The Beginning: The Result of Chance
Or the Gift of God?
by
Robert Beanblossom, ThD, DBS
15 July 2020
Revised 12 November 2020
Biographical Sketch
Robert Beanblossom
Robert “Bob” Beanblossom holds undergraduate degrees in Electronics, Energy, and Education. He also holds an M.A. in Theological Studies and a graduate certificate in Biblical Studies from Liberty University and a Doctor of Theology and Doctor of Biblical Studies from Rock of Ages Theological Seminary. His vocational experience relevant to evolution and creation includes field and laboratory work at the University of Miami Institute of Marine Sciences, field and laboratory work as a project engineer for the Tennessee Earthquake Information Center at Memphis State University, and teaching physics at State Technical Institute at Memphis. He is husband, father, grand- and great-grandfather who works part-time in his community and serves in various lay capacities in his church.
For additional information and other papers, please see bobbeanblossom.com.
Dedication
This work is dedicated to a homespun Bible scholar, typical of many devoted Christians around the world, but special to me: Mrs. Mary Areliss Neal (1896-1988), a simple farm woman who shared her home, her life, and her Bible with me. She was Grandma, my Sunday School teacher, and my first experience with one of God’s great gifts to His children: a prayer warrior. Her prayer life was not an ostentatious display, but a quiet, determined relationship with Jesus Christ that allowed her to petition Heaven day and night that the will of God be accomplished in each of her flock. Her example and prayers brought me to His saving grace and kept me there through my formative years. With this work dedicated to the absolute, inerrant, and complete Word of God, I commemorate her love of God’s Word that continues to live through her spiritual prodigy long after she came home to her Lord.
Article History
This paper was originally submitted to the Rock of Ages Theological Seminary as a dissertation for the Doctor of Theology program on 21 July 2020. It has been revised to correct typological and spellcheck errors, while retaining all original content.
It was posted to the author’s website (bobbeanblossom.com) on 13 November 2020, and to Academia.edu on the same date.
Contents
Tables and Charts vii
Introduction 1
Overview of the Creation vs. Evolution Controversy 3
Creation in Theology: The Inroads of Secularism 7
Limitations of the Study 9
Research Method and Sources 9
Chapter 1: Theology and Science: Perspectives and Boundaries 12
The Interface of Revelation and Science 20
Logic 23
The Language of Science 24
Time, Space, Energy, and Matter 26
Time 26
Space 29
Energy 30
Matter 30
Select Laws of Nature 31
Gravity 33
Uniformitarianism 34
Relativity 36
Thermodynamics 36
Quantum Mechanics 39
The Scope and Limitations of Revelation 40
The Scope and Limitations of Science 45
The Common Thread 50
Chapter 2: The Beginning: God Created or a Big Bang? 52
The Genesis 1 Account 54
Asimov, Hawking, Sagan, and More 61
Isaac Asimov 61
Stephen Hawking 62
Carl Sagan 64
And More 64
The Common Thread 72
Chapter 3: The Appearance of Life 73
The Genesis 1 Account 73
Abiogenesis: The Forbidden Topic 78
Evolution or Variation? 83
Species 83
Microevolution 86
Macroevolution 88
Evolution Evolves 90
The Miller-Urey Experiments 91
Darwin’s Tree of Life 92
The Embryonic Spoof 93
The Common Thread 93
Chapter 4: Man Appears 95
The Biblical Account 95
The Evolution of Man 99
The Broken Chain: The Geologic Record 106
Radiometric Dating 112
Calibration 112
Carbon-14 113
Uranium-238 116
The Common Thread 117
Chapter 5: Theological Considerations 118
The God Who Is 118
Bowing to the Experts 120
Contemporary Theology 121
Pressure Points 122
The Final Authority 125
Christian Theology Recovered 126
Sola Scriptura 126
The Real Enemy 127
Revive us Again 128
Chapter 6: Conclusion 130
Appendix 1: Genesis 1:1-2:3 134
Appendix 2: Biblical References to Creation 141
Appendix 3: Hominid Fossil Summary 142
Appendix 4: The American Humanist Association 146
Endnotes 149
Bibliography 167
Charts, Diagrams, and Tables
Graph 1: American Educational Achievement 16
Graph 2: Respondents Who Believe in God as Creator, by Education 16
Graph 3: Respondents Who Believe in God as Creator by Church Attendance 17
Graph 4: Hominid Brain Size 112
Chart 1: Creation and Evolution 19
Chart 2: The Orderliness of Creation 74
Chart 3: Man’s Recent Evolutionary Tree 101
Chart 4: Genesis 1:1-2:3 134
Chart 5: Hominid Fossil Summary 142
Introduction
“O LORD, how manifold are Thy works!
In wisdom hast Thou made them all;
the earth is full of Thy riches.” (Ps 104:24).
“The triumph of a complete, mechanistic, objective, reductionistic, and mathematically precise
explanation for evolution is finally banishing vitalism for the process. Neo-Darwinism does so
by denying the behavior of the biological system any causal role in its evolution.” (John H. Campbell).
How did it all begin? Where did man and his world come from? Is man more than, or different from, other animals? Is there a God? Answers to these questions vary widely. These form the bedrock of personal moral codes: they are the working values that define human relationships. The answers largely derive from beliefs about origins: the beginnings of the cosmos, the world that man inhabits, and of life itself. They distill into the final questions: “Who am I and why am I here?” “Of what value am I and my fellow man?” David Wilkinson agrees:
“From the very beginning of time it seems, humanity has asked such questions as ‘Why are we here?’ and ‘What is our significance?’ The answer to such questions has often led to the question of origins, as if in the attempt to explain where we come from, we may find the clue to locating ourselves in the universe.”
The biblical worldview asserts that God created man in His own image in six days as recorded in Genesis 1. God, therefore, sets moral standards. Humanistic worldviews hold that all that exists is the result of chance; all considerations of a deity are explicitly excluded from consideration:
“Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. … It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.”
Without God and His revealed Word, mankind has no benchmark for moral values: instead, individual opinion forms the highly flexible value system known as relativism. This naturalistic worldview leads to a distorted opinion of the value of man and his environment: he is just another product of evolution who lives briefly, dies, and returns his elements to the soil from which he came. This naturalistic value is seen in current attacks on the sanctity of marriage as established by God: same-sex “unions;” abortions at-will to eliminate the unwanted human products of recreational sex that results in the conception of a living soul; the gender identity fiasco; and the elevation of other nature above man. The Christian belief system that is anchored in absolute values established by God the Father through God the Son:
“whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom He also made the worlds; Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on High:” (Heb. 1:2-3).
Creation demonstrates that God is infinite in all respects, the sovereign spirit Who stands above creation, neither isolated from it, nor a part of it. Scripture states univocally that man and woman are intentional and complete creations by God to whom He gave “dominion (radah: to rule) over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Gen 1:27). The creationist understands that God’s mandate makes him vice-regent to God, responsible to Him for the conduct of his own life and his relationship with his fellow man and his environment.
A growing secular influence is visible in Christianity today as contemporary schools of theology, and the theologians they produce, attempt to accommodate a loosely regarded Word to the current pronouncements of science, bringing the unwary church into conflict with Jesus Christ, Who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).
This paper will demonstrate that the biblical account is the only viable explanation for the beginnings of the cosmos, of life, and of individual kinds; an account that has not been falsified by science. It will show that man holds an exalted position in God’s economy through His will alone that locates man in a unique relationship with his Creator, giving him purpose, hope, and responsibility. It is theological in essence: it accepts Scripture as the primary and absolute Authority to which all else must conform. Science is a part of God’s gift of revelation of Himself. Philosophical elements, in the classical sense, will surface as the propositional truth of the claims of evolutionary theory are questioned at their very roots. It calls science to task for abandoning its logical precepts that seek truth as an absolute. It calls biblical theology to task for abdicating the education of its young people. Two facets will be discussed: an overview of the creation vs. evolution controversy and creation in theology. No attempt will be made to “prove” either the biblical account, or evolutionary science. Only God was present at Creation, and His revelation is without peer, inerrant. Select popular claims will be examined to expose the general failure of evolutionary science to meet the high standards of the scientific method. It will be seen that evolutionary science is not science but a scientific philosophy that claims truth where none exists. It is recognized that the absence of data today may be replaced by significant findings tomorrow.
Overview of the Creation vs. Evolution Controversy
Christianity meets evolution at the beginning. It is a battleground of ideologies first seen in Genesis 3. There is a drift toward various forms of accommodation from both extremes, but these solutions are less than satisfactory to revelation or science. Sometimes, even the most vociferous advocate wavers. Stephen Hawking (1942-2018), popular advocate of the uncaused big bang theory as the beginning of the universe, demonstrated ambivalence in A Brief History of Time as he “allowed” at least the question of God several times. Yet, as he pursued a unified theory of physics, he forsook the “reality” of mathematics. This war of worldviews has active and ongoing engagements in all levels of education, the popular press, social media, and in politics and in the courts. The stakes are the minds and souls of man that lead to the seats of power and wealth for the humanist, and heaven or hell for the Christian.
For centuries biblical writers proclaimed the truth-claim of Scripture: it was penned by writers inspired by God the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16), accepted as the very Word of God, and revealed Truth to mankind (John 8:32). With the Enlightenment and its step-child the Scientific Revolution, came philosophers who questioned the existence of God and reality itself; and scientists who rejected God in their certainty of man’s ultimate ability to Know. Although Western science developed within the church, its pronouncements soon became incompatible with church dogma and authority. Scientific theories of beginnings were proposed that fostered new academic disciplines: academia was weaned from the church. This revolution was fueled from the mid-1800s onward by geological and biological sciences embracing the popularized theories of evolution. The church had options: 1. Ignore the findings of science; 2. Adopt the findings of science; or, 3. Co-mingle church dogma and scientific theories. In the mid-1900s many denominations opted for option 2 or 3 by replacing verbum Dei (the Word of God) with marketing techniques to bolster sagging attendance. Context overruled content as social issues and “relevance” became the theological keywords. The conservative church held to option 1, holding to the biblical mandate to “seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness” (Matt. 6:33a) became “seek ye only the kingdom of God.” A fourth option, to meet the attack within and without head-on with sound analysis of the evolutionary position and educational activities to reveal the lack of substance or those claims, was largely ignored. This is the option that this paper proposes.
Maimonides (1135-1204), long before Darwin, gave focus to the discussion of beginnings, “The basic principle is that there is a First Being who brought every existing thing into being, for if it be supposed that he did not exist, then nothing else could possibly exist.” The lines are clears: 1. For the creationist, the Bible is the sole authority that unequivocally claims that the eternal God created all by divine fiat in six days; 2. For the evolutionist, science is the only authority, and it claims that all that exists is the uncaused result of chance that continues to operate as biological evolution. As with all complex issues, there are degrees of difference among believers in both schools. Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) argues that science and religion constitute separate and non-overlapping domains of authority that are neither compatible in scope nor method. Finn R. Pond and Jean L. Pond, argue that religion has no place in a discussion of beginnings, since that might taint the scientific worldview, but do suggest that, “science must recognize its own limitations.” The biblical church has largely accepted this distinction.
The creationist believes that the Bible is the sole authority on creation. Its opening words well-known: “1 In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). This is followed by the rest of the introduction and the description of the events of six days during which God creatio ex nihilio (created from nothing) by divine fiat. Creationists often receive criticism from evolutionists for being “anti-science,” with some merit. The Bible calls Christians to follow the apostle Paul’s warning to the young preacher Timothy: “20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely called:” (1 Tim. 6:20). This is a warning against false science, not the truth of science, for truth is always of God. Discernment, not avoidance, is mandated.
Finding a voice for the evolutionist is a bit more difficult. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) is considered the father of modern evolution, and biological evolution is often called “Darwinism,” but modern science has distanced itself from some of his conclusions. A void remains, for contemporary science has not found consensus on the beginning of the cosmos, abiogenesis, or biological evolution.
