Tag: Biology

The Theological Significance of the Doctrine of Creation: The Theological Bedrock of Early Creation in Genesis 1:1-2

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
The Theological Significance of the Doctrine of Creation: The Theological Bedrock of Early Creation in Genesis 1:1-2
Submitted to Matthew Wireman
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of
THEO 525 – D02
Survey of Theology
by
Robert Beanblossom
25 August 2017
2
Contents
Introduction..…………………….…………………..……………………………………….…..1
Scope …………………………………………………………………………………………….……2
Introductory Matters …………………………………………………………….…………..3
Authorship ……………………………………………………………………………….………….3
Date and Place of Writing ………………………………………………………….……….3
Destination and Occasion ……………………………………………..………….………..4
Purpose ………………………………………………………………………………………………..4
Creation: Genesis 1:1-2……………….……………………………………….……..…..….4
Exegetical Considerations .…………………………………………….………..…………5
Genesis 1:1-2 and Science ..………………………………………………………..………9
The Scientific Method ………………………………………………………………….………9
Cosmology …………………………………………………………………………………….……10
Physics ………………………………………………………………………………………………..11
Geology ………………………………………………………………………………………………12
Theological Considerations …………………………………….………………………..14
Summary and Conclusions ……………………………………………….……………….15
Bibliography …..……………………………………….…………………………..……………16

Publication Note: This paper was originally published on 25 August 2017 as partial fulfillment of the requirements of THEO 525 at Liberty University Rawlings School of Divinity.

Citation: Beanblossom, Robert. 2017. “The Theological Significance of the Doctrine of Creation: The Theological Bedrock of Early Creation in Genesis 1:1-2.” https://learn.liberty.edu/webapps/
assignment/uploadAssignment?content_id=_18078564_1&course_id=_370689_1&assign_group_id=&mode=view.

3

Introduction

Creation: is it fact or fiction? Is Genesis 1-21 the God-breathed account of actual events, or a fable fabricated to teach religious principles? Biblical creation is “widely debated . . . today.”2 Jews since Moses, and Christians since the time of Jesus, have believed Genesis 1-2 to be literal accounts of God’s creation. Today, doubts prevail. Andrew Snelling remarks:

(For) Bible-believing churchgoers, an alarming number of Christian leaders and teachers . . . believe that God ‘created’ through evolutionary processes . . . (and) that Adam and Eve are the names of a human pair who descended from a hominid population . . . .3

Antecedent to the discussion of man’s creation is the consideration of the origin of the cosmos: aspects of beginnings that sometimes seem to be firmly settled by science outside of any need for a god. Images of the cosmos, popularized by vivid space photographs, make man appear infinitesimal in an evolutionary world where chance “creates” and man is his own god. Biblical creation is considered by liberal Christians and humanists to be fable, probably derivative of ancient creation myths. Daniel C. Harlow, considering the literary genre of Genesis 1-11, states that, “the narratives . . .were probably written and read as both paradigmatic and protohistoric—imaginative portrayals of an actual epoch in a never-to-be-repeated past that also bears archetypal significance for the ongoing human situation.4 For Cornelis van der Kooi, however, “the world is . . . in the midst of a universe that God willingly created for his glory, and
____________________
1 All references to the Bible are from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.
2 Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Guide to Systematic Theology (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1986), 195.
3 Andrew A. Snelling, Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & the Flood, Vol. 1. (Dallas: Institute for Creation Research, 2009), 10.
4 Daniel C. Harlow, “After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62, no. 3 (September 2010), 182. (Emphasis Harlow’s).

