the time needed by evolutionary geology and biology” (1976, p. 178, italics in orig.). Chaffey and Lisle correctly conclude: “In other words, according to old-earthers, it seems that the general rules of interpretation just do not apply to Genesis. Instead, it should be treated differently than any other book” (2008, p. 31).

Irrelevant Issues

Snoke’s biblical case for an old Earth hinges on novel interpretations and reading into the text concepts that are not there, rather than inferring ideas from the biblical text that the author intended. For instance, one of his contentions is that a major obstacle to believing in an old Earth is the concept of animal death before the fall. He believes that if he can show that animals died before Adam and Eve sinned, then that will help convince many young Earth creationists that he is right about an old Earth. He argues that concepts such as darkness and the sea indicate danger, and their presence in the creation account insinuate that animals could die outside of the Garden of Eden. He writes: “For the ancient Hebrew, however, the sea was a place of danger. Just as in the darkness, where dangerous animals lurk out of sight, ready to jump out, in the sea dangerous monsters lurk out of sight below the surface ready to jump up” (p. 59). He builds on this theme by connecting God’s power with God’s wrath, and stating that it is difficult in Scripture to “make a distinction between the demonstration of God’s power and the demonstration of his wrath” (p. 93).

His analysis is faulty for a number of reasons. He spends over 50 pages and two major chapters dealing with animal death before the Fall, because, in his opinion, “this is the issue that leads to objections to an old Earth” (p. 99, italics in orig.). In reality, however, the issue of Earth’s age has nothing to do with the concept of animal death before the Fall. It is just as easy to believe in a young Earth and maintain that animals died before the Fall as it is to believe in a young Earth while believing that there was no animal death before the Fall. The issue of whether or not there was animal death before the Fall is outside the purview of this article (see Thompson, 2001), and it is irrelevant to the age of the Earth and to the definition of the word “day” in Genesis one.

Furthermore, not only is his connection of animal death to the age of the Earth exaggerated, his strained exegesis of elements—such as the sea and darkness indicating danger, and God’s power being virtually equivalent to His wrath—is equally exaggerated and shows evident signs of special pleading. The reason the days in Genesis one are viewed as literal, 24-hour days is based on a proper understanding of the Hebrew word for yom in Genesis one; and the unity of the rest of the Scriptures flesh out a literal meaning of the word (such as Exodus 20:11). The belief in a young Earth may be connected in some literature with the concept of animal death, but nothing in Scripture mandates this connection, and one does not stand or fall with the other.

Snoke further weakens his case when he attempts to tie the days of Creation with the events that were seen by John in the book of Revelation. He wrote: “The seven seals, one may argue, themselves come as the sevenfold completion of the Sabbath day of creation. Thus the events of the seven seals represent the ‘beginning of the birth pangs’ mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 24:4-8” (p. 110). He then concluded: “If we take seriously the sequences of Revelation as representing a real chronology of events over a long period of time, then it is natural to see a parallel with the sequence of Genesis one representing a real chronology over a long period of time” (p. 110). Notice how he stretches to try to connect Genesis one to the entire book of Revelation. This stretch is impossible to prove and is dubious due to the fact that Genesis and Revelation are not even the same genre of literature. While Genesis is historic narrative, Revelation is apocalyptic literature.

It is often the case that those who are attempting to force outside information into the biblical text resort to the book of Revelation and contend that difficult-to-understand passages in that book lend credence to their novel interpretation. We must always remember, however, that the basic rule of good Bible interpretation is to assess the less difficult passages first and not to allow more difficult passages to obscure the clear meaning of the less difficult ones. In an attempt to make Genesis one and two look like difficult passages, Snoke connects them to Revelation and tries to let passages of Revelation that are more difficult to understand reinterpret the clear historic narrative of Genesis. Such is not the way to engage in proper Bible interpretation.

An Additional Problem

It is often the case that those who compromise the truth of the creation account are forced to compromise other aspects of the biblical text as well. One of the primary biblical events where such compromises are seen is the biblical Flood of Noah. Due to their adherence to such evolutionarily based concepts as uniformitarianism, many old-Earth advocates feel that a global flood would have been “scientifically” impossible, and they feel that adequate physical evidence is not available to justify a world-wide flood. As Snoke stated: “One thing I could not do, without being utterly dishonest in regard to my scientific experience, would be to adopt the view of Henry Morris and some other flood geologists, that science tells us that the earth appears to have had a global, six-mile-deep flood. It does not” (p. 175, italics in orig.). [NOTE: Snoke inserts a strawman argument into the above quote, suggesting that flood geologists must advocate a “six-mile deep” flood. That is based on his uniformitarian assumption that the topography of the Earth must have been the same during the Flood as it is now. Such an assumption should not be granted. In fact, there seems to be a biblical indication that the height of mountains and the depth of oceanic trenches was drastically altered during or following the Flood (Psalm 104:8).] Because of these, and other reasons, old Earth advocates often reinterpret the Genesis account in a way that allows for a local flood instead of one that covered the entire globe.

Snoke laid out his approach clearly when he declared: “The scientific data cause us to take a second look at the traditional interpretation, because things appear inconsistent with flood geology” (p. 174). This statement is another indication of why he has syncretized many aspects of the Bible. He consistently gives precedence to the “scientific” evidence, and uses it to “reinterpret” the biblical text. His teachings (and all other old Earth ideas) are based primarily, not on what the Bible says, but on what modern “science” says, and how modern scientific discoveries can be squeezed into the biblical text. This approach is flawed, not only because it gives the biblical text a secondary status compared to modern evolutionary science, but also because it selectively chooses those “scientific” evidences that purportedly prove an old Earth. The approach discounts the legitimate scientific evidences that point to a young Earth and the global Flood (see Morris and Austin, 2003; Whitcomb and Morris, 1961). Furthermore, modern “scientific” ideas change rapidly, and many of the ideas that are used today to “reinterpret” the biblical text will be defunct tomorrow.