For some, the debate between the worldviews is a running battle; for others, it is a settled issue. Karl Schmitz-Moormann proclaims that, “The debate over creation or evolution has ceased.” For him and many others, science renders the biblical account and God as archaic and discredited: no more than pre-scientific myth. Ernst Mayr (1904-2005) gives this perspective: “Evolution is the most important concept in biology. There is not a single Why? Question in biology that can be answered adequately without a consideration of evolution.” He provides a key to understanding the evangelistic posture of evolutionists: “the importance of this concept goes far beyond biology. The thinking of modern humans, whether we realize it or not, is profoundly affected—by evolutionary thinking.” Earth’s population is about 7.5 billion humans, with births exceeding deaths by just over 2:1. Humanists loudly cry today that the world is under attack by its human inhabitants (themselves excluded). The humanist high priest, science, proclaims that we face man-made global warming, extinctions, and atrocities against humanity propagated by nationalism and religious zealots, even as they fly to world-wide meetings in private jets, abortion clinics flourish, and governments are moved toward socialist philosophies where the elite make decisions for the masses. This is an example of the evangelistic methods employed by those embracing evolutionary philosophy: the fallacies of their own position are masked by attacks on creationists using altered or fabricated data. Regarding extinctions, Darwin himself said that one species could not improve except at the expense of another; that extinction was not only normal but necessary. Therefore, according to evolutionary theory, any extinction at the hand of man (or any other source) is but another example of evolution at work. These assertions made against creationists strongly suggest that simply correcting a wrong view of science is not the primary motive.
Creation in Theology: The Inroads of Secularism
The Christian scholar, educated in contemporary seminaries, finds distance between “In the beginning God created,” and current theological teaching. In fact, much of the current theology of beginnings sounds like variations on a theme where evolution is that theme. Thomas C. Oden notes that, like scientists, theologians are increasingly publishing in the popular sphere instead of pursuing the depths of academia: “Some interpret the dilemma of theology essentially as a great scarcity of decent causes to advocate. In such a situation, expansive idealism must search ever more desperately to find even a modestly decent cause.” Rather than confronting and considering major theological issues of the past, including beginnings, modern theologians find their central theme in “accommodating modernity.” This includes accommodating “scientific” elements into the theologies of beginnings to make Christianity more compatible with contemporary worldviews. This is contrary to the plain understanding of Genesis 1, and is only accomplished by resorting to allegorical exegesis by denying the veracity of the Word. Schmitz-Moormann, writing in Theology of Creation in an Evolutionary World, says:
“If in the common scientific understanding of this world, one point is generally accepted, it is the fact that the universe is in the process of evolution. Christians perceive this same universe as God’s creation. Following the inspiration of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, we take the fact of evolution for granted.”
Although at odds with current scientific philosophy (though not the facts of science), nothing in the biblical account of creation has ever been proven false. This is in direct contradistinction with the public and educational pronouncements of the evangelistic evolutionist community. One reason for the ingress of science into theology is the intentional wall that some biblical Christians and their leaders erect between themselves and science, but this is contrary to the Word:
“Classical Christianity has never said that the believer cannot inquire into the scientific understanding of reality or probe the edges of undiscovered truth or refine the methods of research to the tiniest caliber; rather, it has celebrated the hope that all the new dimensions of truth awaiting our discovery are more profoundly understandable and make wiser sense within the frame of reference of the meaning of universal history. This meaning, Christians believe to be revealed in Jesus.”
The Psalmist proclaimed: “1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handywork” (Ps. 1:1). The apostle Paul said, “20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” (Rom 1:20). The facts of science, properly described and understood, can never conflict with Scripture. This paper will show that the science of evolution is a philosophy based upon a rejection of God rather than traditional science based upon observation and the evaluation of empirical evidence. It will also show that it fails basic tests of logic. The most popular claims of contemporary creationism be evaluated, based upon their adherence to Scripture, on their conformity to logic, and on any basis in empirical evidence. The Christian community, led by biblical theologians, must actively engage in the education of its youth to overcome the results of the evangelistic secular system now in place that draws Christians away from Biblical truth in the name of science.
In contrast to the liberal acceptance of science and an attempt to reconcile the Bible to science, there is a false conservatism that might be best described as selective hyper-literalism. Practitioners of this philosophy bring a highly literalistic interpretation of select passages of Scripture to support their worldview while ignoring or allegorizing others. Oden notes: “It is time to quit … the distortions of traditional Christianity and go right back to the scriptural and patristic texts to ask how classical Christianity itself might teach us to understand the providence of God in the midst of our modern situation.”
Limitations of the Study
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that the Biblical account of creation is superior to the claims of evolution at three points of contact: (1) The beginning of the cosmos; (2) The beginning of life; and, (3) Man’s genesis. No attempt will be made to “prove” any position in the sense of an application of strict scientific methodology since, contrary to some advocates of both positions, this is not within the reach of humans by any means or modes. It will present the biblical account as fact, discuss the claims of those theologians who present “facts” couched in terms like, “God must have …” The evaluation of biblical data is intended to adhere closely to conservative biblical hermeneutics and exegesis, while the scientific references will be presented in an unbiased and objective manner so that criticism will proceed in the same vein. The author has a biblical Christian worldview, and understands that this will “show through” attempts to be unbiased. This study focuses upon the Christian perspective. This limited study will focus on the initial assumptions of evolutionary theory that will help the biblical Christian and theologian begin to develop critical observational skills that can be passed on to succeeding generations.
Research Methods and Sources
This study will utilize peer-reviewed articles and books related to the Genesis 1 account, the big bang, and evolution, by theologians, philosophers, and scientists as well as popular writings by recognized authorities in relevant fields. The latter is essential since the popular media dominates culture in a society inundated by noise in the guise of information, but lacking truth. These include several subsets of inquiry including a literalistic interpretation of creation (often represented by a young-earth classification), the Gap theory, progressive creation/evolution, intelligent design, and theistic evolution, as well as cosmological discussions, the big bang, and various views of evolution. A wide-range of publication dates has been utilized to provide a historical continuity, but not a comprehensive review, of the development of the opposing worldviews. The primary source of outline and content is the King James Version of the Bible, the standard against which all positions will be compared and contrasted. It is a matter of principle that the sources of the KJV, the Hebrew Masoretic text for the OT, and the Textus Receptus for the NT are inerrant, preserved by God as the Holy Spirit inspired their authors. This is not claimed for the KJV, although it is considered the best and most textually consistent version available.
Harlow suggests two theological principles that will help guide the biblical investigation:
1. Divine accommodation holds that “God condescends to reveal Himself in ways that human beings can understand, limiting His infinite message to accommodate finite human capacities.
2. Progressive revelation states that God’s self-disclosure is ongoing and unfolds in stages.
General revelation, that is, nature itself, reveals both His creation and His wrath at being rejected by man:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom 1:18-21).
Selecting a spokesperson for the evolutionary worldview is more problematic. Evolutionary thought is highly diverse in the absence of a singular source of values, but some common values do exist. It is essentially atheistic, well represented by secular humanism. Religion and the miraculous must not be allowed any weight in scientific thought, for science is established on fact while religion is but superstition and myth, unseen and unprovable. The American Humanist Association (AHA) says that “Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.” Since this philosophy claims science as its foundation, the prohibition against religion carries over into all aspects of its worldview. Secular humanism is a religion where self is god and science is the high priest. See Appendix 4 for an overview of the AHA manifesto.
The representative Christian for this discussion is narrowly defined as a conservative, fundamentalist who believes that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and complete Word of God in the original language and carried forward with proven accuracy in the King James Version of 1611 as revised in 1769: he (she) will be called the “biblical Christian.” The honest efforts of science and the artifacts of times past, such as the laws of nature, stratified rock layers, and fossils will not be ignored, but will be embraced, while many of the popular conclusions of scientific philosophy will be refuted.
Within this paper, the terms “evolution” and “evolutionist” will include adherents to the worldview encompassing the undirected beginning of the cosmos, life itself, and the evolution of all past, present, and future lifeforms. The basic organization is basically topical. This mix will be differentiated below, with the beginning of the cosmos discussed in Chapter 2, the beginning of life in Chapter 3, and an examination of the arguments for man in Chapter 4. Chapter 1 will compare and contrast science and theology and their strong points and limitations, while Chapter 5 will review contemporary theological positions on evolution. Chapter 6 will summarize the discussion and provide a considered opinion based upon the evidence.
Chapter 1
Theology and Science: Perspectives and Boundaries
“It is no accident that God is the subject of the first sentence of the Bible, for this word dominates the whole chapter and catches the eye at every point of the page: it is used some thirty-five times in as many verses of the story. The passage, indeed, the Book is about Him first of all; to read it with any other primary interest (which is all too possible) is to misread it.” (Arnold Benz).
“The early chapters of Genesis provide a key biblical foundation for how Christians view the very nature of reality, including the ultimate purpose and goal of human life on earth.” (Daniel Harlow).
Theology and science are considered distinct disciplines with little overlap in content or methodology. Theology considers things of God, His revelation to man, and the relationship between man and God. Science seeks an understanding of physical things and the operation of the cosmos in which man lives. There are, however, major points of contact, especially in the beginnings: the beginning of the universe, of life itself, and of man. Personal views in these areas are deeply rooted in individual beliefs. Challenges often provoke visceral reactions rather than a rational evaluation of opposing viewpoints. The response goes far beyond the individual, however. Jon S. Miller and Ronald Toth believe that those who hold a creationist worldview must be identified and corrected:
“Peoples’ beliefs about the nature of the universe (metaphysics) are much stronger than data or a lack of it. We must introduce some philosophy into the science curriculum in order to encourage students to begin to question their metaphysical beliefs, or at least make them justify them as being scientific or not (spiritual, religious).”
The Christian community finds its precepts in the Bible, while the secularist looks to naturalistic values articulated by philosophers from Baruch Spinoza through Friedrich Schleiermacher as grounded in the highly visible success of the sciences. Liberalized Christians and their churches are adapting secular marketing and entertainment techniques to reach their communities with contemporary relevance by subjugating the Gospel to social issues. The conservative (biblical) Christian church has largely withdrawn into its own environment, “preaching to the choir.” The evangelistic AHA promotes high visibility dynamic public service that overshadows aging Christian role models: local groups of atheists, free thinkers, humanists, the LGBGT++ communities and others are visibly active in their communities.” As the message of the Gospel is removed, the humanist outreach increasingly defines society. Christian academia has allowed theology to be redefined as courses on religion within departments of philosophy in the great institutions, or segregated into narrowly defined seminaries, while contemporary science has taken upon itself the role of evangelist for the humanist worldview that radiates from all departments of academia into all reaches of society. This process has been facilitated by the retreat of theologians from engaging scientific philosophy that intentionally impinges the biblical worldview. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) explained the phenomenon: “to the religious, it will seem absurd to set forth any justification for Religion; so, to the scientific, it will seem absurd to defend Science.” Fredrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) says, “We entirely renounce all attempt(s) to prove the truth or necessity of Christianity; and we presuppose, on the contrary, that every Christian … has already the inward certainty that his religion take any other form than this.” He removed the rational argument of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) as support for belief in God and His actions. Sola Scriptura is completely adequate as the basis of Christian dogma, but increasingly lacks the depth of instruction to prepare Christians to emulate Paul in Athens
(cf. Ac. 17:16-34). The church survives, but its character is changing as it subsumes the Bible to science. Paul’s epistle to America would be scathing, indeed.
Evolutionary theory is being thoroughly and methodically integrated into the American psyche. The strength of this position is largely due to the teaching of evolution as fact in public schools and colleges. As demonstrated by Miller and Toth, any encroachment upon evolutionary factualism engenders retribution upon the offender. Pond and Pond, discussing evolutionary education in the public schools, complain that,
“Creationists often justify their rejection of biological education by claiming that the methodologies and interpretations of evolutionary scientists are flawed. A consideration of creationists’ critiques of the scientific data, however, reveals a deficient understanding of the nature of the scientific process.”
The charge of a “deficient understanding” is a primary weapon of evolutionists against any who question the evolutionary worldview. This is most often levied as a derogatory statement without any supporting facts. One encouraging “problem” that these researchers found among high school students is that “people often display an ambivalent attitude toward science—promoting, using, and respecting science, but wanting to control it and calling upon it to reinforce their view of reality.” Here is the mainline program: science is supposed to mold thinking, not provide a tool to enhance critical thinking and problem solving. These researchers cited more than 150 select references supporting the mainline evolutionary position in this 14-page paper in which they complained of less than 100% satisfactory indoctrination. Miller and Toth sound the alarm:
The “increased level of religiosity in the United States is correlated with the resistance to the teaching of evolution, and … a serious social issue. … A clear understanding of creationist (and other fundamentalist) ideas and their sources … and the limits of both science and theology (and religion as it is actually practiced) are necessary in order to challenge creationist ideas in the public forum and win the ‘battle.’ In the United States, at present, attacks on evolution are primarily by fundamentalist Christians. … There seems to be something unique or particular about biological evolution that offends them (not that geological and cosmological evolution totally escape their wrath). What could this be?”