4
for the wellbeing of human(s).”5 The entire OT is a “revelation from God in view of His earthly people,” states William Kelly.6 It is a “story of one race, on one planet, in one age,” says F. A. Filby.7
James C. Peterson recognizes that “science and theology will sometimes interact . . . . (since) They are . . . ultimately studying different aspects of one reality.”8 The biblical account of Creation, as the essential bedrock of conservative evangelical theology, is unassailable by modern science.
Scope
The boundaries of Genesis 1:1-2 and its relationship to science will be reviewed, evaluating the strengths and limitations of each, encompassing the general revelation of God “which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (John 1:9b). We will not attempt to prove the biblical account of creation, but rather to show the positive relationship between the Bible and the facts of science, if not popular dogma. The place of creation in conservative evangelical theology will be discussed, with input from conservative and liberal theologians in a meaningful manner for Christians today. This will be approached from a conservative evangelical worldview that accepts the Word of God as inspired, accurate, and complete.
____________________
5 Cornelis van der Kooi, “International Journal of Systematic Theology,” Volume 18, Number 1, January 2016, 47-48.
6 Kelly, William Kelly, In the Beginning and the Adamic Earth: An Exposition of, texts Genesis I-II, New Edition, Revised (London: Bible Treasury, 1894), 1.
7 F. A. Filby, Creation Revealed: A Study of Genesis Chapter One in the Light of Modern Science (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H Revell, Co., 1963), 13.
8 James C. Peterson, “Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith,” Vol. 68, Number 1, March 2016, 1.
5
Introductory Matters
Authorship
Genesis does not explicitly state who wrote it. For early Jews this was a settled issue: God directed and Moses wrote.9 “The early church, the church of later centuries, and the Jews almost unanimously accepted Mosaic authorship,”10 on the authority of tradition and Scripture.11 Higher criticism in the 19th century investigated the Bible in new ways, leading to the conclusion that the entire Pentateuch was of much later origin: Moses could not be the author.12 The traditional position, however, was “too strongly supported to be dismissed by liberal rationalization.”13 This is not to dismiss the idea that Moses compiled Genesis using earlier sources.14 H. C. Leupold writes, “it seems highly probable that godly men preserved a reliable record of God’s revelation and dealings . . . with the most painstaking care.”15 This is consistent with Luke’s methodology in the NT (e.g. Luke 1:1-2).
Date and Place
The book was probably written between the beginning of the Exodus and Moses’ death just prior to the invasion of Canaan under Joshua. The date could be pushed back subsequent to
____________________
9 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, Vol. 1, Chapters 1-19 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1945), 6. See Luke 16:31 and 24:27.
10 Snelling, 16.
11 Leupold, 6. See also: Exodus 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Lev 1:1; 4:1; 6:1, 8, 19, 24; 7:22, 28; 9:1, etc.; Deut 1:1; 17:18, 19; 27:1-8; 31:9; 31:24.
12 Snelling, 16.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Leupold, 8.
6
his call in the desert at the burning bush without prejudice (cf. Ex 3). Scripture is silent on the issue. The location would, in either case, be the wilderness of Mesopotamia south of the Dead Sea. Revisionists would have the book written as late as the Exile, or during the United Monarchy by multiple authors, but these positions show little consensus and no prior articulation by early Judaism.16
Destination and Occasion
The message is universal, but the intended destination is the Chosen People of God, Israel, perhaps as an introduction to the God of Moses who led them out of Egypt, gave them the Law, and would lead them into the Promised Land of Abraham.
Purpose
The purpose of Genesis is to establish a relationship between God and His Chosen People.17 Genesis 1:1-2 establishes YHWH as the sole, unique, sovereign Creator.18
Creation: Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters
Genesis 1:1-2 describes the creation of the physical universe including the great bodies of the cosmos, the earth, and the natural laws that govern the behavior of matter, energy, and space.
____________________
16 Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 90.
17 Leupold, 9.
18 Hill, 94-95.
7
The natural laws and the matter that they regulate define the ordinary; they set the boundaries of the miraculous. Creation was not within those bounds. Ryrie acknowledges that the account “does not answer every question . . . but what it does reveal must be recognized as truth.”19 Millard J. Erickson elaborates: rather than constituting a science or history textbook, God’s special revelation is “relational, . . . knowledge about . . . for the purpose of the knowledge of.”20
Genesis begins with the beginning, distinguishing it from Mesopotamian accounts that are often compared with it. Uniquely, the singular pre-existing god elohiym creatio ex nihilo.21 “The opening pericope of Genesis . . . describes God’s work of making the world and everything in it in six days followed by a Sabbath,” states C. John Collins.22 Nowhere is a “defense given concerning the existence of God.”23 Erickson suggests that it was “virtually inconceivable” to the early Jews that anything could happen independently of this God.24 Collins affirms that the Masoretic Text is in agreement with the “oldest versions, in Greek and Latin”25
Exegetical Considerations
Re’shiyth ‘elohiym bara [7225, 430,1254]:26 this is the familiar and powerful “In the
_______________
19 Ryrie, 206.
20 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 145. (Emphasis added).
21 Ryrie, 207.
22 C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, PA: P and R Publications, 2006), 39.
23 Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Revised and Expanded (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014), 41.
24 Erickson, 320.
25 Collins, 45.
26 The Hebrew will be transliterated and transposed to the English word order, and referenced to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance in-text in brackets unless otherwise noted.
8
beginning God created.” Re’shiyth here conveys beginning, a period with both a starting and an ending point, according to E. E. Vine.27 Kelly disagrees, arguing that the absence of an article makes it undefined; more correctly rendered, “in beginning,” pointing not to a fixed point, but “of old.”28 Translated 19 times in KJV as “beginning(s),” the noun is “substantively firstfruits.”29 Translated thus 12 times, this nuance suggests a sense of: “The firstfruits of God’s creation . . . ,”30 foreshadowing the first recorded sacrifice to this god by Cain, whose indiscriminate “fruit of the ground” was rejected (4:3), while Able’s, drawn from the “firstlings of his flock,” was accepted (1:4); and the Law, requiring the best sacrifice for sin offerings (i.e. Lev 2:14): both pointing to Jesus Christ, the firstfruits of those “made alive” through His sacrifice (1 Cor 15:20). The unity of Scripture begins with the beginning.
‘Elohiym [430], the Hebrew supreme God, “has the peculiarity of a plural substantive with a singular verb.”31 In contrast to the Mesopotamian creation myths, He proclaims: “I am God, and there is none else” (Is 46:9a). It is rendered gods for pagan deities, “who have not made the heavens and the earth” (Jer 10:11).32 ‘Elohiym offers neither history nor provenance, yet for the inspired writer, there was no question: ‘elohiym is who He says He is: Hayah Hayah [1961]: “I AM THAT I AM” (Ex 3:14).
When translated create in the Hebrew Bible, bara is always an act of God, referring to
____________________
27 E. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996), 107.
28 Kelly, 10.
29 Ibid.
30 Author’s rendition.
31 Kelly, 7.
32 Filby, 22
9
the object created rather than tools and materials. Textually, the verb bara is in the perfect tense rather than an infinitive construct. Grammatically, the normal use of the perfect in the opening of a pericope (1:1) is to designate an “event that took place earlier,” (cf. 12:1); and while it is “possible that this tense denotes a summary of the account,” it is inconsistent with the newer reading; and theologically, the Jewish understanding of creation ex nihilo (cf. Is 45:12).33 Here the object of bara is everything: shamayim ‘eth ‘erets [8064, 853, 776], “the heaven and the earth” (1:1b).34 Shamayim is a dual that carries the connotation of both the heaven where the birds fly and clouds roam as well as the habitat of the celestial bodies.35 It is translated as both singular and plural in KJV (e.g. 2:4). ‘Eth is used to point out the object of the verb bara.36 ‘Erets throughout the OT is used in the common sense of Earth or its surface, the ground, providing continuity with the sixth day summary in 2:1, and with erets bara in 2:4.37
Collins cautions that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo should be based upon the text as a whole, that does imply creation from nothing, rather than just bara alone, since the same verb appears in 1:27, in which God “created” the man, and in 2:7, where He “formed” the man.38
Creation at this point is tohuw bohuw [8414, 922], “without form and void” (1:2a), a disorganized emptiness, reflected by Jeremiah (4:23), and Isaiah (Is 34:11). Earth, tohuw bohuw, was choshek [2822], without light, in literal darkness, but with overtones of figurative death and