Relying, then, not on a proper understanding of the biblical text, but on an adherence to modern “science,” Snoke and others insist that the Flood of Noah was a local event that did not cover the entire globe. Arthur Custance, the old-Earth advocate of the Gap Theory, gives a hint as to his mode of biblical interpretation, when he wrote: “Actually, I would say personally that anyone who takes the text wholly seriously will be forced to conclude that the event had a quite limited magnitude in terms of depth of water, simply because the run-off was slow. This run-off can be shown from the figures in the text to have been only a few inches per day!” (1979, p. 25, italics in orig.).

Notice the built-in assumptions that undergird Custance’s conclusion. He is assuming that the processes we see today are the same ones that were at work during the Flood. And he is assuming that we can understand Earth’s topography during the Flood based on our current knowledge of its topography. In essence, Custance is using a uniformitarian assumption that things are continuing now as they did in the past. While he insists in other places that he is not discounting all miraculous events during the Flood, he (like Snoke and others) relies quite heavily on an application of uniformitarian processes to events surrounding the Flood. Notice, also, that he believes the text of Genesis should be understood in light of what he thinks he knows scientifically about water run-off rates. Could it be, however, that there are certain aspects of water run-off that he does not fully understand and that would not call for the Flood to be “quite limited” in magnitude? Could it be that the topography of the Earth was vastly different from what we see today? Or is it possible that the complete saturation of the entire Earth slowed the run-off process? Any number of possibilities could be supplied as to why run-off was slow that would not require us to conclude that the Flood was a local event. Yet Custance appeals to his knowledge of water run-off rates, and believes that anyone who wants to take the text of Genesis seriously must factor them into his understanding of the text.

By minimalizing the Flood to that of a local catastrophe and not a global phenomenon, many old-Earth advocates have put their “scientific” knowledge of evolutionary-based geology and uniformitarianism in front of an accurate understanding and interpretation of the text of Genesis. The method of interpretation that allows them to discount the week of Creation as being composed of literal, 24-hour days that occurred a few thousand years ago, is the same mode of interpretation that they use to discount the global Flood. That is, they have relied on current assumptions by modern evolutionary and uniformitarian science to lead their biblical interpretation around by the nose.

Snoke understands that many will see his reinterpretation of the days of Genesis one and of the global Flood as a sell out. In an effort to soften the blow of this accusation, Snoke stated: “I can already hear people saying, ‘Here we go down the slippery slope. First he wants to “explain away” the creation week, now he wants to “explain away” the flood, then what?’” (p. 158). He knows that many conservative scholars, who see such tactics as Snoke uses, often conclude that those interpretative devices allow for faulty biblical interpretations in other places.

While Snoke insists that he is not trying to negate all the miracles in the Bible, he fails to realize that his interpretative method has already compromised two of the most important and most physically impacting miracles in the Universe’s history: Creation and the Flood. With these two miracles “out of the way,” the door is opened for all types of reinterpretations, and many of the New Testament warnings and teachings are rendered meaningless. For instance, in 2 Peter 3:5-6, we read: “For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.” About this verse, Snoke wrote: “The New Testament references to this passage also do not specify the size of the flood. Peter says that the kosmos was destroyed (2 Peter 3:6), a word that typically refers to political order (hence, ‘cosmopolitan’)” (p. 169).

His conclusion concerning the word kosmos is incorrect. The word kosmos does not “typically” refer to political order. In fact, that use of the word is less than typical when compared with the typical uses of it. In one of the most respected Greek lexicons available, the authors give for the meanings of the word: “the orderly Universe…the world as the earth, the planet upon which we live…the world as the habitation of mankind…earth, world in contrast to heaven” (Bauer, et al., 1979, pp. 445-447). Each of these meanings comes before the meaning of kosmos referring to mankind or the political order. In addition, the inspired writer linked the world with the concepts of “the heavens and the Earth;” clearly referring to the physical realms of the terrestrial globe and what surrounds it.

CONCLUSION

The age of the Earth is not a peripheral issue that is irrelevant to one’s understanding of the Bible. As has rightly been concluded, even by those who adopt an old-Earth approach: “The debate over the age of the earth is not just an academic exercise in dating but a very lively debate over the very core themes of the Bible, which relate to our view of all life” (Snoke, p. 194). The age of the Earth, then, often becomes a test as to how a person will approach the entirety of the biblical text. Those who choose to look to culture and modern “science” for the answers find themselves reinterpreting the biblical text to fit the modern notions of the evolutionary, uniformitarian scientific community. Once they veer from an accurate understanding of Genesis one and two, they are forced to do the same with the global Flood, and numerous other ideas found in the Bible.

A proper understanding of modern science, however, shows that there is no conflict with what we know to be fact and a straightforward reading of Genesis one and two as a historical narrative that describes the Creation of the entire Universe in six literal, 24-hour days only a few thousand years ago. In fact, a host of credentialed scientists have shown that the actual facts we possess about the physical Universe point to a young Earth and militate against an old-Earth interpretation. There is no conflict between fact-based science and the concept of a young Earth. Those who have chosen to adopt old-Earth views have done so in a spirit of syncretism, and have diluted the truth and power of the biblical text. It is our hope that they will see the error into which they have been led and into which they have led others, and turn from such compromising practices.

REFERENCES

Ashton, John, ed. (2000), In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Bauer, W., W.F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker (1979), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), second edition.

Butt, Kyle (2008), “The Catch-22 of Peer-Reviewed Journals,” Apologetics Press, /apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2508.

Chaffey, Tim and Jason Lisle (2008), Old-Earth Creationism on Trial: The Verdict Is In (Grand Rapids, MI: Master Books).

Crick, Frances (1988), What a Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery (New York: Basicbooks).

Custance, Arthur (1977), Time and Eternity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Custance, Arthur (1979), The Flood: Local or Global? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

DeYoung, Don (2winxp005), Thousands not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Fields, Weston (1976), Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R).

Hesselgrave, David J. and Edward Rommen (2000), Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models (Pasadena, CA: William Carey).

Mills, David (2006), Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).

Morris, John D (1994), The Young Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Morris, John and Steven Austin (2003), Footprints in the Ash (Grand Rapids: Master Books).

Snoke, David (2006), A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Thompson, Bert (2001), “Did Death Occur on Earth Prior to Man’s Sin?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=677.