These concerned authors, searching for techniques to reform fundamentalist Christians, find an acceptable solution in Coyne: “Ultimately, the best strategy to make Americans more receptive to evolution might require loosening the grip of religion on our country.” The militant attack on biblical Christianity is obvious, but the proper response seems to elude the church: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. 6:33).
With the rise of public primary and secondary education in America as a responsibility of the state Christians largely defaulted the education of their children to government-approved curricula. This system has effectively secularized generations of young Americans by demonstrating that, despite what might be taught at home or in church, God is simply not necessary: social interaction, sports, and scholarship are shown to function well without God. Almost 51 million Americans attend public elementary and secondary schools while another 6 million are in private schools. Over 75% of private schools claim a religious affiliation, but this group has a relatively insignificant impact on societal values due to its small size. This segment is further compromised as the majority attend secular universities. If completion of an effective curriculum designed to produce functional citizens is the goal of public education, the data suggests that it is failing. Perhaps the primary goal lies elsewhere. In spite of over 100 years of compulsory public education, less than half (48.5%) of Americans 25 and older hold a high school diploma, while 27% hold an associate’s or bachelor’s degree, 10.2% hold a professional or master’s degree, and 1.3% hold doctorates (Graph 1). The low percentage of graduates masks the impact of public education on contemporary society where both high school and college graduates are increasingly unemployable.
Gallup, aggregating 2001-2005 data, found a linear relationship between education and a person’s belief that life was created by God, with an inverse relationship between belief in God as creator and education, decreasing from 58% for persons with a high school education or less, to 48% for those with some college, 38% for college graduates, and 25% for those with postgraduate work (Graph 2).
Statista reports that 33% of respondents attended church every week or almost every week, with another 12% attending less frequently. Of this sample, 53% reported that they seldom or never attended church. Gallup found that, of Americans who attended church weekly or almost weekly, 65% believed that God created human beings while only 35% of “all others” believed the same. Combining education and church attendance, of those attending church weekly or almost weekly who had a high school diploma or less, 72% believed that God created man. The number decreased to 66% for those with some college or an undergraduate degree, and dropped to 44% for those with postgraduate degrees. In contrast, of those who generally did not attend church, the results for this same question started 24% lower for those with a high school education or less at 48%, but dropped to 17% for college graduates, and only 9% for those with post graduate degrees (Graph 3). For church attendees, secular graduate level education was highly destructive to belief that God is creator, while for non-attendees, undergraduate education effectively diminished this belief.
The conclusion is that: 1. Education successfully weans the student from pre-scientific religious myths of creation; 2. Biblical creation is either not taught, or not taught effectively, in the contemporary home and church; and, 3. Secular education effectively offsets religious education in developing personal worldviews. The National Education Association (NEA) offers a teacher’s resource page on evolution, but none on creation or creation science. One FAQ page provides internal links to some 38 “misconceptions” such as, “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life;” “Species are distinct natural entities, with a clear definition, which can be clearly recognized by anyone;” and “Evolution is ‘just’ a theory.” This page opens with the statement that “Unfortunately, many people have persistent misconceptions about evolution. Some are simple misunderstandings. … (while) Other misconceptions may stem from purposeful attempts to misrepresent evolution and undermine the public understanding of this topic.” The bottom line is plainly stated:
“Because of some individuals and groups stridently declaring their beliefs, it’s easy to get the impression that science (which includes evolution) and religion are at war; however, the idea that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. … Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life in it was created in six literal days does conflict with evolutionary theory).”
The correlation between education and belief in evolution is clear. Gerald L. Schroeder presents the fundamental evolutionary position against creationism:
“The heavens, the Earth, and all that they contain were created in six days. This is the fact that confronts us when we open the Bible. It is so totally at odds with every accepted scientific estimate of the age of the universe that most of us are tempted to read no further. … Although science and theology offer divergent opinions on many aspects of our world, the difference in their statements of the age of the universe is particularly bothersome because it is a proven difference. The age of the universe has been measured by a variety of independent technological systems … . The methodology of these diverse studies presents a strong and scientifically consistent argument for a very old earth and an even older universe.”
Pond and Pond, discussing a lack of belief in evolution among students, contend that “Far too many high school and college high school and college biology courses fail to equip students to understand the scientific basis of evolution. … (in fact,) many public high school biology teachers avoid teaching evolution in their classes, while many others teach that creationism and ID (intelligent design) are valid scientific alternatives to evolution.” Chart 1 highlights the major points of biblical creation and evolution:
Chart 1
Creation and Evolution
Biblical Creation Evolution
“In the beginning God created” the universe ex nihilio, in an orderly, directed chain of events. In the beginning the universe developed ex nihilio as an accident of nature.
This origin included the creation of the universe including space; time; matter, energy, and light; and natural laws necessary to allow everything to function in an orderly manner. The big bang is the result of a pre-existing singularity that by chance “inflated,” to become the entire cosmos. The regulating laws of nature instantly came into existence, including “special” laws that disappeared when no longer needed.
The origin of life, including man, was intentional, a directed act of God. His created beings were directed to reproduce “after his kind. The origin of life, including man, was the result of chance as inorganic matter at some point in time instantly became a fully functioning lifeform. Life evolved over vast periods of time.
God sustains all. Everything is sustained by chance and natural laws as evolution continues.
Earth will end by God’s will. Chance and select laws of nature will continue ad infinitum unless man destroys himself and his planet.
Creationism embraces the living God. Evolution exalts man and denies God and the miraculous.
Creation is an article of faith for the biblical Christian. The biblical description of creation and the sustaining work of God is unequivocal. To doubt the biblical creation account is to bring question to the entire Word, and of God, Himself, for it says: “Thy Word is true from the beginning: and every one of Thy righteous judgments endureth forever” (Ps. 119:160). Science rejects the biblical account, arguing that it does not “seem reasonable.” Creation proclaims order and purpose while evolution is fraught with chaos and disorder. Creation proclaims the absolute sovereignty of God while evolution extols the accidents of chance. It is the theology of hope vs. the philosophy of despair.
The Interface of Revelation and Science
Theology and science meet “In the beginning”: that of the cosmos, of life itself, and of man. The biblical Christian finds Truth in the miraculous account of Genesis 1 and 2, while the humanist finds only relative truth and that only in science. Maimonides (1135-1204) represents the first sixteen centuries of Christianity: “Conflicts between science and religion result from misinterpreting the Bible.” These escalated during the Enlightenment. Isaac Newton (1643-1727) regarded miracles as having evidential value and being perfectly capable, as he put it, of “procuring belief,” but was strongly contradicted by Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), who argued that the very idea of a miracle was self-contradictory. Today, Spinoza’s position dominates. Contemporary society “understands” that religion is to be tolerated only “in its place.” Derek Kidner (1913-2008) explains:
“The interests and methods of Scripture and science differ so widely that they are best studied, in any detail, apart. Their accounts of the world are distinct (and each legitimate) as an artist’s portrait and an anatomist’s diagram, of which no composite picture will be satisfactory.”
Kidner finds no conflict in stating that the Biblical account and evolutionary science are “distinct” but “each legitimate.” He has traded logic for relativism. A primary tenant of logic is that two ideas cannot both be right in the same relationship at the same time. Kidner’s widely-held “distinction” between religion and science has helped herd theologians into one of three now-familiar positions: 1. Adapt biblical dogma to conform with scientific “proof,” 2. Seek isolation from the scientific community, or, 3. Adopt a militant stance against “science” that often discounts even evidentiary truth such as the existence of fossils. Kidner personifies the liberal theologian who finds relevance for the church only as it conforms with science. Biblical Christians who isolate themselves from engaging evolutionary science ignore the damage that this action is causing to the spiritual well-being of their children who suffer the peer-pressure engendered by the pro-evolutionary educational system. Henry M. Morris (1918-2006) represented the biblical Christian scientist who engaged evolution on a scientific basis. He and fellow creationist scientists are largely minimized by mainstream evolutionists; held in check by the stereotype of the biblical Christian community as uneducated and uneducable. This viewpoint has helped secularists dominate the nation’s educational system, the popular mind, and the minds and hearts of Christian youth. Tacit submission is an abdication of Christian responsibility: “Declare His glory among the heathen, His wonders among all people” (Ps. 96:3). The loss of Christian youth to the church is recognized, but instead of addressing the cause, the response is “more and better” programs and entertainment, a lost cause from the outset. Christian young people (and their parents and educators) are generally unprepared to respond to the compelling “proof” of evolution that overrides their creationist education. It is the biblically mandated duty of Christian parents and the church to teach young people the skills necessary to live in their world: “And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do” (Ex. 18:20). The example of the Apostles is clear: they met every heresy head-on. The teacher must know his subject to teach it effectively.
Spencer’s premise seems inescapable. The intersection has become a hard boundary, detrimental to both science and theology. Isolation robs both of essential elements: science is incomplete when it does not consider all possibilities including the supernatural, while theology ignores part of God’s message when it does not consider both general and special revelation. The Psalmist said, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handiwork” (Ps 19:1). God’s display of creation in nature is general revelation: it is real, it is a distinct part of God’s revelation. Since His account is accurate, even if not intended to be a scientific treatise, then it is a logical necessity that the empirical evidence upon which scientific theory is based is true. The claims of both religion and science must be carefully sifted to remove opinion and bias. For instance, fossils exist; this is fact. Paul told Titus that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Fossils are a part of God’s revelation. The tremendous age of the cosmos required by science is hypothetical. The question begs: why are theology and evolutionary science at odds? Pond and Pond believe that conflict exists because “creationists and intelligent design arguments fail to meet commonly accepted criteria of science, invoking non-naturalistic explanations, and failing to develop testable or falsifiable hypotheses;” therefore, “creationism has no place within the scientific community.” This argument will be tested below. Biblical Christians often accept this handicapping approach without question:
“Biologists continue to discuss and debate mechanisms, patterns, and details of evolution, but the certainty of evolution is not in question. … This conclusion is built upon countless observations and thousands of rigorous studies and experiments from all disciplines in the biological sciences over a period of 150 years.”
Evolutionary rhetoric often follows a predictable pattern: theory is expounded as fact, a plethora of proof is promised, but none is delivered:
• The expanding universe is proof of the big bang, but the supporting proof is inconclusive and lacks consensus among its supporters.
• Abiogenesis is essential for the formation of life in a godless cosmos, but many evolutionists find it embarrassing in its improbability.
• Biological evolution is the focal point of evolutionary philosophy and is overrun with research that proves that variations occur (undisputed by creationists) but can find no evidence for species-to-species change required for one lifeform to become an entirely different one.
Neither Creation nor evolution can be proved through the classical scientific method that requires the observation of a phenomenon, the formulation of a hypothesis narrowly explaining that phenomenon predicting specific outcomes, and the replication of the results by other competent investigators. “Nevertheless,” Morris explains, “although both creation and evolution have important religious, moral and social implications, they can also each be used to correlate and predict scientific data.”
Logic
Logic is the primary tool by which an observer can evaluate the claims of religion and science. Logic is not the proof, for that lies within the evidence and assessment of that evidence; rather, it is the framework by which rational thought and communication are formed in order to be intelligible. Language is an expression of logic and the vehicle by which it is conceived, transmitted, and preserved. Language is not static: technology changes, societal norms drift, new words are coined and old ones are repurposed. Logic thrives in a stable linguistic environment and suffers during periods of rapid change. One contemporary example of a disruptive change is the use of the word “marriage.” After eons of expressing the special relationship between one man and one woman as established by God at creation for the purpose of fellowship and procreation, the word has been redefined in popular usage to include any semi-committed sexual relationship among any combination of genders. Understanding is complicated by unforeseen ambivalence concerning gender, for today gender, rather than referring to the clearly observed birth sex of an individual, has become subjective, a matter of individual choice. These have required extensive revisions to law, business, sports, religious and social organizations, including legal access to public facilities. Consistent with the relativistic worldview, biological realities have become flexible. Aristotle held that primary laws of logic are necessary for thought and communications:
1. The law of non-contradiction: nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same relationship; two things cannot both be in the same place at the same time in the same relationship.
2. The law of excluded middle: a statement is either true or false; something either exists or does not exist.
3. The law of identity: if a statement is true, it is true; any change is a change to its truth value.
4. For every known effect there is a cause, that is, every action or event is the result of another. Newton’s theory of motion is the basic principle of physics that is derived from the principle of sufficient reason: nihil est sine ratione (nothing occurs without a reason).
A cursory look shows that evolutionary theories fail the fundamental precepts of logic:
1. The big bang requires that an existing “something,” with no cause and no beginning, expanded to form everything that exists.