____________________
33 Collins, 54-55.
34 See Genesis 1:1, 21, 27; 2:3, 4; 5:1, 2; 6:7; Is 45:7, 12; Is 41:20; 42:5, 43:1, 7; 45:7; 45:8, etc.
35 Collins, 42.
36 Strong’s, [853].
37 Ibid., 41
38 Ibid., 55.
10
destruction, of sorrow and wickedness, according to Strong’s. David Tsumura disagrees, concluding that Earth was not in “chaos,” but “unproductive and uninhabited.”39 Kelly adopts the “Gap Theory” arguing that the second sentence is separated in time and effect from the first: bara was created complete and perfect, but degenerated into the state of tohuw bohuw before Day One began (1:3.)40 KJV translators were consistent in using “dark” or “darkness,” although rendering it “night” and “obscurity” once each. This is the same choshek that we see in 1:2 where God spoke light into existence, and in 1:4 where he called the darkness night. This darkness was tehom [8415], “upon the face of the deep, which “simply means ‘the depths of the sea,'” according to Collins.41 Attempts made to link this to Mesopotamian creation myths have been refuted by Tsumura42 and Alexander Heidel.43 The verse concludes: ruakh ‘elohiym rachaoh mayim [7307, 430, 7363, 4325], the “Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Gordon J. Wenham reads ruakh ‘elohiym as “wind,” or “wind of God.”44 This is disputed by Collins who considers it a composite expression consistently rendered as “Spirit of God” in the OT.”45 Rachaph [7363] suggests that this Spirit flutters (Deut 32:11), moves (Gen 1:2), or shakes (Jer 23:9) over the “face of the waters” in a proprietary or nurturing manner.
The English rendering in KJV is fully consistent with the Hebrew Masoretic text.
____________________
39 David Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1and 2: A Linguistic Investigation, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 41-43.
40 Kelly, 10-19.
41 Collins, 45.
42 Tsumura, 45-47.
43 Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 98-101.
44 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, World Bible Commentary (Waco: Word Publishing, 1987),16-17.
45 Collins, 45.
11
Genesis 1:1-2 and Science
A basic question is, “Should the universe look like it had a beginning?”46 Aquinas argued that philosophy, which then included the sciences, was not able to prove that the universe did or did not have a beginning.47 This has not changed. Process Theology, largely parallel with evolutionary theory, argues that creation (rather than evolution) is an ongoing low-frequency process that provides an infinite and expanding variety of the created, explains Erickson.48 Immanuel Velekovsky asserts that, “By the end of the nineteenth century the war between the theory of evolution and the theory of creation in six days, less than six thousand years ago, was concluded, with victory to the theory of evolution.”49 Current scientific theories are based upon the principle of uniformitarianism. This doctrine holds that matter, energy, and space function today exactly as they always have, without changes or variations. There is a trend for Christians to accept or adapt current theories into their theologies to conform to the reality claimed for those theories.
The Scientific Method
Many disciplines claim to be scientific, but fail the litmus test: the classical scientific method is a rigorous protocol that requires: (1) physical observation, (2) development of a hypothesis, (3) experimental testing, (4) repetition and refinement, (5) peer review and
__________________
46 Collins, 256.
47 Aquinas, Suma Theologica, 1.46.
48 Erickson, 342.
49 Immanuel Velekovsky, Earth in Upheaval (NY: Dell Publishing Company, 1955), 270.
12
replication.50 Today, processes that do not meet these characteristics are considered scientific, including “proof” generated by mathematical models. Jose Wuda acknowledges “many ‘pseudo-scientific’ theories which wrap themselves in a mantle of apparent experimental evidence but are nothing but statements of faith.”51 John L. Casti candidly notes that “There are no universal, absolute, unchangeable ‘truths’ in science.”52 Alone in history, the biblical account of Creation is unchanging.
Cosmology
One cannot look at the night skies without a sense of awe. For the Christian, it is a display created by God. For the humanist, it is an expanding universe that promises the discovery-to-come of life on other worlds. Ancient Mesopotamian astronomers have left many tables that recorded the movements of visible stars and planets. Science postulates that the entirety of existing matter, energy and space was once compressed within a singularity, a black hole, that exploded in a Big Bang, distributing all into an expanding cosmos. Celestial mechanics, the study of that expanding universe emanating from a single point,53 is not disputed by the Genesis account, although the time proposed leaves room for discussion. Casti acknowledges that “no one knows how a new star is formed.”54 Wuda sums up the problem: “we
cannot perform experiments” replicating past cosmological events.55 Computer simulations are
____________________
50 Jose Wuda, “The Scientific Method.” UCR Physics, 1998. Acc. 3 August 2017. http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html, npn.
51 Ibid.
52 John L. Casti, Paradigms Lost (NY: William Morrow and Company, 1989), 12.
53 Gilluly, James, Aaron C Waters, C. Waters, and A. O. Woodford, Principles of Geology, 3rd ed. (SF: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1968), 565.
54 Wuda, npn.
55 Ibid.
13
substituted for the scientific method. An example would be the daily weather forecast, where accuracy is not a hallmark. Extend the forecast backward, increasing the timespan from hours and days to millennia and eons, and an idea of the diminishing accuracy appears. This approach provides statistical results within specified degrees of certainty, and has valid applications when the limits are not disregarded. The Genesis account eliminates these problems without requiring any adaptation or “revision” of doctrine or facts.
Physics
The interface of physics and Genesis embraces both philosophical and practical aspects. Philosophically, physics seeks the “grand verification of everything, . . . the unity of reality,” according to J. T. Fraser.56 Consistent with contemporary science, this quest rejects the miraculous, therefore any creator. Instead of a unified theory, limited solutions are proposed and replaced. 57 The Bible announced the unification theory 2,000 years ago (cf. Heb 1:9-17).
Of particular interest is the practical application of the decay of radioactive elements to the measurement of time. Radioactive “parent” elements decay into “child” elements at a statistically regular rate called a half-life that can be viewed as a clock. The application of this phenomenon by Bertram Boltwood in 1907 to historical geology allowed scientists to “date” rocks that contain the appropriate elements.58 From this application, the age of the earth is given in billions of years. Up to this point, there has been no problem between physics and Genesis 1,
____________________
56 Fraser, J. T. Fraser, The Genesis and Evolution of Time: A Critique of Interpretation in Physics (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1982), 176.
57 Jefferson Hane Weaver, The World of Physics: The Evolutionary Cosmos and the Limits of Science, Vol. 2. (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1987), 191-194.
58 Bertram Boltwood, 1907, “The Ultimate Disintegration Products of the Radio-active Elements, Part 3: The Disintrigation Products of Uranium.” American Journal of Science 4. 23 (134). Accessed 9 August 2017. http://www.ajsonline.org/content/s4-23/134/78, 77-88.
14
but radiometric dating ages are clearly at odds with a creation period of six days some 6,000 years ago. The answer lies in preconceptions and interpretation rather than the evidence. Age is interpolated from the ratio between the parent and the child elements. The original ratio is crucial to accuracy. The ratios adopted are speculation: they cannot be tested. Not only are igneous rocks in the mantle and core being constantly renewed and mixed, but natural radiation in the atmosphere “contaminates” samples at uneven rates. Calculations based on these assumptions are repeatable, giving them an appearance of fact, but only through the repetition of the same unverified assumptions. A far different date results if we were to use Bishop Ussher’s date of Creation of 4004 BC,57 backing up parent-child ratios from current measured amounts. This would yield dates compatible with Genesis 1. In either case, there is room for discussion of circularity. The problem is not with the data, but with the presuppositions.
Geology
The observations of physical geology are little disputed. The construct of core, mantle, and crust are well documented.58 The crust, the layer that includes the continents and the great seas, is the most accessible, and most diverse in composition and geologic activity.59 Immanuel Velekovsky observed, “To the surprise of many scientists . . . mountains have travelled, since older formations have been pushed up over the top of younger ones.”60 Specialists who study volcanoes and movements in the earth’s crust describe violent activity, past and present. This activity supports a unique and momentous initial creation (1:1-2) and Third Day when God
____________________
57 S. J. Gould, Eight Little Piggies: Reflections in Natural History (NY: W. W. Norton & Co., 1993), 181.
58 Gilluly, 473.
59 Ibid., 475.
60 Velekovsky, 70.
15