Whitcomb, John and Henry Morris (1961), The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R).

Wise, Kurt P. (2002), Faith, Form, and Time (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman).

The post Syncretism and the Age of the Earth appeared first on Apologetics Press.

There is no question that both viewpoints—biblical and evolutionary—require a commencement point for mankind to begin propagation of the species. The biblical (i.e., Flood) model asserts that God started the process, creating both Adam and Eve—one male and one female—approximately 6,000 years ago. From them, the human race was established and ultimately exterminated in the global Flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6-9), with the exception of Noah and his family. After the Flood, Noah’s three sons and their wives commenced the repopulation of the human species (Genesis 9:19).

The evolutionary model claims that the first “man” of the genus Homo emerged around two to three million years ago (cf. Corballis, 2002, p. 183; Johanson, 2001; “The Emergence…,” 2011; University of Utah, 2005; Walker, 2002). It has always been intriguing that the evolutionary side of the aisle appears to be quiet about the fact that at the commencement of the human species, both male and female human beings had to evolve simultaneously, in the same geographic area, and while both were alive, in order for the human species to propagate itself—not just one male or one female, and not two males or two females. Further, these male and female human bodies also had to contain the fully functional reproductive components that would be necessary to replicate humanity. In The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality, Graham Bell discusses this quandary, stating that:

Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation (1982, p. 19).

Evolutionist Philip Kitcher admitted, “Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction” (1982, p. 54). Evolutionist Mark Ridley noted that “[s]ex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists” (2001, p. 111). Julie Schecter said that “sex remains a mystery to researchers, to say nothing of the rest of the population. Why sex?” (1984, 34:680). [See Thompson and Harrub, 2002 for an in depth discussion on the origin of genders and sexuality.]

Besides the problem raised for evolutionists by the origin of sexual reproduction, more problems exist that evolutionists appear to be quite reticent about. For instance, the patriarch and matriarch of the human race, having miraculously emerged in the same time period of history with each other, also had to be able to find each other on planet Earth without first starving, without being eaten by the ferocious animals that evolutionary images of early man portray, and without getting too old to replicate. And still further, just because there is another human being near you, does that mean you will be attracted to him/her? The male and female had to decide that they liked each other and do something about it before dying. And even further, the baby and mother had to survive the ordeal of child birth in those allegedly primitive circumstances. If the emergence of one human being from a non-human being seems ludicrous due to its contradiction of the Law of Biogenesis, surely this realization makes the evolutionary proposition beyond preposterous.

POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE EVOLUTIONARY MODEL

However, for the sake of argument, let us grant the atheistic evolutionist several miraculous feats—two living, opposite-sex human beings, with the necessary sexual components to propagate the species, in the same region on Earth, safe guarded from their primitive environment, with a desire for each other, and young enough to replicate. Even granting all of these significant but unrealistic assumptions, the evolutionist is left with statistical obstacles. Consider the mathematics for this argument.

Let us suppose that couples throughout history have had an average of (2 × c) children (i.e., c boys plus c girls). Starting with two humans, this would make the population after the first generation, P_n = 2+2 ∙ c. Then, the children, marrying each other, had another (2 ∙ c) children per couple. As illustrated in Scientific Studies in Special Creation (Lammerts, 1971), continuing this progression results in the following equation, where n is the number of generations for which the calculation is done.

After multiplying both sides of Equation (1) by c, subtracting the resulting equation from Equation (1), grouping, and dividing both sides by (c – 1), the following equation results:

This gives the total population after n generations, without any deaths. Assuming each person lives an average of d generations, the number of deceased people by the final generation (i.e., the (n – d)^th generation) can be calculated using Equation (3):

Therefore, the total population after n generations, accounting for death, can be calculated by subtracting the population of the (n – d)^th  generation from the population calculated in Equation (2), resulting in the following:

If each couple has only two children (i.e., c = 1), the population will remain constant, and if each couple has fewer than two children on average (i.e., c < 1), the population will decrease (Lammerts, pp. 198-205). [See also Morris and Morris, 1996 and Wysong, 1976 for more information on the derivation of the above equations.]

The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the world’s population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology, lifespans (especially considering the long lifespans in the generations immediately following the Flood and the shorter lifespans preceding the current state of medical knowledge), and fluctuating offspring production rates. However, this approach allows for the use of long-term averages to get a rough estimate of what the world’s population should look like over time.

Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2. Thus, each couple throughout history has had, on average, at least two children, and many times three or more children were born. Also, let us assume that each person has lived, on average, one and a third generations (i.e., d = 1.3). This means that each person died having seen some, though not all, of their grandchildren. Again, this estimate is likely very conservative, especially since effective birth control methods are a relatively recent innovation. However, these conservative estimates certainly take into account the long periods of time in history when people lived shorter lives and had fewer children. Let us further assign a reasonable estimate of a “generation” to be 38 years. This means that each couple has had all of their children by age 38. All of these numbers could easily and fairly be increased, but doing so would do even further damage to the evolutionist’s case.

Using these conservative estimates, if human beings have been on the planet producing offspring for one million years, over 26,000 generations have passed. There are currently about seven billion people on earth—6.9×10⁹ (“U.S. & World Population…,” 2011). However, according to Equation (4), there should be over 10^2,000 people on the Earth today if propagation commenced one million years ago. That is a one, followed by 2,000 zeros. In order to try to fathom that number, consider the following analogy. The known Universe is thought to be 28 billion light years in diameter (Powell, 2006; Tully, 2000). That is the equivalent of over 10⁷⁰ cubic miles of volume. If tiny, three foot humans, modeled as cylinders with five inch radii (i.e., very narrow shoulders), were crammed into the Universe like sardines, 10⁸² people might fit (if they have not eaten in awhile). That leaves enough people to fill up 10^1,918 (minus one) additional Universes that are the size of this one! And what’s worse, if c, d, or n are increased, as they legitimately could be, the problem is further amplified. Consider also that these numbers are based on a starting point of one million years ago. Evolutionists claim that humans have been on the Earth for two to three million years.  To make their plight even worse, the evolutionary community digs its own grave significantly deeper by speculating that the original Adam and Eve were actually Adam, Eve, and about 10,000 other people (Hawks, et al., 2000). Even if 10,000 such miracles were accomplished in the same period of time in human history, one can easily imagine how many more people would result in a given period of time if  5,000 couples initially began bearing children instead of one couple. Where, pray tell, are all of the imaginary people that should be in existence if evolution is the true history of humanity?