2. Abiogenesis requires that inanimate elements, with no cause, to become a fully functioning lifeform.
3. Evolution requires that the first and subsequent lifeform(s) changed into other kinds of lifeforms, with no cause, to produce the more than eight million species known today.
The Language of Science
Communication requires a concerted effort from both the sender and receiver. The observance of rules of logic, grammar, syntax, and so on, common to and accepted by the parties involved are imperative. At Spencer’s boundary this is problematic. There is impassable disparity between one who holds to the validity of truth and logic and the secularist who holds truth to be relative.
The language of contemporary science is not as intuitive as an observer might expect; it is carefully crafted to promote the precepts of evolution. As with all disciplines, science often redefines familiar words and phrases for its own use. These may denote surprising nuances. The commonly used word “evolution” is an example. Contemporary science considers evolution to be any change in a lifeform. Creationists hold to a more rigorous definition, distinguishing between macro-evolution and micro-evolution, where macro-evolution is a kind-to-kind change (species A becomes species B) and micro-evolution, that is variation within limits of a kind. For instance, the evolutionist sees “proof” of evolution in changes in the bills of Darwin’s finches, while the creationist sees this as variation, or micro-evolution, within a species; the finches remain finches, and are known to revert to other varieties as their territorial environment changes.
G. Ledyard Stebbins says that the aim of any scientific endeavor is to distill facts into integrated theories to provide insights into the world of nature. A theory is a basic technical term of science that finds common usage in many facets of society. Stephen Hawking explains:
“In order to talk about the nature of the universe … you have to be clear about what scientific theory is. I shall take the simple-minded view that a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality. … a good theory (must satisfy) … two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations based upon a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.”
Dissecting his definition yields a logical general argument for a scientific theory:
1. A theory is a model that makes general predictions based upon probability. A familiar model is the set of presuppositions, equations, and data used by weather forecasters. Vast quantities of data are collected and analyzed, yet these efforts are less than reliable. As the accuracy diminishes from the current forecast to the 10-day forecast, so does extended predictions such as climate change predicting events over decades or centuries.
2. When data are not available, assumptions are made by the researcher, with predictive accuracy decreasing as assumptions replace data.
3. The theory is not the truth of an observed event, but a description that exists only in the mind of the investigator.
4. A theory must adequately describe a large class of observations rather than being based upon a unique unrepeatable event. A simple example is predicting the result of a coin toss. As the number of repetitions increase, a competent algorithm will provide increasingly accurate predictions of the average result. It cannot, however, predict the outcome of any single toss of the coin. Since the origin of the cosmos was a unique event, the use of probability is eliminated.
5. It must be rationally complete and logically consistent with observational data, requiring very few assumptions about unknown quantities. Circular logic results when both formula and data are “tweaked” to achieve desired results.
6. It must be able to predict that future events included in the model will occur within the limits of the theory. Science posits that the big bang and abiogenesis were both unique events, eliminating any comparable future events.
The philosophy of Spinoza and Schleiermacher establishes the normative dogma of science known as “methodological naturalism” that maintains that the “proper way to conduct any serious inquiry is to focus strictly on naturalistic explanations.” The language of science has no room for God or the miraculous.
Time, Space, Energy, and Matter
Identification of the first cause and the origin of time, space, energy, matter, and the laws that govern natural phenomena are critical to the science, but not the philosophy, of beginnings. All events require a cause including “first” events. It is a logical fallacy, an incoherent statement, to claim that anything made itself or that something derived from nothing. God could not create Himself. The big bang requires the existence of a pre-existing singularity, thus obfuscating the actual beginning. Abiogenesis requires that unknown laws of nature acted upon inorganic matter to generate a complete lifeform. Biological evolution requires that lifeforms inherit and propagate accidental changes to produce new lifeforms.
Time
Moses selected the Hebrew word re’shiyth (the first in place and time, the firstfruit) to document the beginning in Genesis 1:1. Before that, there was no space, time, energy, matter, or “laws” of nature to regulate them. None. At all. Understanding this is like attempting to comprehend the infinite triune God: “1 In the beginning (Gr. arche: a beginning, a principality) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1-2). Time is a measure of motion. It is an area of consensus among scholars that time came into being with the beginning, be it the big bang, or creation (Is. 48:16). Hawking said that “the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe.” Augustine said that “time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe.” That pre-time is called eternity. It is without measure of any sort, it cannot be quantified, and it is quite beyond the capacity of man to comprehend. Adrian E. V. Langdon says that “While time is mutable eternity is immutable.”
God’s initial description of the earth is as a dark, water-covered deep that was tohuw, bohuw (formless, void), a physical entity containing all the elements necessary, but not yet made suitable for life. He then described six days of bringing increasing order upon Earth. His first refining act was the creation of light (‘owr: bright, clear, lighting) and the separation of light from darkness (choshek: darkness, obscurity). He declared the day to be the basic unit of time. On the Fourth Day, He added lights (ma’owr: luminous bodies) for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years:” (cf. Gen. 1:2b-31). God’s eternity and creation’s temporality are thus revealed.
Hawking illustrated the relativistic nature of time for the evolutionist: “one has to remember that in the theory of relativity there is no absolute time. Each observer has his own measure of time.” This is contrary to Scripture where time is established by God for man: “To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven:” (Ecc. 3:1). Time has two distinct aspects. The first, and most familiar, is that described in Genesis that is represented by the clock and calendar. Aristotle explains that time is “movement in so far as it admits of enumeration,” while Aquinas argues that time is a measurement that exists because of life and movement. This understanding allows man to grasp, record, consider, and communicate. It is familiar in three distinct modes: 1. Now, or the present, in which all temporality exists; 2. The past, which we can remember; and, 3. The future, which is always coming, never arrives, and is unknowable outside of God’s revelation. Increments of time are based upon the earth’s relationship to its cosmological environment, especially the sun and moon. The rotation of the earth on its axis sets the length of the day, and the rotation of the moon about the earth establishes the month. The rotation of the earth around the sun sets the length of the year, and seasons are caused by a complex but generally regular amalgam of these motions. This is Earth time, the inescapable time reference for man, creationist or evolutionist. Some aspects of time appear cyclic, as the repetition of days, months, years, and seasons, but time is distinctly linear and unidirectional; it is characterized by Arthur S. Eddington’s arrow of time, conceived to describe the concept that time began absolutely at some point in the past and always moves toward the future. Hawking says that, although the laws of theoretical science are oblivious to the direction of time, there are “at least three arrows of time that do distinguish the past from the future. They are the thermodynamic arrow, the direction of time in which disorder increases; the psychological arrow, the direction of time in which we remember the past and not the future; and the cosmological arrow, the direction of time in which the universe expands rather than contracts.”
A second use of time is found in the expression of the laws of nature operating in natural systems such as atoms, molecules, and the cosmos itself. These appear to be independent of earth time. Here, time is a component of movement itself rather than just a yardstick by which to record passing events. Newton held that, “Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external.” It is essential for Einstein’s theory of relativity and of quantum mechanics. Time is integral to any discussion of beginnings.
A discussion of time would not be complete without addressing Joshua’s experience in the Valley of Aijalon as the Israelites fought a decisive running battle with a formidable coalition intent on destroying them. As the battle was progressing and daylight was turning to night. Joshua prayed:
“12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Aijalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.” (Joshua 10:12-13).
A second incident where time was modified was when Isaiah intervened for King Hezekiah, beseeching God to provide a sign as recorded in 2 Kinga 20:1-18. In this example of divine intervention, God moved the sun back 10 degrees on Hezekiah’s sun dial. Rumors of a NASA investigation in the early days of the space program seem unfounded. Satisfactory scientific evidence that these events did happen is elusive. Time, like gravity, seems to be all but immutable. Even if time can vary as quantum mechanics suggests, it does so within limits. The answer is not to be found in science, but in the recorded eyewitness accounts and supporting material in the Bible. As the inspired inerrant Word of God, the biblical Christian should have no problem understanding that the God of Genesis 1 is also the God of time and everything else He created (cf. Job 38:33-37).
Space
Space did not exist before the beginning. It is not that there was nothing in space, but rather, there was no space in which anything could exist. The creationist recognizes that prior to “In the beginning God created …” eternity existed and was (and is, and always will be) occupied by the Godhead. Space and time were instituted by divine fiat: “And God said … and there was” (Gen. 1:3, etc.).
For the evolutionist, space is more problematic. The current theory is that a singularity existed prior to the big bang in pre-space and pre-time that consisted of, or contained, all the time, space, matter, energy, and the laws that govern them that would ever exist. At some point billions of years ago, time and space began when this singularity left equilibrium for no reason and expanded to become the entire cosmos including man.
Energy
As Genesis 1 opens, the cosmos is in place, the earth formed, and an exquisite balance existed among the celestial bodies and upon earth itself. Within the first two verses the entire cosmos was created in an orderly manner, governed thereafter by the laws of nature. Scripture does not suggest anywhere that God had to “fall back and regroup” to add or adjust anything. Gravity and centrifugal and centripetal forces established the cosmological balance, the sun was converting hydrogen to light and heat by nuclear reactions, and the water covering the earth was composed of H2O in liquid form; the land underlaid the primeval seas, waiting to be revealed in His time. Newton’s First Law, the law of conservation, operated without any need for adjustment after the initial creation that brought zero mass and energy to its present constant value, an event that evolution cannot explain. Man was created complete on Day Six. Following God’s declaration that His creation was “very good” (Gen. 1:31), man sinned and God placed a curse upon all creation (cf. Gen. 3), inaugurating Newton’s Second Law that declares all order is descending to disorder. His first revealed act was to provide light, a form of energy, that became the standard for time and times.
Matter
Newton’s First Law demonstrates that matter and energy are interrelated: they are qualitatively interchangeable but quantitatively constant. God supplied all that was needed for His perfect creation including matter in the precise form, location, and amount needed for every purpose. His preamble reveals that the laws of nature were functioning as the earth, though “without form and void,” was complete, covered by water, and functioning, but not yet suitable for the life that God would soon create (Gen. 1:1-2). The natural elements were all present but not yet in the combinations that God utilized to make and form all that followed. God does not specify the mix of elements, including the initial ratios of the radioactive elements, or the date of His creative acts.
For the evolutionist, time, and lots of it, is essential. Following the big bang, energy flowed uniformly outward from the singularity discharging space, time, and natural laws in its wake into a superheated heterodyne that became protons, neutrons, and electrons in various combinations and permutations. These expanded outwardly with growing complexity as gravity begin to amalgamate the mix into the celestial bodies over billions of years. This contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics: instead of increasing disorder as the Second Law requires, the big bang produces increasing order as disassociated energy became increasingly organized. With time, the initial proto-stars devolved to allow the evolution of the heavy elements.
Select Laws of Nature
The laws of nature are repeated observations quantified into theories. These have been tested arduously and, having been found in conformance with the theory and its predictions, have been elevated to the status of a natural law. Final proof is not possible, as there is always “one more test” that could prove the theory false: since all possible situations have not been examined, each is subject to falsification. Examples include gravity, Einstein’s laws of relativity, and the laws of thermodynamics. The creationist understands that these laws were complete at Geneses 1:1-2 and are naturally unchanging, but are subject to suspension at God’s discretion. As Creator, this is simply His prerogative.
Big bang theorists hold that two distinct and non-overlapping sets of natural laws have existed: the first set controlled the big bang then disappeared when calculations require the appearance of the second set that exists today. Jurgen Bergess and associates believe that they have discovered a set of “universal laws” that “govern the initial stages of change in a variety of systems consisting of many particles that are far from thermal equilibrium.” They suggest that these particles “evolve,” meaning that they change. The evolutionist then argues that this allows “different,” never unobserved laws to explain the moments after the big bang while reverting to contemporary laws at some later point. This hypothesis does not demonstrate the source or existence of these laws that abdicated with no trace when they began to interfere with accepted results. These laws are not even specified.
The evolutionist holds that the current set of natural laws is fixed even as all that they control evolves. W. H. McCree finds this inconsistent:
“The naïve view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed. … It seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent. This leads us to expect that, if the universe changes in the large, then its laws might also change in a way that could not be predicted.”
In other words, if the scientist needs a new law of nature to explain a theory, it is acceptable to invent it based upon necessity. This view of evolving natural law does not comport with the law of uniformitarianism required by evolution, or with the fact that science has never observed any change in these laws. If these laws do change, questions arise about the veracity of mathematical constants such as the speed of light.