commanded the dry land to appear (1:9-10) as well as the later global flood of Genesis 6-8. The world tohuw bohuw was one grand sea (1:2, 6). The crust was either not formed, or was being formed (1:9-10). Some scientists suggest that all that God created was mature, having the appearance of age.61 This theory would have the submerged crust with initial sedimentary features and fossils formed in 1:1-2.
Historical Geology is the discipline that deals with geological events in time, drawing “virtually all knowledge” from the physical sciences, states Raymond C. Moore,62 filtering the facts through an evolutionary lens. This discipline minimally explores the age of non-sedimentary rocks, concentrating its efforts in fossiliferous depositions that, from a creationist viewpoint, would begin with Day Three (1:9-13), unless one understands 1:1 to include “aged” sedimentary strata as part of the initial creation.63 These acts of creation challenge the propositional assumptions of radiometric dating, causing the extremely old dates that we commonly see, as does the evidence of catastrophic beginnings that include lesser events today, when attempts are made to fit them into uniformitarian philosophy.64 Facts accepted by other disciplines within geology are often in concert with God’s account of creation, but the precepts of Historical Geology place it in the same philosophical category as evolution. None of the facts are in conflict with the Genesis account.
In this necessarily brief summary of science and the biblical account, we see that facts agree with the Word. Apparent discrepancies continue to exist, but history shown that additional
____________________
61 Ryrie, 210
62 Raymond C. Moore, Introduction to Historical Geology, 2nd ed. (NY: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1958), 1.
63 Ryrie, 209-211
64 Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology, Vol. 1, 12th ed. (London: John Murray, 1875), 298
16
investigation will continue with a progressive harmonizing without compromise of those facts with Scripture.
Theological Considerations
We can only survey a few key doctrines in this paper. Warren Wiersbe muses that the question of beginnings “may seem like an impractical hypothetical question . . . (but) the fact that He created something suggests that he must have had some magnificent purpose in mind;” raising the question, “what does it teach us about God and ourselves?”65 God’s first recorded act is explicitly documented, and is grandly exhibited by the very existence, magnificence, and orderliness of that act.66 With this opening, ‘elohiym lays the cornerstone for the doctrine of Progressive Revelation that continues through The Revelation.67 The doctrine of Creatio ex Nihilo establishes the infinitude of the Creator who is distinct and separate from His creation, according to Louis Berkhof.68 Calvin articulated the doctrine of His Sufficiency when he advised that in everything, we both acknowledge our dependence upon Him and His sufficiency in providing and upholding all of His creation.”69 From these foundations Jesus both acknowledged the triune Godhead and commanded His followers to evangelize the world with the assurance that He would be with them (and us) “always, even to the end of the age” (Matt 28:18-20) with redemption and great power (Eph 1).
____________________
65 Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary: Pentateuch (Colorado Springs: Victor, 2001), 10.
66 Enns, 154.
67 Ibid., 24.
68 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1938), 134-135.
69 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 1.1.22.
17
Summary and Conclusions
Our thesis is that the biblical account of Creation is foundational for doctrine and is supported, or at least not refuted, by the data of science. Knowledge of God is derived from the Bible, whose trustworthiness depends on the validity of its parts. Creation as described in Genesis and affirmed throughout the Bible must be true and accurate in order to justify the faith of the believer. Attempts to explain creation in naturalistic terms are incomplete and short-lived. Alvin Plantinga requires a deeper understanding that conforms the world to God rather than a lesser god to the world: it is the difference between “having proof,” and “having knowledge of the truth.”70 Science cannot consider the very beginning: theories of origins of the cosmos and life all rest upon pre-existing matter, energy, and space from an unknown source. Creation according to God has never been proven wrong by man, even if not accepted by him.
Scripture supports the Genesis account. Jesus and others refer to it as a historical event. Bible stands upon that foundation, a structure upon which theologians can confidently build sound doctrine. When the scriptural mandate to investigate (2 Tim 2:15) is heeded, we learn that the popularly accepted rift between science and the Bible is not based upon the facts of science, but on a worldly philosophy that rejects God, the Bible, and the miraculous in the quest for the rational by man separated from his Maker (Eph 4:17-19).
Re’shiyth ‘elohiym bara is not a myth taken from others and adapted to a new god, but an introduction by the Almighty God of Himself to mankind.
____________________
70 James K. Beilby, Thinking about Apologetics: What It Is and Why We Do It (Downe’s Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 2011). 81.
18
Bibliography
Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Vol. 1, Books 1-6. Translated by John Hammond Taylor. New York: Paulist Press, 1982.
Beilby, James K. Thinking About Apologetics: What It Is and Why We Do It. Downe’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1938.
Boltwood, Bertram. “The Ultimate Disintegration Products of the Radio-active Elements, Part 3: The Disintegration Products of Uranium.” American Journal of Science 4, no. 23 (1907):134. Accessed 9 August 2017. http://www.ajsonline.org/content/s4-23/134/78.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008.
Carr, J. A. The Life and Times of James Ussher: Archbishop of Aamagh. London: Wells, Gardner, Dalton and Company, 1895.
Casti, John L. Paradigms Lost. NY: William Morrow and Company, 1989.
Collins, C. John. Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. Phillipsburg, PA: P and R Publications, 2006.
Curvier, Georges. Essay on the Theory of the Earth, 5th ed. Translated by Samuel L. Mitchell. NY: Kirk and Mercein, 1827.
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology, Revised and Expanded. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.
Filby, F. A. Creation Revealed: A Study of Genesis Chapter One in the Light of Modern Science. Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, Co., 1963.
Fraser, J. T. The Genesis and Evolution of Time: A Critique of Interpretation in Physics. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1982.
Gould, S. J. Eight Little Piggies: Reflections in Natural History. NY: W. W. Norton & Co., 1993.
Gilluly, James, Aaron C. Waters, and A. O. Woodford. Principles of Geology. 3rd ed. SF: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1968.
19
Harlow, Daniel C. “After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science.” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Vol. 62, Number 3 (September 2010): 179-195.
Heidel, Alexander. The Babylonian Genesis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951.
Hill, Andrew E. and John H. Walton. Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.
Johnson, Frederick. 1952. “The Significance of the Dates for Archeology and Geology,” Radiocarbon Dating, Editor W. F. Libby.
Kooi, Cornelis van der. “International Journal of Systematic Theology.” Vol. 18, no.1 (January 2016): 47-48.
Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Genesis, Vol. 1, Chapters 1-19. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1945.
Kelly, William. In the Beginning and the Adamic Earth: An Exposition of Texts: Genesis I-II. New ed. (Previously in Bible Treasury) London, 1894.
Lyell, Charles. Principles of Geology. Vol. 1, 12th ed. London: John Murray, 1875.
McFarland, Ian. From Nothing: A Theology of Creation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014.
Moore, Raymond C. Introduction to Historical Geology. 2nd ed. NY: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1958.
Peterson, James C. “Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith.” Vol. 68, no. 1, March 2016.
Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology; A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1999.
Snelling, Andrew A. Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & the Flood. Vol. 1. Dallas: Institute for Creation Research, 2009.
Strong, James. The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996.
Tsumura, David. The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989.
Velekovsky, Immanuel. Earth in Upheaval. NY: Dell Publishing Company., 1955.
Vine, E. E., Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New testament Words. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996.
20
Weaver, Jefferson Hane. The World of Physics: The Evolutionary Cosmos and the Limits of Science. Vol. 2. NY: Simon and Schuster, 1987.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-15, World Bible Commentary. Waco: Word Publishing, 1987.
Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary: Pentateuch. Colorado Springs: Victor, 2001.
Wright, William B. The Quaternary Ice Age. London: Macmillan and Co., 1937.
Wuda, Jose. “The Scientific Method.” UCR Physics, 1998. Acc. 3 August 2017. http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