The evolutionary community certainly has trouble adjusting the numbers to allow for this preposterous scenario. However, they must be able to come up with a reasonable explanation in order to maintain their position. If evolution is true, it must be assumed that there were times when the human population remained constant for very long periods of time or decreased to the point of extinction at different times in history (cf. Weiss, 1984; Hawks, et al., 2000). Such speculation is a leap into the dark without sufficient, verifiable evidence. [NOTE: Incidentally, such speculation is in contradiction with uniformitarian principles, which are fundamental to evolutionary dating techniques. If the Earth has not progressed in a constant, uniform fashion as macroevolution suggests, then old ages based on those uniformitarian assumptions cannot be assigned to the Earth. It seems that the evolutionary community wants to “have their cake and eat it, too.”] History grants us no world population estimates based on census’s until the last 200 years. Before that, according to population statisticians’ estimates, the average annual population growth was estimated to be relatively constant, ranging between 0.03-0.15% from 1750 A.D. to 10,000 B.C. (“Historical Estimates of World Population,” 2010) [NOTE: World populations are estimated at this later date based on the assumption that the theory of evolution is true. Such a time frame would be pre-Creation, according to the Bible, and is rejected by the author.] Likely due to medical breakthroughs and technological advancement, the annual population growth has since jumped to about 2%. Note that even the irreligious community recognizes the likelihood of significant population growth on average over time throughout history and makes its estimates accordingly. The evolutionary position, in order to exist at all, must stand in contradiction to this fact. The evidence, as well as common sense, cannot be denied. If growth is the norm as the evidence indicates, evolution is impossible. The evidence conveyed by population statistics simply does not support the evolutionary model.

POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE CREATION MODEL

What about the creation model? Is it supported by the evidence from population statistics? The biblical position asserts that after the Flood, repopulation of the Earth commenced, starting with six people (i.e., Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives), instead of two (or 10,000). Using the aforementioned procedure, the following equation can be derived for calculation of the projected population for any given time, starting with six people:

If we assume, based on biblical genealogies, that the Flood took place roughly 4,300 years ago (cf. Bass, 2003), using the same c andd as above, as well as a generation of 38 years, then 113 generations have passed since the global Flood of Noah’s day. Based on these numbers, the approximate projected population for today can be calculated. According to the calculations, there should be approximately seven billion people on Earth—6.7×10^9. This is strikingly close to the current population as recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau—6.9×10⁹.

CONCLUSION

What does the evidence indicate? Is the evolutionary model a plausible explanation for man’s existence? The evidence from the field of population statistics says, “Certainly not.” Even granting very conservative numbers in the calculation of projected populations, it is the biblical model that is in keeping with the numerical evidence provided by the world’s population. The evidence supports a young age for the Earth and mankind. One would have to be dishonest to examine such concrete evidence and dismiss it out of hand. Yet, this attitude pervades much of the scientific community today. The same people who proclaim that they, unlike theists, are the ones who examine the evidence without bias, only drawing those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence, are the very ones who turn against the evidence when it does not suit their purpose and agenda. Philosopher David Hume once said that no man turns against reason until reason turns against him (as quoted in Warren, 1982, p. 4). That certainly sums up the mentality of many in the scientific community. Why not choose to go with the reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence? The Earth is young. Evolution cannot explain human existence. The biblical model can…and does.

REFERENCES

Bass, Alden (2003), “Which Came First, the Pyramids or the Flood?” Reason & Revelation, 23[11]:97-103, November, /pub_rar/23_11/0311.pdf.

Bell, Graham (1982), The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

Corballis, Michael C. (2002), From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

“The Emergence of Modern Humans” (2011), Dolan DNA Learning Center, http://www.geneticorigins.org/pv92/intro.html.

Hawks, John, Keith Hunley, Sang-Hee Lee, and Milford Wolpoff (2000), “Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, 17[1]:2-22.

“Historical Estimates of World Population” (2010), U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html.

Johanson, Donald C. (2001), “Origins of Modern Humans: Multiregional or Out of Africa?” American Institute of Biological Sciences, http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html.

Kitcher, Philip (1982), Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Lammerts, Walter, ed. (1971), Scientific Studies in Special Creation (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed).

Morris, Henry M. and John D. Morris (1996), The Creation Trilogy—Science & Creation (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Powell, Richard (2006), “The Size of the Universe,” An Atlas of the Universe, http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html.

Ridley, Mark (2001), The Cooperative Gene (New York: The Free Press).

Schecter, Julie (1984), “How Did Sex Come About?” Bioscience, December.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2002), “The Origin of Gender and Sexual Reproduction [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 22[10]:73-79, /pub_rar/22_10/0210.pdf.

Tully, Brent (2000), “How Big is the Universe?” NOVA Online, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/universe/howbig.html.

University of Utah (2005), “The Oldest Homo Sapiens: Fossils Push Human Emergence Back to 195,000 Years Ago,” Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223122209.htm.

“U.S. & World Population Clocks” (2011), U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html.

Walker, Matthew (2002), “What Does the Archaeology Record Tell Us About the Lifestyles of the Early Hominids?” New Archaeology, http://www.newarchaeology.com/articles/earlyhom.php.

Warren, Thomas B. (1982), Logic & the Bible (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press).

Weiss, K.M. (1984), “On the Number of Members of the Genus Homo Who Have Ever Lived, and Some Evolutionary Implications,” Human Biology, December, 56[4]:637-49.

Wysong, R.L. (1976), The Creation/Evolution Controversy (East Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press).

The post Population Statistics and a Young Earth appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Some have come to believe that the questions Job asked in verse five somehow support the view that the days of Creation were not literal days, but long periods of geologic time. In fact, a friend recently relayed to me how someone objected to her literal interpretation of Genesis chapter one partly based upon this verse. Does Job 10:5 really support the Day-Age Theory of Creation?