Gravity
Isaac Newton developed the theory of gravity in the seventeenth century. He concluded that bodies attract each other proportionally to their mass. Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov (1935- )
says that this is a “very accurate description of a wide range of phenomena, including the motion of natural and artificial bodies in the Solar System, as well as the motions in other cosmic systems.” Gravity is readily observed: dropped objects fall to the earth. Science has made precise measurements of this effect, and developed models of the effects of gravity throughout the universe that have been proven by repeated observations and tests such as the space probes. “Newton’s law serves as a foundation for all calculations of motion, structure and evolution of celestial bodies and for determination of their masses.” It is not universal, for it has practical limitations beyond which Einstein’s relativistic theory must be used, This allows relativistic language to enter. Jim Baggott demonstrates:
“Our knowledge and understanding of empirical reality are founded on verified scientific facts derived from careful observation and experiment. But the facts themselves are not theory-neutral. Observation and experiment are simply not possible without reference to a supporting theory of some sort.”
This is a unifying practice within of evolutionary science: facts are not absolute. To be consistent, Baggot cannot stumble and fall without a personal “supporting theory.” One wonders how a toddler performs this feat so easily. Once again, this exemplifies science that adjusts reality to conform to the theory du jour. Novikov claims the uniqueness of the big bang in an infinite universe, but this is a logical contradiction: it cannot be both a unique event, and be infinite at the same time and in the same relationship. This common evolutionary ambiguity is the result of the reverse-engineering of scientific theory. It is forced due to the breakdown of the models because of a “gravitational paradox.” When calculations based upon Newton’s law of gravity are applied to celestial body acted upon by all the gravity of the cosmos produces different results with different methodologies. This can be simply illustrated: one approach to the problem of 2 + 2 yields the answer = 4 while, in this paradox, 1 + 3 produces a different answer. The paradox is this:
1. Newton’s gravity produces instant results.
2. The speed of light is a constant, one that cannot be exceeded by anything under any circumstances.
3. Therefore, gravity cannot produce instant results, OR, the speed of light is not a constant that cannot be exceeded.
The popular concept of gravity and the speed of light is one of absolute certainty. Science has no doubts or questions. This simple illustration demonstrates the uncertainty that permeates all of science “behind the scenes.”
Uniformitarianism
Vast amounts of time are required for evolutionary processes effect change. Uniformitarianism states that the laws of nature operated consistently throughout the ages. Sort of. Cosmologists who find difficulty accounting for the big bang and early cosmos state that unknown laws of nature appeared for the big bang, but disappeared without a trace when they were no longer needed. Biological evolutionary scientists who need uninterrupted eons of uniform placidity disagree: “We have no reason to doubt that the principles of physics and chemistry, the operation of gravity, and the essential nature of geologic processes are independent of time. They are unchanging,” says Raymond Cecil Moore. This is a bit of hyperbole, of course, since nothing temporal is independent of time: one cannot posit change independent of time. The geologic record includes sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks as well as the fossil record. Identifiable deposits are local and regional at best; no worldwide continuity of any deposit or “index” fossil exists. Moore’s evidentiary support for uniformity is couched in terms such as “we accept,” “it must have been,” and “we may be sure.” The worldwide geologic record, understood in the context of uniformity, proves evolution, since the fossil record contained shows a consistent increase in lifeform complexity, thus evolution, as those layers are graded from oldest to youngest, that is, from lowest to highest. Moore says that the accuracy of “reading” the geologic record depends upon the practitioner’s understanding of natural laws and “the extent to which the rock record is available for study.” Thus, another layer of subjectivity is added to evolutionary science. Most of this record is not visible. An interesting problem is that some layers appear to be completely inverted, placing the “oldest” on top. Geology holds that sedimentary layers were uniformly deposited on a horizontal plane by sediment settling out of the shallow seas. Various machinations are suggested for the complete intact inversions, but none are satisfactory. Historical geologists and paleontologists use sedimentary layers and the fossils they contain to date each other in a circular path of reasoning: the fossils are graded based on complexity, with the least complex being the oldest. The beds in which they are found are graded with the bottommost layers declared to be the oldest. The scientist then finds that: “In each sedimentary stratum certain fossils seem to be characteristically abundant: these fossils are known as index fossils. If an index fossil is found in an unknown formation, it is easy to date that layer of rock and to correlate it with other exposures in distant regions containing the same species,” no matter how different the layer or original ecosystem might be.
Uniformitarianism is arbitrary: it is invoked to meet the needs of the investigator. It fails Hawking’s test of a valid theory since it is not based upon observation, but is hypothesized to allow the time necessary for abiogenesis and evolution to occur. The discussion comes to a head in the Genesis 1 account of the 144 hours of creation against which evolution posits billions of years. Events such as the observed climate-changing effects of volcanic eruptions, geologic and contemporary evidence of frequent global climate change, fossils found high up in the world’s mountain ranges, and “inverted” sedimentary layers, all speak against earth’s uniformitarian past. Volcanos argue against uniformity. More than ten new islands have formed in the past twenty-five years. Mexico is home to forty-eight active volcanoes. The catastrophic effect of tidal waves and tsunamis are familiar. Scientists know of no place on earth where oil and coal are being formed. All of these argue against a benign uniformity. To these the biblical Christian adds accounts such as the Noahic flood.
Relativity
The theory of relativity is founded in the work of Larmor, Fitzgerald, Lorentz, and Poincare, among others, though it remained for Albert Einstein to develop a theory of the general principles that were later formalized in logical and mathematical terms by Hermann Minkowski. Einstein developed two theories of relativity: Special and General. The Special theory is said to be the demarcation between classical and modern physics. Using classical deterministic concepts, it merges space and time into space-time: instead of simply marking increments of movement, space-time is a force that influences even gravity and light. General relativity brought gravity into focus as a generalization of the Special theory that conceptually and mathematically relates the relativistic behavior of space and time, and of the geometry of space. The concepts of the curvature of space-time and the receding universe are products of these theories. Both of these affect calculations of the age of the universe.
Thermodynamics
The laws of thermodynamics are statistical statements that allow individual anomalies. Two laws of thermodynamics describe the activity of energy and matter in a closed system:
1. The First Law is known as the Law of Conservation of energy. It states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed but can be transformed from one to the other.
2. The Second Law states that the entropy, or disorder, of a system always increases. The measure of entropy is the measure of energy that is no longer able to be used in that system.
The First Law of Thermodynamics argues that matter and energy are fixed in amount though variable in their ratio. This sort of transformation is seen in the detonation of a nuclear bomb or the nuclear reactions within our sun in which matter is transformed to energy. The spontaneous generation of the cosmos is a direct contradiction to this law, for the quantity of matter and energy would have to change from zero to its present level. The miraculous creation by an infinite God explains and allows this phenomenon as an expression of His divine will. The big bang deflects the question of cause by positing an eternally existing singularity that contained all that would later become the energy, matter, and natural laws of the cosmos. The First Law states that something cannot be the result of nothing: it must have a cause. Therefore, the very existence of the cosmos requires a beginning, and, therefore, a cause. Hawking, in cooperation with Roger Penrose, attempted to overcome this problem by hypothesizing an infinitely existing universe consisting of repeating cycles of expansion and contraction. If indeed infinite, this theory eliminates the need for the cosmos to arise from nothing. The systematic collapse of the universes into a singularity is followed by another big bang, where energy, et al. expands forming a cosmos until gravity causes it to collapse into a singularity and begin the process again. Detractors found that there “was no way for space-time to begin smoothly, undramatically at a point,” even once, thus not repeatedly. As an infinite regress, this theory not only fails the test of logic, but demonstrates the failure of evolutionary models that cause brilliant scientists to drift further and further from empirical evidence and logic to support their philosophies. This proposal is today mainly discounted and the problem of the actual beginning is ignored.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that everything is progressing from order to chaos. The creationist finds that the infinite God who created everything in the very beginning also reveals that, on His schedule, it will end. The evolutionary scientist must postulate that chance, defined as random mathematical possibilities, causes order, defying the Second Law and violating the law of identity: either the Second Law is true or it is not; it cannot be both. The Second Law is a statistical statement, so singular events exist that show a decrease in entropy such as the conception and development of an embryo. But the Law does not allow wholesale disregard as the mathematics of the big bang models demonstrate (see “The Scope and Limitations of Science” below). Empirical evidence continues to prove the validity of the Second Law; none exists to prove the big bang, abiogenesis, or biological evolution. Hawking admits that, in Special Relativity, it is meaningless to speak of space and time outside of the universe; in General Relativity it is meaningless to speak of space and time outside the limits of the universe. It is meaningless, he says, to attempt to discuss this initial singularity in pre-space and pre-time: it is, by definition, outside of any universe. The singularity, even if it is conceptualized as pure energy compressed to its most dense form, cannot exist outside of space and time.
Evolution is a general theory that requires continual anti-entropic events without cause, a violation of the Second Law:
1. Cosmologists compensate by postulating a variety of balancing factors such as anti-matter, background matter/energy, and the universe as an open system. These are then “discovered” and “tweaked” to provide the needed proof.
2. Abiogenesis and biological evolutionists have no effective argument to support processes that violate the Second Law, so claim that evolution occurs in an open system.
Arguments that the cosmos is an open system fail at the onset. Whether arguing from a singular big bang or an infinite universe, both are bound by specific limits. Whenever a system is considered open, it becomes part of a larger system, which always terminates in a closed system at the level of the cosmos: the laws of thermodynamics apply. Rejecting logic and the input of theology, science is left without the resources that Aristotle had over two thousand years ago:
“Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is in its original source that which enables us to recognize the definitions.
Quantum Mechanics
Quantum mechanics attempts to describe nature on a sub-atomic level, an esoteric world that would make Lewis Carroll reel in wonder. It is theoretical physics that defines the relationships among subatomic particles and events on a statistical basis. It was developed alongside Einstein’s more familiar theories by Max Plank (1858-1947) to address mathematical problems at the subatomic level. J. T. Fraser (1923-2010) says, “Quantum mechanics teaches that elementary forms of matter may be given two different but equally valid descriptions. … that within its domain, (1) both descriptions may be applied to all objects, (2) they may be applied at will to suit theoretical and experimental needs, but (3) both cannot be applied to the same object at the same time.” It does not deal with reality but with abstractions and probabilities. Einstein mused, “The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks. How non-physicists would scoff if they were able to follow this course of development.” As the number of particles being considered increases, quantum descriptions become irrelevant and give way to the classical and relativistic physics of macroscopic objects.” Biblical Christians are urged to tread lightly when criticizing this strange world of probabilities and numbers, for as unlikely as quantum propositions seem, practical applications are “on the shelf” in computer science and other fields (Job 28:5-8).
Quantum mechanics intersects the beginnings when theorists apply the sub-atomic set of theories to the cosmos, primarily to consider the behavior of light in space-time. Though the speed of light appears to remain a constant, the path that light follows varies: distance affects the time that it takes light to reach an observer. It also adds a red shift to the light, similar to the Doppler red shift seen as two bodies move away from each other as in the model of an expanding universe. This suggests caution when using the red shift to calculate the age of the universe. Baggot admits of quantum mechanics: “These theories are riddled with problems, paradoxes, conundrums, contradictions, and incompatibilities. In one sense they don’t make sense at all. … Now we come to the crunch. We know that the current version of reality can’t be right … We are virtually clueless.” The limitations of science are the limitations of man seeking to be god: “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart” (Eph. 4:18).
A hidden problem is that evolutionary solutions do not work until data and theory are “fine-tuned” to match. Occam’s razor has been reworked into a magic wand. The creationist has no such problem, for creationism expects each aspect of creation to be fine-tuned by the Creator.
The Scope and Limitations of Revelation
The biblical Christian holds that God revealed the essential principles of creation through Moses some 3,500 years ago. The specific content and limitations of that revelation are directly attributed to the will of the Creator. In other words, He told man precisely what He wanted His creature to know, both for the initial audience and by extension to all mankind. Although warned by God not to “add unto these things” (Rev. 22:18), both the secular detractor and Christian exegete often go beyond revelation to “expose” the fallacy of the pre-scientific text, or to “explain” what God “really” means in the context of modern science.