Creation Light

By Bob Beanblossom

29 August 2016

It seems to me that we Christians get caught up in nuts and bolts when we look at creation, and lose God’s message for us.

Christians spend an inordinate amount of energy trying to understand and explain Genesis 1 and 2 in scientific terms to answer the questions and attacks of non-Christians and the doubts of confused Christians—often including ourselves.

This is not what God intended for us to do with His story of creation. The Bible is nowhere a science text book. It is never in conflict with any scientific fact (as opposed to prevailing scientific theory), nor is any scientific fact ever in conflict with it. If you can remain objective and discriminating as you watch scientific developments, you will see every field of science (again, fact, not theory) aligning more and more closely with the Word. The same goes for history as archeologists and their associated fields dig up the past and refine readings and interpretations of recovered items. But that’s another story. This is not what the popular press will relate, but that is to be expected.

The substance of God’s intent is captured in the opening statement: “In the beginning God created . . .” It speaks of three things: 1) the beginning—the first meeting point of God’s eternity with the time and space He created for man, 2) the moving and controlling force–God, and 3) the action—the creation and formation of the universe for man. It goes further back than science can conceive—a time when matter and energy began from nothing. There is no scientific discipline that can deal with ‘The Beginning.’ The limits of His statement are that the story encompasses all of “the heaven and the earth.” In other words, it is all-inclusive. There are ‘scientific’ theories about the first moments of creation—the Big Bang is the most popular at the moment—but they are really philosophy, not science. They are beyond the criteria of scientific proof. The ‘proofs’ offered are various conflicting computer simulations.  Before you put your trust in them, remember that the daily weather forecasts are computer simulations.

While scientific principle is imbedded in this opening statement and those that follow, it is neither about protons, neutrons, and electrons, nor is it about suns, moons, and planets. Revelation 4:11b tells us what it is about: “Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created.” God the Creator has created all things for His pleasure. To that extent, creation is for us (but not about us) so that both we and the rest of creation can please Him. Our failure—the original sin of Adam, the first man, and the continual sins of every human since Adam—do not change the purpose or perfection of His creation.

Creation is the beginning of God’s revelation of Himself to His creation. Genesis 1 and 2 are His initial revelation. It is an Intro-level course, followed by increasing depth and breadth as we move through the Bible. Even so, the finite creature can only begin to understand the infinite Creator. The post-grad work will be on the other side of this life, and the coursework will last thru eternity future. Every Christian is being prepared here for that course. Like our early schooling, we don’t choose the courses, we just follow the curriculum laid out for us. As we mature and grow we realize that every course we have completed has prepared us for the next. Again, that preparation and growth cycle will continue thru eternity.

Some of the primary lessons are these:

1)    God is in complete control. Creation is not a mandate to Him or a necessity, but a choice. He is the incomprehensible triune godhead, one in three, and three in one: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. No part of this godhead is created; all are eternally eternal in every way. This godhead has no peers. He is not the chief god. He is not one among many gods. He is Master of all—everything, everywhere, always, from eternity past thru eternity future. Beyond our comprehension. Beyond our imaginations. Beyond our ability to quantify and package.

2)    God is a communicating God. He reveals Himself thru His written Word and thru our observation and understanding of nature—of the nature of nature, the essence of His power and order. His revealing Light has touched all men:

Jesus, the Word, “was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” (John 1:9)

 He is available to us thru prayer, the always-open channel of personal communication with man the creature. While He hears and answers our prayers, He cannot be used to meet our desires. Our meeting point is His will. It is not just paramount, it is absolute.

3)    God is the Creator, not the created. He is not in, or a part of, or the essence of anything. He remains above creation as “the author and finisher” of His works as well as our faith to believe in Him. (Hebrews 12:2) A vital concept is that ‘Neither is nature in God, nor God in nature.’ Commonalities in ancient names for God (such as the Hebrew el) with man-made gods throughout the ancient world in various languages are phenomena of human language, not an indication that He is one with the false gods. We might consider that issue some other time.

4)    God creates (Hebrew bara) from nothing by His spoken word, and further makes (“Let there be . . .” and variations) from the substance of that creation. Bara interpreted as ‘create’ is always and only associated with the action of God in the Bible. Man never creates.

5)    God sustains His creation as He chooses. Some things He continues to sustain, while others He allows to pass from existence. Creation in some sense is ongoing. Today we see evidence of change as some plants and animals have come and gone, even as He has given us a glimpse into the future when He will “make all things new.” (Revelation 21:5) Some of His change is cyclic: night and day, summer and winter, life and death. Some is  catastrophic: species die out and are replaced, volcanoes erupt changing the landscape and weather, the earth quakes and land sinks, slides, and rises to new heights. This is God’s work. Man is His steward, not the commander, of the process. God’s will prevails in spite of man, not because of him. It is not dependent on the will or work of man.

6)    Creation serves Him. As creation progressed, God commented that “it was good.” This is independent of the state of creation—with the fall of man and curse upon nature just ahead—and in sight for God—He declared it good, culminating in the observation that it was very good. Man is incidental to creation, an object of creation. We should take this into account as we attempt to ‘create’ life and alter lifeforms in our laboratories.

Here we will look very briefly at just the first day of creation to flesh out some of these concepts. Neither time nor space allow more. We will do this to align our understanding and application of the creation story with God’s purpose.  As noted above, the creation story does include highlights of the nuts and bolts of the process, but only as the fabric in which the true story is woven, and only to the extent that He chose. It is the vehicle rather than the trip.

God made light on the first day, but there is far more here than we often understand. We are short-sighted by the magnificence of the physical, the concept of creation by His spoken word, the beginning of light, the first night and day. We wonder where the light came from, and why He seems to make the heavenly bodies later, on the fourth day. We want to understand the physical, to explain it for God. But let’s read what He really told us:

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Genesis 1:3-5)

Attempting to understand and explain these statements, we often go to science to ‘prove’ various untenable theories and show what God ‘really meant.’  We are caught in the snare of those who are enemies of God and His Word. We become tools for those very enemies as we leave God’s will, and push forward—with good intent, but poor choice—into the trap set before us. We have forgotten that God needs no defense or explanation. He said:

“I am the Lord and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I the Lord have created it.” (Isaiah 45:6,7a, 8c)

This approach requires that we take what He gave his people several thousand years ago for their use and our application, and translate it to current scientific data, not even recognizing that science is in perpetual change while His Word has never changed, nor will it ever change.  We attempt to find, then create, ‘facts’ to make the Bible a scientific textbook that provides identifiable, quantifiable, and testable ‘facts’ and sequences of the development of the earth and life. Then we face the need to integrate the Fourth Day of creation:

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And 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. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 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. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.” (Genesis 1:14-19)

What did those refugees from Egypt know? The Patriarch Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees in the land of Sumer (south Iraq, today), according to scripture. That was the birthplace—long before him—of writing, astronomy, advanced mathematics including quadratic equations (before the Greek Euclid, who is still credited with its development), a calendar, and a numbering system on base 60 which gives us the division of a circle (360 degrees), the number pi, and so much more. That base is essential for calculations of circles and spheres. Egypt credited its math and science excellence to Ur and its close city-states, as the early Greeks credited theirs to Egypt.  So, science and math were known to the Israelites of Moses’ day—if not to the common man, then at least to the educated. Remember that Moses was educated in the court of the Pharaoh, the seat of power and education. If God had intended to describe His creation in scientific terms, the target audience would have had some understanding of the details. But that is not what He chose to do. We try to interpret it on a scientific basis. They did not. Moses’ books—the Pentateuch—were their history and law as revealed to them by God.