First, it is disappointing that anyone who claims to care about “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) would appeal to this section of Scripture to prove any doctrine. Although Job is a great example of perseverance (James 5:10-11), there is no indication that his speeches were inspired. Neither he nor anyone else in the book ever claimed Job’s statements were “given by inspiration of God.” Job is an inspired book, but a very unique book in that it is full of speeches by uninspired men (e.g., Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar). In fact, when God finally answered Job out of the whirlwind, He asked the patriarch: “Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” (38:2, emp. added). Obviously, God never would have asked such a rhetorical question had Job been inspired. Prior to the Lord’s speeches, Elihu twice accused Job of the very same thing (34:35; 35:16). Later, Job even said himself: “I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know” (42:3, emp.added; cf. 30:16-23). Ironically, in the very passage that some would claim supports the Day-Age Theory, Job was guilty of uttering things he “did not know” (see 10:3).

But doesn’t Job, through his rhetorical questions, simply acknowledge a well-known truth—that God’s days and years are not like those of man (10:5)? Certainly, this fact is known from other scriptures. Just as God does not see as a finite man (Job 10:4) but as an infinite, omniscient Creator (Psalm 139:1-12), God’s days and years are not numbered like those of a man (Job 10:5). God is eternal (Deuteronomy 33:27). He is “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalm 90:2). In Job 10:4-6, the patriarch acknowledged that God did not need to investigate his life (as a man would) to know that he was not wicked. He is the infinite, eternal, omniscient Creator Who already knew that Job was innocent. Notice, however, that this truth says nothing about how long the days of Creation were.

Still, some would argue, “Regardless of the context of Job 10:5, thefact remains that God is not bound by time and the days of Genesis just as easily could have been thousands or millions of years.” There is no question that God is not bound by time. The point, however, is not whether God is outside of time, but what God has revealed to us—both in Genesis 1 and in the rest of Scripture. God could have created the Universe in any way He desired, in whatever order He wanted, and in whatever time frame He chose. He could have created the world and everything in it in six hours, six minutes, six seconds, or in one millisecond—He is, after all, God Almighty (Genesis 17:1). But the question is not what God couldhave done; it is what He said He did. And He said that He created everything in six days (Genesis 1). When God gave theIsraelites the Ten Commandments, He stated:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessedthe Sabbath day and hallowed it (Exodus 20:8-11, emp. added).

This Sabbath command can be understood properly only when the days of the week are considered regular 24-hour days.

Based upon God’s use of words throughout Scripture which represent time periods that are much longer than a regular day (cf. Genesis 1:14; 2 Peter 3:8; Lyons, 2007), we can rightly conclude that God could have revealed to man that this world was created over a vast period of time. [For example, He could have used the Hebrew word dôr, which means long periods of time.] The fact is, however, God said He created this world and everything in it in six days (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11; 31:17; cf. Psalm 33:9; 148:5; Mark 10:6). What’s wrong with just believing what God said He did?

REFERENCE

Lyons, Eric (2007), “With God One Day is a Thousand Years,” /articles/3414.

The post Does Job 10:5 Support the Day-Age Theory? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

I am continually baffled by such claims from alleged Christians for three different reasons. First, as we have addressed many times in the past, the Bible clearly teaches that the Earth is only five days older than man, and even atheistic evolutionists do not believe that man has been on Earth for billions of years (cf. Lyons, 2006). Christians can choose to believe the multi-billion-year evolutionary time scale, which claims that people evolved approximately 13.996 billion years after the beginning of the Universe, or they can believe what Jesus and Paul taught—that man has been on Earth since the foundation of the world (Luke 11:49-51; Mark 10:6; Romans 1:20). You cannot logically or scripturally believe both views.

Second, macroevolution has never been proven. Many Christians have accepted evolution even though the entire theory is based upon assumptions. Evolutionists assume that because there are certain similarities between humans and animals, humans must have evolved from animals. In truth, however, these similarities prove no such thing. (They more accurately point to a common Creator Who made living creatures with many similarities because we live on the same planet, breathe the same air, eat the same kinds of food, drink the same water, etc.). Furthermore, neither geology nor paleontology proves macroevolution. All methods of dating rocks are based upon built-in assumptions (see Riddle, 2007). Evolutionary geologists and paleontologists have not “proven” that the layers of the Earth and the fossils in the Earth are millions of years old, they merely assume that the assumption-based dating methods are accurate. Moreover, there are no evolutionary family trees in the fossil record, but only evolutionists’ interpretations of the fossils. Simply put, macroevolution has never been observed or confirmed.

Finally, many Christians seem willing to defend evolution more blindly than some atheistic evolutionists. For example, even though many professed Christians have swallowed Big Bang Theory hook, line, and sinker (e.g., a senior biology major at a Christian University once informed me that all of her science professors “believe in the validity of the Big Bang”), some of the world’s most decorated evolutionary astrophysicists freely admit that “we are still as confused as ever about how the universe began” (Coles, 193[2593]:37). In short, while Big Bang Theory is falling on hard times within some atheistic evolutionary circles (cf. Brooks, 2008, 198[2659]:31; Coles, 2007, 193[2593]:33-37), it is still propagated among some “Bible believers” as factual. Unbelievable! “Christian” evolutionists are even known to accept alleged “missing links” as proof of human evolution. Another Christian college student once told me about one professor’s espousal of the idea that “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis) was likely one of our hairy, half-human, half-ape ancestors who lived a few million years ago. In truth, the idea of Lucy being our ancestor has been known for years to be riddled with problems, which even some atheistic evolutionists have acknowledged (see Harrub and Thompson, 2003, pp. 41-57).

Sadly, many professed Christians have bought into Darwin’s damnable doctrines despite (1) it never being proven, (2) notable atheistic evolutionists having doubts about, and problems with, many aspects of evolution, and (3) Scripture clearly teaching that the Earth is relatively young and not billions of years old. Scripture and science do not disagree with each other, but God’s Word and the General Theory of Evolution do. May God help His people stop kowtowing to evolutionary scientific elitism and start accepting God at His Word.