Liberal theologians have attempted to deconstruct the Bible in general and Genesis in particular, to destroy its authority as the inspired Word of God, and to elevate reason and science. “Jean Astruc (1684-1766) attempted . . . to isolate different documents used by Moses, and by the close of the eighteenth century the figure of Moses was receding from the view of investigators, to be replaced by an unnamed redactor,” according to Kidner. Suborning evidence to theory, the documents Astruc and others cite as Moses’ sources have never been seen or found quoted by his contemporaries or later writers: like Hawking’s theory, the proof is in the mind of the critic. Historically, the hermeneutical and exegetical methods employed by biblical theologians proceed from understanding the Bible as the inerrant inspired eternal Word of God (Matt 5:18). The Word requires a literal reading whenever the plain language of Scripture appears to present a historical event or pronouncement in order to understand the author’s message to his original audience. The Bible calls this “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” (2 Tim 2:15). This imposes self-discipline and ongoing search for revealed truth on the exegete as he attempts to understand text written to others in significantly different cultures two to three thousand years or more ago. Besides age and cultural differences, God’s revelation was progressive: He revealed Himself more completely as time passed and man was ready to learn. The temptation is to use later revelation to interpret earlier, but that only provides flawed interpretation.
Davis A. Young discusses Scriptural passages that had to be reinterpreted by the Church as scientific knowledge demonstrated that the literal interpretation was obviously wrong. He gives this example: “1The LORD reigneth, He is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith He hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved” (Ps 93:1). The church concluded that the world was fixed in space. Another is 1 Samuel 2:8: “for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and He hath set the world upon them.” These and several others were held by the church to be literal revelations since the language seemed to be quite clear. The church persecuted Copernicus and Galileo who discovered that the earth revolved around the sun. There is no need for the exegete to be timid on theological matters, but he must understand that the Word is not a science handbook. It is certainly true that God does hold the world anthropomorphically in His hands, but it is equally true that the earth is not fixed in space.
These examples are not presented to disparage either Scripture or the theologians who labor to interpret it, but as a caution to the man who attempts to apprehend the mind of God. Without discussing atoms and molecules, gravity, or the speed of light, this proclamation is clear and inclusive: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God” (Ps 90:2). “Genesis intends primarily to teach theological truths about God, the world, and the human race,” says Daniel Harlow. Biblical critics often cite early creation myths from various cultures as the source(s) of material that Moses edited and redacted to produce a narrative suitable for the biblical account. Harlow finds that this theory, attached to whichever myth the particular writer favors, fails on its own merit: “Genesis 1 shows no direct literary dependence on any ancient Near Eastern cosmogony and no marked influence from any single text,” but he does find that, “Instead it appears to be an eclectic work that borrows conceptions and motifs from a wide range of cosmogonies even as it transforms what it borrows, refuting both the theology and theological anthropology of its original background.” After reviewing Near Eastern cosmogonies, he acknowledges that, “All of this pagan theology is refuted indirectly (but nonetheless forcefully) in the very first verse of Genesis 1, and the point bears emphasizing.” Harlow finds this account to be unique to the Hebrew Bible, in “its literary compactness, exalted tone and solemn contents,” holding that it was written by an unknown author “sometime in the postexilic or Persian period, ca. 550-450 BC.” This position is similar to many who wish to remove themselves from the doctrines of divine inspiration and inerrancy. The Pentateuch has been in continuous use since the era of the post-Exodus encampment at the base of Mount Sinai (ca. 1445 BC) by the Jews and Christians since the time of Jesus. As the Bible developed, writers continued to assert the authenticity of the creation account. Jeremiah wrote: “17 Ah Lord GOD! Behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:” (Jer. 32:17). The psalmist said: “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help. 2 My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth” (Ps 121:1-2). Paul writes: “ 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” (Rom 1:20). The writer of Hebrews stated:
1 God, 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, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;” (Heb 1:1-3).
Nowhere in Scripture is there any suggestion that the prophets, judges, kings, Jesus, or the Apostles had any doubt about the authenticity and accuracy of Genesis 1:1.
Kidner summarizes the proper use of biblical resources:
“Meanwhile it may serve as a reminder that when the revealed and the observed seem hard to combine, it is because we know too little, not too much—as our Lord impressed on the Sadducees about their conundrum on the resurrection (in) Matthew 22:23-33.”
“With the study of Genesis on its own terms, that is, as a living whole, not a body to be dissected, the impression becomes inescapable that its characters are people of flesh and blood, its events actual, and the book itself a unity. If this is right, the mechanics of composition are of small importance, since the parts of this whole are not competing for credence as rival traditions, and the author of the book does not draw attention, as do the writers of Kings and Chronicles, to the sources of his information.”
Creation myths are prevalent in ancient cultures, but God’s creation story is unique. Detractors claim that it was derived from earlier pagan accounts, but even a cursory textual comparison belies these assertions. The single creation story is presented in Genesis in two complementary but distinct accounts, each a part of God’s message to man, an inseparable whole. The primary account, found in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3, is from the perspective of God. It begins tabula rasa, with the magnificent statement: “In the beginning God created … (re’shiyth ‘Elohiym bara’ …).” It was penned in the long era of pre-science, but no claim has ever been proven false. Genesis 1 introduces the infinite pre-existent God who Is, with no drama and no explanation. He is the author of the majestic acts of bara’ shamayim’ ‘erets (created the heaven and the earth) by divine fiat exercised from eternity. After declaring the pre-existent God of creation, Moses advises that the initial state of the earth was without form and void (tohuw and bohuw), with darkness (choshek: obscurity) enshrouding the water covered globe. God then proceeded in a logical and ordered manner, creating ex nihilo as necessary, and “forming” from the elements already made as appropriate: “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Ex. 20:11).
The initial account is immediately followed in Genesis 2:4-25 by God’s account from man’s perspective in which He introduced the concept of “generations” (towldah: history, family, descent), which would appear over 100 times in the OT. Moses’ description of God is consistent with that found throughout the Bible: God is described, but not limited. The Psalmist wrote that God founded (yacad: established) the earth and the world even as He created (bara’) the north and the south (Ps. 89:11-12). Isaiah said that “God the LORD … created (bara’) the heavens” (Is. 42:5a). A glimpse of His eternalness is given in Isaiah 45:7, where, in present tense, He reveals to Isaiah that. “I form (yatsar: squeeze into a shape, mould into a form) the light, and create (bara’) darkness,” recalling the First Day of creation (Gen. 1:3-5). The prophet Amos wrote that God “formeth (yatsar: to mold or fashion) the mountains and createth (bara’) the wind” (Amos 4:13). In the NT, Paul advised the Colossians: “For by him were all things created (ktizo: fabricated), that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created (ktizo) by Him, and for Him:” (Col. 1:16). This God is identified in Genesis 1:1 as “elohiym,” the “singular plural” (iym is the plural ending in Hebrew), that in the context of Scripture is a precursor to the revelation of the triune Godhead consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All were present and active in creation as individuals: the Father (Gen. 1:1); the Son (Eph. 3:9); the Spirit (Gen. 1:2); and in concert (Heb. 1:2-3).
Pre-scientific in time, a careful exegesis of Scripture discloses that it is supra-scientific, above science in content, a point that the theologian should thoroughly understand and utilize hermeneutically. Scripture is not subservient to science, or any other source of information, but all subsumes to it. The scope, or breadth, of revelation, and the limitations, or hard boundaries of God’s revealed knowledge to mankind, are explicit in Scripture. Violation of these boundaries by detractor or supporter are violations of God’s mandate: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law (nomos: the principles), till all be fulfilled” (Matt. 5:18).
The Scope and Limitations of Science
Man is the god of the secular world, science is his high priest, and evolution, the jewels of his crown. There are no limits to what science can accomplish when the world follows. The salvation of mankind will come at the hands of benevolent scientists who will finally dispel the evil caused by centuries of myth-mongering religionists. Science has proven beyond doubt that the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution are incontrovertible truth in a relativistic world. Extensive publication by scientists in the popular media has removed the anonymity of peer-reviewed journals, elevating leading scientists to household names, approaching those of sports figures and actors. Popular science has largely replaced science fiction as the distinction between the two is fading rapidly. Exploration guided by scientific curiosity has been replaced with process and political correctness as defined by those who grant tenure and issue grants. Inclusive objectivity has been replaced with a selective and subjective worldview. The limits of science as science are mere irritations to overcome as evangelical science proclaims naturalistic secularism. Timothy Ferris says, “To understand the limitations of science … can be a source of strength, emboldening us to renew our search for the objectively real,” while Harold Fritzsch, in a minority opinion, finds that there are real limitations of science, and they are found in questions of essential human values:
“(The) scientific, rational method of looking at the world seeks to establish relationships between different objects and processes, to find causal connections. Therein lie both the strengths and limitations of scientific knowledge. It cannot define values and goals, not even the goals of science. Even if we succeed in unravelling all the riddles of nature and solving its problems, we would not have touched upon the fundamental human questions about the meaning and goals of life.”
The rationalistic basis of science is found in processes that claim to be systematically objective and comprehensive but intentionally reject part of the data (the possibility of the supernatural) from consideration. If proven non-existent or not material to the question, the problem is eliminated; but pro forma rejection of potential solutions based upon anti-religious bias is untenable, a symptom of anti-religious bias that clouds the judgment of science.
Hidden from casual observers, science fails to espouse a unified theory of beginnings; despite the popular notions of “The” big bang theory, and “The” theory of evolution, agreement does not exist. While generally proclaiming these as fact in public schools and institutions of higher learning, and in society in general, no single theory can claim a consensus of the scientific community. Two premises do provide a common starting point: 1. The theory of uniformity provides the pathway for chance (completely undirected accidents of nature) to act over unlimited periods of time to produce all that exists from a qualified nothingness; and, 2. There is no need (or room) for a divine being or the miraculous. This position is founded in the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), who called miracles “a refuge of ignorance,” setting the tone for the Enlightenment that continues in the philosophy of modern science. Without the biblical basis of the creation of man and his relationship with God, man is but another animal. Moral and other societal values can only be individual perceptions. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) is credited with changing the formulation of “nature and grace,” to “nature and freedom,” eliminating God and elevating man by reducing him to equivalency with the rest of nature.
The biblical creationist finds an eyewitness to the beginnings in the Person of the Creator, but science claims no equivalency, either in a person, or in verifiable empirical evidence. The cosmos, without properly interpreted evidence, can be the result of creation, the big bang, or some unsuspected cause. Scientists who honestly reflect on the popular theories sometimes document their reasonable doubts. Novikov admits that the first 10-43 seconds after the initial big bang is unknowable. He then equivocates: “Isn’t it amazing that we are quite certain about the processes that occurred during the first expansion, and are rather ignorant of the events that have taken place much nearer to our epoch? … we are quite certain of our knowledge of the internal structure of distant stars and of the nuclear processes that take place inside of them, but we are rather uncertain about the interior of our own planet, the Earth, though we live on it!”
As the unchanging narrative of Genesis 1, held to be valid for millennia, has been discarded, proponents embrace a constantly changing scientific myth that finds its faith in chance while righteously proclaiming belief in the supernatural as pre-scientific myth, harmful for society. Instead, the big bang is put forth as an event that proclaims its own “almost” creatio ex nihilo when, in the beginning, a “cosmic egg,” (or “singularity,” or “black hole”), existing without beginning in quintessential nothingness, and without a first cause (or any cause), became everything, including space, time, energy, matter, and the natural laws that unflinchingly govern their behavior. Perhaps that is a bit unfair, for embedded within these claims of “no cause” is actually an unnamed pre-existent force called “chance” that has infinite power to create, select, alter, and sustain all. This violates the logical law of non-contradiction: chance can be either a mathematical probability or a pre-existing force capable of acting in nature to create, modify, and sustain; but it cannot be both.
Backtracking from any effect, no matter how many cycles are considered, always leads the objective observer to the conclusion that there must be an intelligent, all-powerful, eternal first cause. Any event (reaction) must have a cause (action). An expanding universe (reaction) must have a cause. To say that a black hole left equilibrium and expanded rapidly forming the universe fails to ascribe a cause for its origin or expansion: it masks the fatal initial problem with the theory. Campbell (1868-1928) demonstrates the lack of objective reality in contemporary science: “The triumph of a complete, mechanistic, objective, reductionistic, and mathematically precise explanation for evolution is finally banishing vitalism for the process. Neo-Darwinism does so by denying the behavior of the biological system any causal role in its evolution.” This mathematically precise theory cannot account for t0 through 10-43. A further consideration of the scientific method is warranted to help distinguish practice from theory. G. J. Whitrow (1912-2000) distinguished between pseudo-scientific myth and classical science:
“The question of existence or non-existence of ‘scientific method’ can be answered affirmatively, not by recommending some philosopher’s stone that can turn mental base metal into gold, for example the ‘inductive method’ or the “hypothetico-deductive method,” but by careful analysis of the major steps by which the sciences, and in particular physics as the most highly developed science, have in fact advanced. In this way … we see that the history of the scientific method can be regarded as the evolution of a hierarchical succession of “orders of questioning.” Three general factors are involved: the production of empirical evidence, both observational and experimental; the exercise of imagination in formulating specific questions and hypotheses; and scientific judgment or insight. …”
For Whitrow, imagination was useful in formulating the questions, not in providing the answers. Arnold Benz is less critical. He starts on a promising note but degenerates to finding truth in consensus where evidence is lacking or is contradictory to the accepted philosophy:
“A statement may be considered true if it agrees with all the facts. If a scientific theory agrees with all possible measurements, it may be taken to be the functional equivalent of truth. We know only that portion of reality that we have observed. Therefore, the scientific method leads to an adequate description of a scientifically observable reality, but never to a true theory. … Despite inadequate data, most researchers can often consent to endorse one theory. … not because they have colluded in the making of some secret deal, but rather because they perceive an overwhelming force of evidence in the observed findings.”