Our attempts to extract, create, and manipulate data satisfies no one. As the cartoonist Al Capp had a character say many years ago, “We have met the enemy, and they are us.”

Gone is the miraculous creation of an all-powerful God, the God of our salvation. Gone is the all-powerful God of creation who spoke and everything came from nothing. Gone is the need for faith. Gone is the opportunity so share God’s faith, replaced by man’s faulty science. Gone is our holding to the divine inspiration of the Word.

But it doesn’t work. It never will. The only thing we succeed in doing is adding fuel to the atheistic fire attempting to torch God and His Word into oblivion. Miracles cannot be explained in scientific terms: not only creation, but all of them, including our own salvation. Dissatisfied and disillusioned, nominal Christians who rely on what others say instead of God’s Word and prayer fall by the wayside.

Let’s go back to Day 1 and take God’s approach. On that day, He established order. He used light and time to do this.

The light of that first day of creation is much more than lumens or foot candles of visible radiation reaching Earth’s surface. It is the Light of the world, Light that brings order and symmetry to the Hebrew “tohouw” and “bohouw” (“without form and void.”)  Note that God said “Let there be . . .” rather than ‘God created.’ Before the tohouw and bohouw the Light already existed. It was at this point that the God the Son was given the go-ahead to prepare the world for man and man for God:

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, (Hebrews 1:1-3a)

We simply cannot grasp the concept of light without a physical source any more than we can understand time—including infinity—outside of our God-given reference. To us, form and numbers are as much a part of our sense of reality as words are.  Without them we are adrift. Only faith in the Word make sense out of them.  Both exist because both are necessary.  We can quantify light and measure it, giving it values such as the amount from a source or striking an object, the quality of the light in terms of how ‘real’ colors and textures appear, and so on. Sort of. Another interesting aspect of light is that there is no standard for these measurements.  Every measure of light is based upon relative, assumed, and more or less agreed upon standards.  There are precise standards for electrical energy—volts, amps, resistance, power—but none for light.  It simply is not quantifiable in absolute terms. You notice this when you try to specify a color, a function of light. You find that even ‘simple’ problems such as finding a white or black to match is mind boggling. Digging deeper, scientists have noticed that light has both the characteristics of waves of energy, and the characteristics of particles of matter. To understand light, we must go to the source: the Creator.

Man can make light through chemical, electrical, and mechanical means. But man cannot make dark. There is no source of dark. He can only remove light or cast a shadow and call that dark. God, in Genesis 1:2b told us that in the beginning the world was dark. He created that. He retains the key to making darkness.

The light of Day 1 is the Light of God, Himself. In Him and thru Him and on His authority, God the Son, the Living Word—who would one day be born Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah of fallen man–was made the Agent of God the Father. See Hebrews 1:1-3, and John 1:1-5. This was not a point source of light in ‘outer space,’ nor was it a chemical or physical glow from a cooling planet. It was the Light of God the Creator. Man has been privileged to see very small manifestations of this Light: Moses on the mountain (Exodus 24:15-18), the three disciples at Jesus transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-2). But only the world transitioning from chaos to order on that first day has ever seen that Light in that level of intensity.  Creation reacted, as it must: it was forever changed from formless and void to order, subject to ‘laws of nature’ established by the Creator as both the necessary foundation for the creature, but also as an example of God’s will for that creature: in tune with His laws, acknowledging absolute dependence upon Him, and worshiping the Master of the universe.

As the Light shone on God’s command, He saw “that it was good.”(Genesis 1:4a) As He “divided the light from the darkness,” (Genesis 1:4b), He began to create order from the formless void. The undefinable non-order of darkness became the order of light and time.

Time was required. God created the stars, including our sun, the planets and the moons as spheres. They could have been any shape He chose, but the sphere works as no other shape to produce regular and symmetrical days and seasons as the planets and moons rotate on their axis and at the same time circle their master. Natural laws—hierarchical laws–established by Him create stable days, months, and years while slight variations produce seasons and ages. The Earth’s rotation approximates a 24-hour day, the Moon’s path produces about a 30-day month, and the earth’s circuit of the Sun gives us just over a 365-day year. The differences challenge man’s creativity. Still, time is a mystery.  Based upon experimental evidence, we have defined in earth-terms the distance light travels in a year as about 186 thousand miles or 300 million meters. Einstein’s famous formula of Relativity holds the speed of light as a constant—a number that does not change.  But more recent experiments show that the speed of light—that is time—is variable. We already knew that light changes with speed. This, even as Einstein’s theory holds in its own sphere of calculations. The theory of time exists—in verifiable terms—in two separate contradictory realms. I believe that our God enjoys the consternation of man as he makes one ‘final’ determination after another, each in turn falling down like dominoes in a row. Again, man’s ego falls before the God of the Universe.

For common purposes—when we accept and understand the parameters–time is a constant with very precise parameters. Our clocks and watches are accurate to amazing tolerances today. The precision and repetition of the factors that are time are essential for modern computers to function. One factor often overlooked is that our measure of time is based solely on the relationship between Earth, our Sun, and our Moon. Outside of Earth, our time has absolutely no meaning. The relationships are not valid. Time on Mercury, Venus, Mars, and the further reaches of the universe is different. God established our time for us on this world and this world alone. In space, our fixed time becomes relative, even a convention instead of an absolute.

The combination of light and time completed the requirements for Day and the other cycles to follow on subsequent days. Here, if you will allow, we can see the first glimpse of the marriage relationship as time and light are united. Rising out of darkness and chaos, God was beginning the preparations for man, the creature intended to please and worship God, to supervise and husband creation, to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth with others who would do the same.

But it was not to be. The perfect creation would not long last in the hands of man. The will to choose given to man would allow his failure to honor the Creator. Ego would override servitude. Man, like Lucifer before him, would choose self as his god. As we attempt to explain the miraculous, Adam attempted to put self above his Creator. Both are sin. God knew it already. The plan to provide a Savior was already completed. Man would fail his Maker, but his Maker would never fail him. Jesus the Creator would become Jesus the Savior, but at great cost.

Day One of creation. A day like none other ever was or will be. It was the day that God created order out of chaos so that man might have order in his life, that he might praise and worship his Creator, and man might take the Light of that very first day and:

“Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)

There was a warning, too:

“Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.” (Luke 1:35)

We have been given the written Word that we might always remember the source of our Light, which is of Him, not ourselves:

Jesus “was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” (John 1:9)

Yet, not every man will receive the Light:

“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:19)

The first day of creation. The day that God set the world in order. The beginning of the process that led to the creation of man. The day that started all days. God said of it, “It was good.” Can he say that of us?

Science and Miracles

It seems to me that the atheist who cites science as his reason for not believing in miracles has failed to understand science.

For, until science proves that miracles are not possible, it must remain silent on the subject.  Science, however, has not and cannot produce that conclusion.

To do so, the proof must be testable and falsifiable–that is, other scientists than the discoverer of this law of nature must be able to reproduce , with equal results, the process that verifies the original conclusion.

Anything else is not science: Opinion, faith, dogma.  But not science.

Evolution–Back to Basics

By Bob Beanblossom

20 July 2016

The theories of evolution begin with the assumption that all matter and energy that ever was or will be in the universe already existed. Evolution is and must be silent on the source and force of the creation of these basics. We will deal that another time.