Brooks, Michael (2008), “Inflation Deflated,” New Scientist, 198[2659]:30-33, June 7.

Coles, Peter (2007), “Boomtime,” New Scientist, 193[2593]:33-37, March 3.

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2003), The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Lyons, Eric (2006), “Man Has Been on Earth Since…,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3068.

Riddle, Mike (2007), “Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Old?” [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove.

The post Christians and the Theory of Evolution appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Consider another frequently disregarded discrepancy between evolutionary theory and the Bible. According to a recent New Scientist article titled “A Forest is Born,” “[p]lants first colonised land in the Ordovician period, around 465 million years ago” (O’Donoghue, 2007, 196[2631]:38). Allegedly, “it wasn’t until the evolution of trees 80 million years later that vegetation could spread around the globe” (p. 40, emp. added). What’s more, trees with roots, seeds, and leaves supposedly evolved nearly 100 million years after the first land plants (p. 40). There were fish in the seas (see Evolution, 1994, p. 30) and “tiny creatures such as insects” on land (O’Donoghue, p. 38), but according to evolution, seed-producing, fruit-bearing trees bloomed millions of years later.

What does the Bible teach about the origin of vegetation? On day three of Creation, the omnipotent God Who created everything with “the breath of His mouth” (Psalm 33:6), said: “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth” (Genesis 1:11). The Bible then reveals, “and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day” (Genesis 1:11-13).

It is really very simple. God made grass, herb, and tree, seed, spore, and fruit on the same day of Creation. There were no epoch-long, time-laden processes that turned plants into shrubs and shrubs into trees over many millions of years. God said He did it in one day, “and it was so.” Furthermore, He did it prior to His creation of any animal life. Although evolution says that fish and insects were around before fruit bearing trees, the Bible teaches otherwise (Genesis 1:20-25).

In truth, the chronology of Creation as revealed in Genesis 1 contradicts evolution theory. One cannot reasonably hold to a theory that claims fruit-bearing trees evolved millions of years after the “first plants,” or that certain animals were around millions of years before trees. The sooner that Christians who are sympathetic to the evolutionary timetable acknowledge the differences between evolution and God’s Creation account, the better. If evolution theory is true, the Bible is wrong. If the Bible is true, the evolutionary theory is a lie. “How long will you falter between two opinions?” (1 Kings 18:21).

Evolution: Change Over Time (1994), (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

O’Donoghue, James (2007), “A Forest is Born,” New Scientist, 196[2631]:38-41, November.

The post Tree Evolution and Genesis 1 appeared first on Apologetics Press.

First, the Bible does not say, “With God one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day.” The apostle Peter actually wrote: “[B]eloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8). Peter used a figure of speech known as a simile to compare a day to a thousand years. It is not that one day is precisely equivalent to 1,000 years or vice versa. Rather, within the specific context of 2 Peter 3, one could say that they share a likeness.

What is the context of 2 Peter 3? In this passage, Peter reminded Christians that “scoffers” would arise in the last days saying, “Where is the promise of His [Jesus’] coming?” (vss. 3-4). Peter declared: “[T]he heavens and the earth…are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (vs. 7). Regardless of what the scoffers alleged about the Second Coming, Peter wanted the church to know that “the Lord is not slack concerning His promise [of a return], as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (vs. 9). Sandwiched between these thoughts is the fact that the passing of time does not affect God’s promises, specifically the promise of His return. If Jesus promised to return 1,000 or 2,000 years ago, it is as good as if He made the promise yesterday. Indeed, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” With men, the passing of long periods of time generally affects their keeping of promises, but not with God. Time has no bearing on whether He will do what He said He would do: “a thousand years are like a day” (vs. 8, NIV).

Another point to consider is that Peter used the term “day” (Greek hemera) and the phrase “thousand years” (chilia ete). This in itself is proof that God is able to communicate to man the difference between one day and 1,000 years. (For similes to make sense, one first must understand the literal difference between what is being compared. If there were no difference, then it would be meaningless to use such a figure of speech.) What’s more, within Genesis chapter one God used the terms “days” (Hebrew yamim) and “years” (shanim). Many rightly have questioned, “If a day in Genesis is really a thousand years (or some other long period of time), then what are the years mentioned in Genesis chapter one?” Such a definition of “days” makes a reasonable interpretation of Creation impossible. The facts are: (1) God knows the difference between a day and a thousand years; (2) Peter and Moses understood this difference; (3) their original audience comprehended the difference; and (4) any unbiased reader today can do the same.

Finally, even if 2 Peter 3:8 could be tied to the length of the Creation days (logically and biblically it cannot), adding 6,000 years to the age of the Earth would in no way appease evolutionary sympathizers. A person could add 600,000 years or 600 million years and still not come close to the alleged age of the Universe. According to evolutionary calculations, one would still be 13+ billion years away from the Big Bang and four billion years this side of the formation of Earth. Truly, even an abuse of 2 Peter 3:8 will not help Day-Age theorists.

The post “With God One Day is a Thousand Years”? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

on the fourth day, God “set” the sun, moon and stars in the heavens to govern the days, months, seasons and years (verse 17). When God “set” the lights in the heavens, it was much like when we “set” a clock. And that really is what God did—He “set” His clock on the 4th day. But these (the sun, moon, stars) were all created “in the beginning” (Gen. 1:1) (Thurman, 2006, p. 3, emp. added).

The problem with this line of argumentation is that it contradicts what the Bible says.

Certainly, “[i]n the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). But, it was not until later that God created the Sun, Moon, and stars. Genesis 1:14-19 reads:

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19, emp. added).

God not only “set” (Hebrew nathan) the Sun, Moon, and stars in their precise locations in the heavens on the fourth day of Creation, but it was on this day when God literally “made” (Hebrew asah) these heavenly bodies. Similar to how God initially made the land and seas void of animal life (which later was created on days five and six of Creation), the “heavens” were made “in the beginning,” but the hosts of heaven (which now inhabit them) were created “in the firmament of the heavens” on day four (Genesis 1:14).