No theory can be proven to “agree with all possible measurements,” for there are always untested suppositions as Benz acknowledges. Science fails when it embraces endorsement based upon consensus rather than fact. For instance, Benz says that the evolutionary development of stars has been non-uniform: “Presumably such things happened only in the early universe … the black holes at the center of the galaxies may be relics of an earlier time when the self-regulation of accretion did not function in the same way as today.” His proof is presumption. First generation stars, considered necessary to form heavy elements, have never been observed despite their theoretical necessity. This suspension of the Law of Uniformity is necessary for the accepted evolutionary model of the cosmos, for consensus. Benz admits that science is prone to “underestimate, over and over again, the complexity of reality.” This is a recurring and fatal fault within the logic of evolution. It is a recurring theme that evolutionary science is committed to developing theories conforming to a secularist philosophical worldview that must (and does) reject all claims for supernatural and miraculous events. These scientists ignore the error that their theories are built upon, beginning with the existence of the cosmos. A “pick and choose” methodology rejects the rigors of the scientific method, declaring “proof” to be mathematical models developed and tweaked to bring about the desired results. Models are an essential tool for the development of hypotheses and directing inquiry, but are not in themselves proof.
Still, the “fact” of evolution is the subject of vast and ongoing media coverage, the curricula of the educational system that rejects even exposing students to the biblical account, and scientific and philosophic discourse. This highly polarized continuum of opinions regarding beginnings has driven some Christians to accept the opinion of scientific philosophers that a big bang resulting from a unique singularity existing in nothingness, and the subsequent evolution of time, space, energy, matter, and the laws that govern them, and, of course, of all life including man.
The Common Thread
Science must describe the cosmos as it is, otherwise it is science fiction. Biblical Christianity, its theologians, pulpits, and adherents must proclaim the truth of the Word as Paul did, “Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him” (Ac. 28:31). This section shows that evolution is more than a set of scientific theories, but is an atheistic worldview that is actively promoted by its adherents. These find God and the Bible to be enemies to be marginalized and destroyed if they cannot be properly educated. It is the eschatological warning of Revelation 18:23: “And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.”
Chapter 2
The Beginning: God Created or a Big Bang?
“1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Ps 19:1).
“The ultimate aim of scientific endeavor in any discipline is to obtain facts by reductionist methods and use them to synthesize broadly integrated theories that prove new insights into the world of nature. Integration can only be achieved by the use of a framework that illustrates the relationships among the observed facts that form the units or building blocks of the synthesis.” (G. Ledyard Stebbins ).
The Solar System consists of Earth and its sister planets, their moons, and many smaller objects. It has been closely observed and charted for millennia. Every civilization has developed myths to explain the origin and movement of the visible bodies. The Psalmist understood that the majesty of the heavens was surpassed by that of its Creator: “3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him?” (Ps. 8:3-4). Man has lost that connection with his environment; the heaven is no longer a window to heaven, but simply a collection of objects to be studied. Archeological findings throughout the world include extremely accurate star and planet maps and charts developed and used confidently by ancient man to reckon times and seasons for agricultural and nautical purposes, and for astrological predictions, all made possible by the celestial clockwork of God described in Genesis 1:14-19. The invention and continuing improvement of the telescope, crowned by the orbiting space telescopes, reveal new and useful data to science and impressive photos to the public. Scientists are still surprised by new discoveries, including some relatively close to home. The closest star to Earth is Proxima Centauri, said to be 4.25 light years away. Light arriving from this star today, travelling at 186 thousand miles per second, was radiated from its surface four and one quarter years ago. As the distance between Earth and these luminous bodies increases, so do difficulties in accurately interpreting data. Astronomers recently found that Earth’s next-closest star, Alpha Centauri, at about 4.35 light years away, is two stars instead of one. This recent revelation about a close neighbor suggests that science should use caution as it makes absolute claims about things cosmological.
Two contradictory worldviews would explain the beginning of the cosmos and its clockwork functionality. The oldest is the biblical account that holds that God spoke all into being creatio ex nihilo and continues to support it by His will (Heb. 1:2-3). This account is recorded primarily in Genesis 1, but is supported without contradiction throughout the Bible (see Appendix 2). The competing viewpoint is that the entire cosmos simply became with no cause from a pre-existing singularity with no source, and continues to evolve as it operates with extreme precision by unchanging laws of nature that are themselves accidents. Although unproven, this is taught in public schools and colleges as having the weight of natural law, and is accepted as such in the public sphere. Those who disagree are disparaged by enlightened scientists and arm chair evolutionists alike. Yet, the proposition of a unified big bang theory is more of a marketing tool than a scientific consensus. Variations of belief fill this continuum from pole to pole, but the poles are of primary interest. Both the biblical account and the most popular scientific theories state that the cosmos did not always exist. It had a beginning at which time, space, energy, matter, and all the laws of nature were brought into existence. At this point creationism and evolutionary theory diverge, for the way in which it began and the timeframe required are in conflict. The creationist cites the biblical six days of creation, while big bang theorists require billions of years for chance and time to intervene and produce all from nothing. From these and related points of dispute, evolutionists raise the familiar claim that Scripture is pre-scientific myth, and that biblical creationists cannot understand the proof of science as they ignorantly hold to their age-old myths. Creationists, in turn, claim that the scientific proof is based upon “bad science,” 15 having been warned by Matthew 7:15: “ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”
The Genesis 1 Account
The Bible is cryptic about the beginning of the universe: it reveals rather than explains. It is not a detailed scientific account, but is the bequest of the Creator as He begins to reveal Himself. Only one verse of the thirty-four verses of the Genesis 1 creation account mentions this initial act of creation. It is the familiar, but terse, “Re’shiyth ‘elohiym bara’ shamayim ‘eth ‘erets”: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1). Proper exegesis is framed by the limits of Scripture. The introductory verse denotes neither time nor timeframe: it is simply but profoundly re’shiyth, a unique event. God established time on Day One and calibrated it on Day Four with the appearance of the familiar luminous bodies in the heavens (Gen. 1:3-5; 14-19). The temptation to fix a historical time reference for creation is great in this era of atomic clocks and rigid schedules, but exegetically problematic. The concept of time was far different for Moses and his flock of refugees from Egyptian slavery. For the free Hebrew wandering in the desert, much as it had been for him in Egypt as a slave, life was based upon cycles of days for work and seasons for agriculture and religious observations. The length of daylight and darkness varied with the season. Years were marked by memorable events in the lives of key figures (cf. Genesis 5; 7; 8). This is illustrated by the uncertainty of who the Pharaoh of the Exodus was. Learned men speculate, but Scripture does not reveal who he was. This was not important to God’s message. Nowhere outside of Genesis 1and 2 does the Bible reckon time from creation: God established no Year 1 and He did not declare the division of BC and AD. Still, the modern theologian attempts to overwrite Scripture with a modern reckoning of time. Timeframes extrapolated by theologians such as Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656) are eisegetical derivatives of generation-counting as the theologian reads forward and interprets backward in Scripture; these should be treated with caution as the work of man rather than the revelation of God. B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) warned, “”it is precarious in the highest degree to draw chronological inferences from genealogical tables.” This understanding does not question the absolute accuracy of the inspired Word of God, but rather returns the exegete to the limits of the biblical revelation that sets the limits of exegetical and hermeneutical extractions. Peripheral investigations of this sort are certainly interesting and may well shed some helpful background light on the events and setting of the narrative, but are not essential for God’s purpose.
The Hebrew Re’shiyth of Genesis 1:1 connotes both “the beginning” (16 occurrences), and “firstfruits” (26 times). The opening might be paraphrased: “Heaven and earth are the firstfruits of God.” God’s purpose in Genesis 1 (as in the whole Bible) is theological rather than scientific as He introduces the important concept of firstfruits: given first by God’s example in creation; demanded by the Mosaic law (Ex. 23:16; 19; 34:22; 26; et al.); culminating ultimately on the cross by the sacrifice of “His only begotten Son … that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:16-17). From this beginning, God reveals Himself as the sovereign who is personal and relational. It is not the theology of allegory or parable, but is history told for a purpose. Rabbi Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) questioned the text, asking if re’shiyth is in the “construct state,” or is in the “absolute state.” If the absolute, it is as translated in KJV. If in the construct, it would be: “In the beginning when God began to create …” The construct state presents the same dilemma as the big bang’s pre-existing singularity: it removes the event from the beginning. If the latter is true, it would require another construction in verse 2 that is not present, according to Rabbi Rashi (1040-1105). This, then, is largely discounted today, and the text stands. “In the beginning” encompasses the creation of time, space, energy, matter, and the laws of nature that govern their behavior, but not the actions of their creator, for He stands above that which He created: “3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house” (Heb. 3:3). The unimaginable magnitude of the events of Genesis 1:1 introduce man to the infinitude of God. The largest earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, and tsunamis of earth’s travail in human memory have no standing when compared with the sheer magnitude of the birth of galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, and of earth itself; all orderly and ordered, complete, without flaw or blemish. God spoke, sine voce, as by the “word of His power” He established nature which He then “upholds” (Heb. 1:3b). God is revealed as He brings into existence (‘elohiym bara’) everything necessary to provide (‘asah: make) the ideal home for man, created imago Dei; in His own image, by design and by result (Gen 1:26-27). Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) explains that bara’, connected with an act of God, expresses an “effortless and absolute creation out of nothing, since it is never connected with any statement of the material.”
God’s creation account is not limited to Genesis 1 and 2, but runs throughout the Bible (see Appendix 2 for a brief survey). Creation did not tax God or His resources; it took nothing from Him, and is not a part of Him. Detractors deny Him, but Isaiah reveals that when He chooses, all of creation will proclaim His glory: “4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: 5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it” (Is. 40:4-5; cf. Is. 40ff.). Proverbs 8:22f. reveals something of the Godward side of the beginning of creation; John 1:1-3 is more explicit; and the New Testament elsewhere at times reaches back behind it (e.g. Jn 17:5, 24) into eternity,” according to Kidner (1913-2008). It is an accurate and enduring account of God’s work: “Thy Word is true from the beginning: and every one of Thy righteous judgements endureth forever” (Ps 119:160).
Simon Oliver (1971- ) identifies four aspects of Christian doctrine that are revealed in creation: “the identity of the creator, the divine act of creation ex nihilo, the natures and ends of created things, and God’s providential governance of creation.” Augustine refers to the “formless and quality-less matter” of Genesis 1:1 by the Greek hyle. Michael Hanby argues that Augustine’s hyle is “interposed in the interval between the Father’s intention of and delight in the Son, and the Son’s response to and vision of the Father.”
“Augustine makes a distinction between the Word as arche and the Word as God’s utterance. As arche, the Word is the principle of creation as it comes into being in an imperfect state (tohuw: desolate, to lie waste; bohuw: an indistinguishable waste; choshek: darkness, obscurity) (Gen. 1:2). As God’s utterance, the Word bestows perfection on creation. Creation is brought into being through the Word as principle and that same Word immediately calls it back to perfection.”
Oliver says, “In the beginning, God called back to himself this dark and formless void; God called the creation to light. This creation and return to God under the call of the Word is an imitation of the Son’s eternal return to the Father.” The inescapable conclusion is that “God is the absolute creator of everything that is not God (including time and space) and creation is, in itself, nothing.” Creation, rather than a scientific curiosity, is the vehicle by which God relates to and with man, a relationship that certainly has group connotations, but which salvation clearly shows is primarily individual.