We should understand from the start that there is no ‘Theory of Evolution.’ Today, there are as many theories as there are believers. Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ has been replaced in scientific circles, but not in the popular media. No theory of evolution has been proven by the arduous criteria of the scientific method. Computer simulations that substitute for observed phenomena are just that—simulations (predictions) based upon suppositions. If you watch the weather forecasts, you are familiar with computer modeling—and their accuracy, even in the short term. Often cited examples of evolution such as the adaptive changes in virus to resist antibiotics are not evolution—they are adaptions. The ‘new’ forms are still virus. The theories of evolution today are matters of faith, of philosophy, and not science.

‘Proofs’ of evolution today start with existing life and describe various changes. Darwin described changes over time in finches’ beaks on the Galapagos Islands that he visited as part of his tour aboard the HMS Beagle. This argument is still used often in popular literature although it was set set aside long ago by scientists—these are simply variations due to change over time in the birds’ natural food supply due to weather and other natural factors. As the supply cycle continues, ‘evolutionary’ characteristics that disappeared reappear. Through it all, the finches are still finches.

We will look at evolution from a more fundamental perspective than the popular hunt for ‘missing links,’ although we will look at that briefly in closing.  This will be a brief but pragmatic approach to some of the basic assumptions vital to support evolutionary theory. These are the fundamental issues that must be recognized before any discussion can occur of species to species (kind to kind) transformations.

Here are the building blocks of evolution. This is not a rigorous scientific treatise, but is still intended to be accurate within the limitations of scope, time, and space. I submit to fact as I understand it, not to dogma. I stand to be corrected in any and all.

Evolution states that:

  1. Organic (living) matter evolved (changed fundamentally) from inorganic (non-living) atoms and molecules into complex organic molecules over vast periods of time.
  2. These changes occurred strictly by chance using existing matter, energy, and the laws of nature that we live with this very day. Evolution allows no external design, energy, or force to achieve these changes. Adaptions and permutations such as ‘biblical evolution’ that attempt to include design with chance do not meet the basic criteria of evolution. Theories of life arriving from ‘the stars’ still beg the question of origin.
  3. These developments occurred in environments ideally suited for their formation, growth, reproduction, and further development.
  4. Those organic compounds developed the necessary attributes to sustain themselves (live), procreate or replicate themselves, and further develop into more and more complex and specialized forms including living plants and animals. All in a finite life span. In other words, compounds such as sugar (C12H22O11), methane (CH4), and carbon dioxide (CO2) developed—over vast spans of time—into not only enzymes, RNA and DNA, but eyes, ears, legs—and brains, with internal and external communications networks, sensory perceptions, defense mechanisms—and intelligence, will, social behaviors.  In other words, the ability to not only live, but to interact creatively with its environment including other life forms.

Evolution of inorganic matter into organic

This essential step requires the formation of organic compounds from inorganic elements. The essential ingredient is the element carbon (C).  While it is contained in non-organic compounds such as carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and the basic carbon forms of diamond and graphite, it is an essential ingredient by definition in organic compounds. As early as 1828, Friederich Wohler synthesized urea from inorganic compounds. Many increasingly complex organic compounds including amino acids, purines, and pyrimidines have since been synthesized. It is important to carefully read the research, though, since discoveries of precursors in the laboratory seem to become The Missing Link in the popular press. Laboratory synthesis does suggests the possibility of natural synthesis.

Another problem is that all metabolism depends upon enzymes and most enzymes are proteins. Proteins are synthesized from DNA codes and transmitted to mitochondrial RNA. Therefore the synthesis of RNA and DNA requires proteins. In other words, proteins cannot be made without nucleic acid and nucleic acid cannot be made without proteins. (The Origin of Life, rcn.net, J. Kimball: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html).

Natural evolution of organic matter into organic

Evolutionary biochemists cite the synthesis of these chemicals in the laboratory as proof that there is no essential ‘life force’ or ‘creative force’ necessary to produce life.  Since these processes have not been observed in nature, the logical failure here is ignoring the effects of the intentional activities of the scientist. Without those activities—the set-up, the process—the reactions would not have occurred. It must again be stressed that an enzyme is not a living creature—only a component of that creature.

Room for growth

The synthesis of increasingly complex organic molecules is interesting but inconclusive relative to evolution. Laboratory synthesis of polymers has proved that the processes explored so far are self-limiting.  That is, at a certain point the culture becomes toxic to the organic compound(s). As the compounds become more complex, the requirements for their development and for the development of even more complex molecules become even more stringent and less favorable statistically.

For our purposes, this means that as complexity increases towards real living organisms (and we haven’t even gotten close to that point), the likelihood of success decreases fundamentally.  That is the reason for the vast age of the earth and universe that evolutionists claim. I have discussed the dating methods in another paper. Organic compounds are not living entities. They are simply chemicals contained in living beings, like fuel is a component of a functioning internal combustion engine. Both are required, but are not the whole. Once evolved, these organic compounds have to be assembled both in very specific and very diverse ways to produce a living plant or animal. 

Creating offspring

We really can’t go here. Since we have not been able to create a life form, we have nothing to reproduce. If the conditions could be duplicated that were produced in the labs, it is conceivable that organic compounds could be synthesized. Remember, that this is akin to hydrogen and oxygen combining to form water. It is a chemical process. Water babies aside, chemicals are not life. They are only components of life. Essential, but incomplete.

This will not satisfy the devout evolutionist. It is not intended to do that. What I would like to do is to encourage some real investigation by evolutionists and creationists into the facts of the religion of the age.

Let’s conclude with one more step. It is important to remember that all of this is theory.  None of the above principles have ever been proved by the accepted tenants of the scientific method. Frequently cited ‘proofs’ of evolution (Ref. National Geographic Gene Study, Richard Peacock) include

  • “The universal genetic code.
  • The fossil record.
  • Genetic commonalities.
  • Common traits in embryos.
  • Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.”

With our improved working knowledge of the facts of evolutionary theory and our honed investigative skills, let’s look at those proofs. There is redundancy in the list: repetition is often a tool used to mask weak arguments.  I will combine some just to simplify.

Universal Genetic Code, Genetic Commonalities

Whether you assume a Divine Creator or evolution as described above, there is agreement that the elements of the universe are universal. A carbon-12 atom is composed of six protons, six neutrons, and six electrons. The source does not matter. It combines in specific ways with other elements, as do all the elements.  We would expect both predictability and uniformity here, and we get it.

Perhaps, this should not be an argument used by the evolutionists, though. Since evolution is described as a process taking place over millions of years in diverse times and locations, commonality seems to be a contradiction. We would expect more diversity from this process as local conditions provided different components and environments.

The Fossil Record

This is the most popular form of evolutionary ‘proof’ used today because it is easy to relate to, and it grabs our imaginations. The argument is a ‘Buyer beware’ situation, though. Here are some examples.

The website “Understanding Evolution” from the University of California at Berkeley presents the following: (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_02)

“Fossil evidence

“Nicholas Steno’s anatomical drawing of an extant shark (left below) and a fossil shark tooth (right) below. Steno made the leap and declared that the fossil teeth indeed came from the mouths of once-living sharks.shark

“The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.