Consider also how God spoke light into existence on day one of Creation, saying, “Let there be light” (1:3, emp. added). On the fourth day God declared, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens…and it was so” (1:14-15, emp. added). Gary Workman commented on this similarity, saying:

“Let there be lights” (v. 14) is identical in grammatical construction with other statements of “let there be…” in the chapter. Therefore the command can only mean that God spoke the luminaries into existence on the fourth day just as he had created the initial light on day one and the firmament on day two (1989, p. 3).

On day one God made intrinsic light; on day four He made the generators of light. Keep in mind that “the Father of lights” (James 1:17), Who is “light” (1 John 1:5), could create light easily without first having to create the Sun, Moon, and stars. Just as God could produce a fruit-bearing tree on day three without a seed, He could produce light supernaturally on day one without the “usual” light bearers (which subsequently were created on day four). Again, there is no indication in Scripture that the generators of light already were made before day four.

Suppose, however, that the creation of the heavens “in the beginning” had included the creation of the Sun, Moon, and stars (which Genesis 1:14-19 says were made on day four). One still would not be justified in trying to appease the evolutionary timeline by claiming that the “beginning” took place billions of years before the six days of Creation. Why? Because God said, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11, emp. added). Both the heavens and all that is in the heavens were created during the six-day creation.

In truth, on day one God created “the heavens,” and on day four He made the Sun, Moon, and stars. And all things were made within the six days of Creation. No “rightly divided” (2 Timothy 2:15) Bible passage will lead a person to any other conclusion.

Thurman, Clem (2006), “How Was Light Before the Sun?” Gospel Minutes, September 8.

Workman, Gary (1989), “Questions from Genesis One,” The Restorer, 9[5/6]:3-5, May/June.

The post When Were the Sun, Moon, and Stars Created? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

One prominent manifestation of humanistic influence in the church is the tendency to make concessions to the theory of evolution. Even Christian college science professors have been seduced by pseudo-scientific “proof ” that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Evolution’s illusion of scientific credibility depends upon an ancient Earth. This circumstance has created a climate in the scientific community in which those dating methods that support an ancient Earth receive preeminence, while those that support a young Earth are effectively ignored.

Once a Christian accepts the idea of an ancient Earth, he automatically is placed in a position where he must abandon a literal interpretation of the biblical Creation account. He must reject the “days” of Genesis one as literal twenty-four-hour days (or accept some other compromising concept such as the Gap Theory, Modified Gap Theory, etc.). Historically, in their frantic need to maintain their own credibility as a valid academic discipline, liberal theologians reevaluated their views of Genesis 1, and altered their assessments in order to accommodate the evolutionary framework. Consequently, the Creation account was stylized as a “myth” or a “hymn.” It is incredibly naïve to think that Christians can use the term “myth” to refer to Genesis 1, and there be no connection with liberal theology, evolution, and a devaluated view of the inspiration of that sacred chapter.

What are the practical effects of retreating to such a view? Many older Christians (i.e., World War II generation and before) were faced with the growing threat of an evolution-based view of science at a time when their own convictions about the reliability and inspiration of the Bible already had been crystallized. Consequently, many simply have not understood what all the fuss is about. They have been convinced that one can believe in evolution and an ancient Earth, and yet still hold to firm convictions about the reliability of the biblical account of Creation. What they fail to realize is that they already had come to accept the Bible viewpoint, and so learned to live with the logical incompatibility of the two divergent viewpoints. Their determination to maintain a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture was formed at a time when bold comparisons with the evolutionary framework were not forced upon them in the classroom.

But times are different. Babyboomers, whose adolescent years transpired after World War II, were forced to bring into bold relief and stark contrast two clearly clashing world views: creation and evolution. Irreligious science teachers caused us to face the fact that there is no common ground between the two views. Ultimately, the main reason for accepting the idea of an ancient Earth is to accommodate an evolutionary position of one sort or another.

Generation X arrived, and has been genuine and honest enough to see and embrace the logical implications of the ancient Earth viewpoint. Consequently, they have adjusted their perceptions of the integrity of the biblical text. They recognize that since Genesis 1 may be interpreted rather loosely, so may the rest of the Bible and, for that matter, the whole of their parents’ religion. Generated by a secular, humanistic society, and perpetuated by careless parents, the children have come to adopt a relativistic view of Christianity (if they have not abandoned it altogether). Alarmed, even panic-stricken, parents look on with wonderment at how their children can so easily throw overboard such ironclad certainties as God’s laws governing marriage, New Testament worship, and the plan of salvation. They apparently are blind to the fact that they, themselves, in league with humanistic philosophy, have sown the wind that yielded the whirlwind!

The solution? It may be too late to save many of the post-World War II population, in whom a modern mindset has been deeply embedded. However, the only road to recovery, and the only hope for future generations, is a return to complete trust in the written documents of the Bible. Tampering with the text in order to accommodate every fast-talking scientific or theological “authority” that comes along must stop. God must be taken at His word. Everything must be measured by the standard of the plain teaching of the Bible. The god of secular education, which has become the measuring stick and the absolute authority, must be dethroned. The God of heaven must be re-enthroned in one’s life. His ability to communicate His view of reality to humans in simple, straightforward, easy-to-understand language must be taken seriously.

Once the biblical text is compromised, once the obvious meaning of Scripture is whitewashed in order to make its teaching more palatable and in step with secular culture, once Scripture is adjusted to fit human ideas rather than human ideas being adjusted to fit Scripture—the battle has been lost and Satan has won. No one should be surprised if our children have enough sense to see it, and to live accordingly.

The post The Implications of Rejecting the Literal Days of Genesis 1 appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Did God “create” or “make” the world?

A.

Oftentimes, those who advocate the view that the Earth is billions of years old suggest that God initially “created” the Earth (Genesis 1:1) and then later “made” (i.e., re-created) it in six days. As awkward as this sounds to those who take a more straightforward (and accurate) approach to reading Scripture, these old-Earth advocates make a distinction between the Hebrew words bara (to create) and asah (to make or fashion). They claim that bara and asah always must mean two different things in relation to God’s creative acts. Not long ago, I heard a gentleman on the radio teaching that Exodus 20:11 does not mean that God created the Universe and everything in it in six days, but instead means that He “re-created” or “fashioned” the Universe in six days after originally creating it billions of years earlier. This man based his whole argument on the “fact” that “to make” does not mean “to create.”

What is the truth of the matter? After surveying the creation account, one finds that no distinction is made between God’s creating (bara) and His making (asah). These words are used fifteen times in the first two chapters of Genesis in reference to God’s work. Genesis 1:21 states that God “created” (bara) the sea creatures and birds. Then in 1:25 we read where God “made” the animals of the Earth. Are we to believe that God created the birds and fish from nothing and then “refashioned” the land animals from materials he had made billions of years earlier? Preposterous! In Genesis 1:26-27 we read that God made (asah) man in His image. Yet, the very next verse says that He created (bara) him in His image. How can one assert (logically) that in these two verses “make” and “create” refer to completely different creations?

Furthermore, the “explanatory notes” God has given us throughout the Old Testament concerning the events recorded in Genesis 1 reveal that the words “create” (bara) and “make/made” (asah) are used interchangeably in reference to the creation of the Universe and everything in it. When we read Exodus 20:11, Psalm 148:1-5, Nehemiah 9:6, and Genesis 1-2, the only logical conclusion we can draw is that “to create” and “to make” refer to the same event.

The post Questions and Answers: Did God “Create” or “Make” the World? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The work of day one may appear at first to include only the creation of light, however, it was not the only thing that God made on day one. If light were the only thing created on day one, then one must ask whence the water came that was already in existence on day two. For on the second day of Creation, God made an expanse to divide “the waters from the waters.” Apparently, these “waters” already were present on day two when the expanse (atmosphere) was made. In fact, that is exactly what Genesis 1:1-2 teaches: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” (emp. added). The initial creation of the earth (on day one) was that of a watery, unformed-and-unfilled substance over which the Spirit hovered. (Remember, it was not until day three that God made an Earth composed of land, sea, and vegetation.) Thus, God not only created light on day one (vs. 3-5), but also created “the heavens and the earth” (vs. 1-2).

Some claim that Genesis 1:1-2 is a kind of “summation” of all that God did during the Creation week. However, Exodus 20:11 states, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.” If all things were created within this week, then day one actually begins in verse one, with the creation of the watery void called “earth” and the dark space called “heaven.” Thus, contrary to what some may think, on day one God created the heavens, the earth, and light. Although it is correct to sing and teach that God made light on day one, we also need to remember that on that same day God created the “heavens and the earth.”

The post What Did God Create on Day One? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

What is the truth of the matter? After surveying the Old Testament, one finds that no distinction is made between God’s creating (bara) and His making (asah) in the creation account or anywhere else for that matter. The fact is, these words are used interchangeably throughout the Old Testament in reference to what God has done. In Genesis 1-2, the words “created” (bara) and “made” (asah) are used fifteen times in reference to God’s work. It is clear to the unbiased reader that these words do not stand at odds with one another; rather, they teach one central truth—that God created and/or made the Universe and everything in it in six literal days.

In Genesis 1:26 it is recorded that God said: “Let us make (asah) man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” Then we are told in the very next verse that He “created (bara) man in His own image.” How can one assert (logically) that in these two verses “make” and “create” refer to different creations? Near the beginning of the next chapter, we read: “Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created (bara) and made (asah). This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created (bara), in the day that the Lord God made (asah) the earth and the heavens” (Genesis 2:3-4). Clearly, these words are used interchangeably in the creation account and throughout the rest of the Bible when referring to what God did “in the beginning” (cf. Psalm 148:1-5; Nehemiah 9:6; Exodus 20:11; Genesis 1:21,25).

Did God intend to communicate a different message every time He used different words to describe something? Absolutely not! Just as you may tell one person, “I mowed the yard,” you might mention to someone else that “I cut the grass.” You have spoken one truth, even thou you used two phrases. Oftentimes we do this when telling a story in order to escape monotony. When the psalmist proclaimed, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1), his aim was not to teach two separate truths, but to teach one truth with different words. Later, when he wrote, “The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein” (24:1), he again was teaching one central message with different words. Likewise, when the Bible says that God “created” the world it means nothing more (or less) than God “made” the world (and vice versa).

The post Did God "Create" or "Make" the World? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The available evidence reveals several reasons why we can know that the days mentioned in Genesis 1 are the same kind of days we experience in the present age, and were not eons of time. First, whenever the Hebrew word for day (yom) is preceded by a numeral (in non-prophetic passages like Genesis 1), it always carries the meaning of a 24-hour day. The same occurs in the plural (cf. Exodus 20:11 and 31:17).

Second, yom is both used and defined in Genesis 1:5. Whenever the words “evening” or “morning” are used in the Old Testament (in non-prophetic passages) they always refer to regular, 24-hour days. Furthermore, if the “days” of Genesis 1:14, were “eons of time,” then what were the years? And, if a “day” is an “age,” then what is a “night”?

Third, if the “days” of Genesis were not days at all, but long geological periods, then a problem of no little consequence arises in the field of botany. Plants came into existence on the third day (Genesis 1:9-13). If the days of Genesis 1 were long geological ages, and each day had one long period of darkness and one long period of daylight (“evening and morning,” Genesis 1:5), how did plant life survive millions of years (one-half of a “day”) of total darkness? Furthermore, how would the plants that depend on insects for pollination have survived the supposed millions or billions of years between “day” three and “day” five (when insects were created).

Fourth, while Jesus was on the Earth He taught that men and woman had been here from “the beginning of creation” (Mark 10:6; cf. Matthew 19:4). Paul affirmed this same sentiment in Romans 1:20-21, where he stated that man and women have been here “from the beginning of the creation” when they were “perceiving the things that were made.” The Day-Age Theory, on the other hand, places man at the end of billions of years of geologic time. Both cannot be true.

Finally, one must ask, if God wanted us to know that He created the world in six literal days, what words would He have used? Or if a person wanted to explain to someone else that God created all things in a literal six days, what words would he use? The answer?—the exact words used in Genesis 1.

You can trust your Bible when it says, “For in six days [not six billion years—EL] the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11).

The post Were the Days Really Days? appeared first on Apologetics Press.