“Early fossil discoveries  In the 17th century, Nicholas Steno shook the world of science, noting the similarity between shark teeth and the rocks commonly known as “tongue stones.” This was our first understanding that fossils were a record of past life.

“Two centuries later, Mary Ann Mantell picked up a tooth, which her husband Gideon thought to be of a large iguana, but it turned out to be the tooth of a dinosaur,Iguanodon. This discovery sent the powerful message that many fossils represented forms of life that are no longer with us today.

“Additional clues from fossils Today we may take fossils for granted, but we continue to learn from them. Each new fossil contains additional clues that increase our understanding of life’s history and help us to answer questions about their evolutionary story.”

Did you notice anything missing?  There is no discussion of actual fossil progression from one species of life to another. In fact, there is no mention of evolution at all—just that life has changed with time. We have seen that in our own lifetime, but we have not seen evolution. Man, for instance, is very diverse in a number of characteristics, with some such, as height and weight, changing visibly.

Here is another look, this time from Austine Cline, self-identified as Agnosticism & Atheism Expert (http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/FossilRecordEvolution.htm).

“When you hear talk of evidence for evolution, the first thing that frequently comes to mind for most people are fossils. The fossil record has one important, unique characteristic: it is our only actual glimpse into the past where common descent is proposed to have taken place. As such it provides invaluable evidence for common descent. The fossil record is not “complete” (fossilization is a rare event, so this is to be expected), but there is still a wealth of fossil information.

“What Is the Fossil Record?

“If you look at the fossil record, you find a succession of organisms that suggest a history of incremental development from one species to another. You see very simple organisms at first and then new, more complex organisms appearing over time. The characteristics of newer organisms frequently appear to be modified forms of characteristics of older organisms.

“Tis succession of life forms, from simpler to more complex, showing relationships between new life forms and those that preceded them, is strong inferential evidence of evolution.

“There are gaps in the fossil record and some unusual occurrences, such as what is commonly called the Cambrian explosion, but the overall picture created by the fossil record is one of consistent, incremental development.”

To be fair, there is more to his article, but the gist is that creation is not an option. To beat that dead horse, did you notice anything missing?  He does cite evolution in his equivocal certainty, but where is his “succession of organisms” that is the basis for his argument. Missing, again. Typically, following his admission that “common descent is proposed,” he concludes that the unspecified fossil record is “invaluable evidence.”

Let’s try again. This will be more detailed. Here is an excerpt from Evolution and the Fossil Record

(http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html)

“Examples of Evolution 

“The fossil record contains many well-documented examples of the transition from one species into another, as well as the origin of new physical features. Evidence from the fossil record is unique, because it provides a time perspective for understanding the evolution of life on Earth. This perspective is not available from other branches of science or in the other databases that support the study of evolution. 

“Evolution of birds

“Most paleontologists regard birds as the direct descendants of certain dinosaurs – as opposed to descendants of some other group of reptiles. Paleontologists and zoologists have long accepted that birds and reptiles are related. The two groups share many common traits including many skeletal features, the laying of shelled eggs, and the possession of scales, although in birds, scales are limited to the legs. Among modern birds, the embryos even have rudimentary fingers on their wings. In one modern bird, the South American hoatzin, Opisthocomus hoazin, the wings of the juvenile have large moveable claws on the first and second digits. The young bird uses these claws to grasp branches.

“The descent of birds from dinosaurs was first proposed in the late 1860s by Thomas Henry Huxley, who was a famous supporter of Darwin and his ideas. Evidence from fossils for the reptile-bird link came in 1861 with the discovery of the first nearly complete skeleton of Archaeopteryx lithographica in Upper Jurassic limestones about 150 million years old near Solenhofen, Germany. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is clearly dinosaurian. It has a long bony tail, three claws on each wing, and a mouth full of teeth. However, this animal had one thing never before seen in a reptile – it had feathers, including feathers on the long bony tail. Huxley based his hypothesis of the relationship of birds to dinosaurs on his detailed study of the skeleton of Archaeopteryx. 

“Here is the proof, including the citation of Thomas Huxley—an icon in the pantheon of evolutionary heroes. The discussion will center on the statements highlighted in bold print above.”

“many well-documented examples” Show me. Not commonalities (discussed below), not changes in characteristics (small horses developing into larger horses—that are all horses). Among the contributions of the science of DNA is a better understanding and adjusting of the classification of species.  This will be an area to watch with interest and honest skepticism as it is decoded.

  • “Most paleontologists regard” While this may or may not be a true statement, it is designed as a shaming tool—very much like ‘everybody is doing it.’ Intimidating, but meaningless.
  • “share many common traits” This is worth looking at. We hit it briefly above, but will consider the implications now. In a biological context, ‘traits’ include both physical attributes and behaviors.

o   Frogs, flies, and felines all have heads, yet I have not heard anyone claim they were in the same evolutionary ‘branch.’ That’s the proof of commonality.

o   More subtle commonalities such as those mentioned above are worth examining. Scales in fish and birds are cited as ‘proof’ of an evolutionary link. That’s like saying that all animals with hair are directly linked on an evolutionary branch. That would make mice, mountain goats, and men close kin, separated by only a few millions of years. So, when you set a mouse trap, remember: ‘There but by the fate of chance go I.’

  • “Embryos have rudimentary” is one of those ‘proofs’ that persist after the state of scientific knowledge has moved on. An often-cited example was that human embryos developed thru a series of stages that included fish. Modern medical techniques have debunked this theory.
  • “Evidence from the fossils” The statement is that there is a similarity (see above). There are no examples of reptile to intermediate species to bird.  Extinct species are not proof of evolutionary links that failed, but of species that failed. This occurs today. An endangered or species passing on to extinction is not an evolutionary link.
  • “never before seen” Lack of knowledge is certainly proof of nothing except a lack of knowledge.

If evolutionary theory were correct, there could be no ‘missing links.’  Each developmental species (missing link) would have to exist long enough and in enough quantities to develop into a new species that in turn changed into another species. The fossil record should reflect this abundance of life forms. It does not. The survival of any of those species had/has nothing to do with new speciation. If it did, those species which have died out in our lifetime are ‘missing links.’ And, they are not.

I have sought to show that evolution is not the fact that those who choose not to believe God would have the rest of us believe. It is philosophy, religion, rather than scientific fact. While some of the basic building blocks (organic compounds) are within the realm of science and the scientific method, the actual evolution of species to species is not. It has never been observed, cannot be tested, and cannot be replicated, or falsified by competent peers.

It is important to state similarly that creation is also a philosophy, a religion, rather than a scientific fact. It, too, cannot be observed, tested, or replicated in the laboratory. This is, of course disputed hotly by evolutionists who still claim that they rest on a scientific foundation.

But, there is a significant difference. Where evolution, as we have discussed above, argues from silence and supposition, the creationist argues from experience—his experience with a personal, communicating, self-revealing God. This is personal and cannot be quantified in objective measurements. That in no way makes it less real.

There is a missing link–it is the jump from organic compounds, no matter how complex, to life forms–to plants and animals.