Contemporary theologians are sometimes disturbed by the difficulty of reconciling the claims of Scripture with science. These find the pressure of science unbearable and tend to abdicate the biblical account or seek to compromise Scriptural myth into the truth of science. Pope Francis (1936- ), exercising the authority of his position, undermined centuries of creationist doctrine in the dogma of the Catholic Church when he announced that “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation.” For others, it is the opening fable in a book of fables intended, at best, to provide a narrative for teaching religious values, and, at worst, the beginning of a dangerous string of delusionary tales that distract adherents from the real world as revealed by reason and science. God, however, is not constrained by pre-existing precepts, by time and space, or by matter and energy: “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else” (Is. 45:18). The Creator of science is not subject to its tenants. Simon Oliver says, “For Augustine, God ‘administers externally the nature he has created internally’ by inscribing the rationes seminales (rational principles) within creatures and conferring motion through the mediation of measure, number and weight.” This is consistent with Hebrews 1:2-3.
Popular literature and the internet provide all sorts of information about creation and evolution, including much that is intentionally false and misleading. Wolves in sheep’s clothing abound as they did in the first century (Matt. 7:15). The humanist argues from the incredulity of disbelief in God and the miraculous, but his argument fails the test of logic: Creatio ex nihilo by the necessarily preexistent God, is a valid logical construct. Evolutionary theory denies the supernatural, but claims instead that nisi forte ab omnibus factum (by chance all came from nothing). To do so, the created must pre-exist his own creation. The eternally preexistent God is logically positioned for all acts in both eternity and time.
Moses’ followers would have had no problem understanding his account of the formation and passing of days (11 times in Genesis 1) and years (v. 14). “Day” in Genesis 1-2:3 was used in three senses. One was a 24-hour solar day bounded by “evening and morning,” and identified as the “first day,” “second day,” and so on through the sixth day. The second was a variable subdivision known today as “daytime,” and “nighttime,” whose length varies with the seasons. The third is unbounded as God rested from His creative acts. The unboundedness of Day 7 helps establish the boundaries of Days 1-6. God further established additional time references that man would need: signs, seasons, and years (v. 14). There is no evidence that the Hebrews considered these to be other than literal indicators of solar and lunar time. Joel D. Heck (1948- ) says that, “Ninety-nine per cent of our conversations, newspaper stories, e-mails, text messages, magazine articles, news broadcasts, advertising, and much of the rest of our communication is understood in its plain sense. … This is the default, so we must depart from the normal meaning of a passage only when there are reasons from the context that demand it.” The context of Genesis 1 makes no such demands. The language revealing God’s creation in six continuous days of earth time has no grammatical or syntactical earmarks of analogy: there is no “as” or “but” to offer a comparison with something else. As the earth began in darkness, so did the day. There is no evidential reason to hypothesize that the God who creatio ex nihilo was constrained by time in that work: other than God, none could exercise this creative power in any time frame. Moses said,
“Lord, Thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth, and the world, even from everlasting (‘owlam: time out of mind) to everlasting (‘owlam) … “For a thousand years (‘eleph shaneh: a whole age) in Thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night” (Ps. 90:1-2, 4).”
He affirms both the relational acts of God (being man’s dwelling place) and His pre-existence, illustrating the timelessness of eternity relative to man’s temporality, and the loss of perspective by man concerning past events. Though some believe that verse 4 allows the days of creation to be interpreted as ages, it is instead a commentary on the eternal nowness of God even as He interacts with the presentness of man. Peter advised those who were confused by the timing of Christ’s return for His church to remember the words of their prophets:
“And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old (cf. Gen 1:8), and the earth standing out of the water and in the water (cf. Gen. 1:9): … But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day (heis hemera: a period, contextually reckoned) is with the Lord as a thousand years (chilioi etos: thousand years” (cf. .2 Peter 3:1-8).
Peter uses parallel similes in this passage: “all things continue as they were;” in parallel with, “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years.” If, as he argues, “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation,” the length of a day in NT Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet. 1:1) was the same 24 hours as the days of creation.
Other inanimate components of creation are recorded in Genesis 1 (see Appendix 1 for a graphic analysis of Genesis 1):
1. On Day 1, He spoke light (‘owr) into existence and separated it from the darkness (choshek) to begin time. The source of this light is not revealed and is thus beyond any dogmatic description. This initial creation in its perfection does suggest an eschatological revelation through John: “And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof, (Rev. 21:23), but this is not clearly stated in His Word.
2. On Day 2, He spoke again and divided the water on the earth from that in the atmosphere as He made (‘asah) a firmament (raqiya’), or the expanse that is the visible sky. Various theories exist about the water above the firmament, but are beyond revelation.
3. On Day 3, He spoke again and the dry land appeared above of the waters and the seas were gathered into their great basins. He did not specify the geography or topography of the land.
4. On Day 4, God calibrated earth time by making (‘asah) “two great lights,” one to rule (memshalah: to govern) in the heavenly realm to differentiate Earth days and nights, and to provide indicators for signs, seasons, days, and for years.
The demands of humanists for “scientific proof” of God’s creative activities are neither logical nor possible, yet none of His revelation fails on either logical grounds or by scientific proof. The attention of the theologian is drawn to the logical progression of days in which God bara’ the new as necessary and used the old (‘asah) for that which was particularized from existing material.
Asimov, Hawking, Sagan, and More
Evolution is about more than science. It is a secular religion with evangelists and apologists. Several popular scientist-writers have emerged who pick up where public education ends in recruiting and training the masses. Among them are Isaac Asimov, Stephen Hawking, and Carl Sagan. Albert Einstein and Edward Hubble are among those who did not necessarily seek fame, but found it. Others presented here have made significant contributions to evolutionary science, but did not quite make the best-seller list. This discussion is neither a comprehensive treatment of their views, nor to disparage them, but to highlight logical and scientific problems in the theories presented even by evolutionary experts.
Isaac Asimov (1920-1992): Popular Evolution
Asimov was a writer of science fiction and popular science. He was a devoted atheist: “I am thankful for atheism. … I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.” Asimov was an evangelical popularizer of science who saw evolution everywhere. He exemplified the danger of evolutionary theory taken to its logical conclusion as he preached the “equality” of all men under the regulation of an elite intelligencia: “I believe that only scientists can understand the universe. It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong.” He characterized creationists as dolts unable to comprehend the intricate workings of science:
“Creationists make it sound as though a ‘theory’ is something that you dreamt up after being drunk all night. … However much the creationist leaders might hammer away at their scientific and philosophical points, they would be helpless and a laughing-stock if that were all they had. It is religion that recruits their squadrons. Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the actual arguments for — or even against — evolution, march in the army of the night, their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason.”
The First Law, he said, “is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe. … What the Second Law tells us, then, is that in the great game of the universe, we not only cannot win; we cannot even break even.” Yet, he found no problem proclaiming publicly that the Second Law is not applicable to any aspect of evolution.
Stephen Hawking (1942-2018): Time as Evolution
Hawking published his runaway bestseller, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, in 1988, and quickly became the iconic spokesman for the big bang. His expressed purpose was to bring answers about the deep questions of the origin of the universe to the common person: “Where did the universe come from? How and why did it begin?”
Hawking believed that before time a black hole existed that contained every bit of time, space, matter, and energy of the universe, plus special rules needed to facilitate the initial expansion, plus the laws that removed and replaced them when they became counter-productive. Time began at the big bang: anything prior could not be defined: “In order to predict how the universe should have started off,” Hawking said, “one needs laws that hold at the beginning of time.” But, he concedes, under the theory that he and Roger Penrose (1931- ) proposed, “All the known laws of science would break down.” Hawking invoked quantum mechanics, elevating its principles from the subatomic to the cosmic, in order to find an answer, since “it is possible in the quantum theory for ordinary laws of science to hold everywhere, including at the beginning of time.” His ambivalence is evident: There is no need to postulate new laws for singularities, he says, for there would be no singularities in quantum theory, even if there is no complete and consistent theory that combines quantum mechanics and gravity. Hawking’s self-contradictory theories required him to redefine science as the “discovery of laws that will enable us to predict events,” that is, make up laws to explain the unobserved and unexplainable.
He wrestled with uncertainty: “How or why were the laws and the initial state of the universe chosen? … At the big bang … all the laws would have broken down, so God would still have had complete freedom to choose what happened and how the universe began.” “One could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!” That an infinite universe would require a creator is a clear contradiction, for if the universe were indeed infinite, there could be no prior in which even an infinite God could act. On the other hand, he argues that an expanding universe can be defined in scientific terms in which God is not necessary. With a beginning, then, he rejects the need for a first cause, another logical fallacy.
Admired, inordinately brilliant and gifted in his field, he was nevertheless human, and demonstrated this in his work. Jacob Bekenstein (1947-2015) showed that a black hole—a specialty of Hawking’s —“grows” as it absorbs matter and energy.” This was contrary to Hawking’s position. When attempting to refute Bekenstein, he admitted: “when I did the calculation, I found, to my surprise and annoyance, that … black holes should create and emit particles at a steady rate. … I was afraid that if Bekenstein found out about it, he would use it as a further argument … which I did not like.” Hawking highlights the lack of a valid scientific basis for any theory of the beginning of the cosmos. There is no theological reason to compromise sound exegesis and hermeneutics to scientific speculation.
Carl Sagan (1934-1996): Naturalistic Evangelist
Sagan, himself an atheist, introduced Hawking’s book, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, with this statement: “This is also a book about God … or perhaps about the absence of God. The word God fills these pages. Hawking embarks on a quest to answer Einstein’s famous question about whether God had any choice in creating the universe. Hawking is attempting, as he explicitly states, to understand the mind of God.”
And More
Halton Arp (1927-2013): Alternate Theory to the Big Bang
Arp’s popularity was not allowed to rise to the level of some, largely because he held a contrary view to the expanding universe. Investigating anomalies in the evidence ignored by mainstream scientists, he found that the galaxy M31 and others show a blue shift, suggesting that this galaxy and its peers are approaching Earth rather than receding. Arp also attacks Edwin Hubble’s claim that accurate calculations of the distance of stars from Earth is possible. Hubble’s methodology requires the arbitrary assignment of “brightness” for celestial bodies to calibrate the distance calculations. The process is complex as the distance (the quantity to be measured), the brightness (the standard used to calibrate the calculations), and other variables do not produce uniform results over what appear to be varying distances. To overcome this, additional models were developed to adjust the calculations to yield acceptable (“desired”) results. In other words, important elements of the model are variables with assumed values. Arp’s method, incorporating both red- and blue-shift bodies, finds galaxies with red-shift adjacent to blue-shift, suggesting that these were going in opposite directions. This undermines the expanding universe theory.
Jim Baggott (1957- ): Situational Science
Science, Baggott says, is where you find it. He embraces the evolution of science into the metaphysical, that is, ontology, cosmology, and epistemology, rather than classical science constrained by “empirical facts about reality.” Classical science requires that a theory be specific enough to predict outcomes that can be tested and falsified. Baggot thinks that this is too rigorous in a relativistic world. He proposes the new-science version that simply requires that a theory be “testable.” It matters little whether the theory passes or fails, since, “Getting this stuff to apply to the facts or a test situation typically requires unwrapping the abstract concepts. … When a test shows that a theory is false, the theory is not necessarily abandoned. … I want to be clear that the demand for testability … should not be interpreted as a demand for an immediate yes-no, right-wrong evaluation. … It is not possible to verify a scientific theory such that it provides absolute certainty … [but] is instead accepted (or even tolerated), based on its ability to survive the tests and meet additional criteria of simplicity, efficacy, utility, explanatory power and less rational, innately human measures such as beauty. Over time the theory becomes familiar and is accepted as ‘true’ or, at least, as possessing a high truth-likeliness or verisimilitude.” Baggott’s science is concerned with “innately human measures such as beauty.” Acceptance of any theory will come with time and repetition even if it is false.
Arnold Benz (1945- ): Chance and Time Eliminate Any Need for God
Benz says that a design for the cosmos is “not conceivable,” since “design is based upon goals, decisions, and concepts. … A design requires a clear route of development and somewhat stable conditions. This was not the case for Earth, since the Sun and its influence on Earth have changed drastically over time.” Benz is not able, or willing, to allow a mind greater than his own that is able to conceive, implement, and support dynamic designs. The dynamics of time, however, are clearly seen: the world’s beaches are covered with sand that is weathered from the hardest rocks; every lifeform changes continually from conception, through birth, puberty, maturity, and death. Every farmer plans his fields, plants the seeds, tends to the growing and maturing plants, and harvests the ripe crops, depending upon the dynamics of God’s nature to bring his plan to literal fruition: by harvest time the seed has “changed drastically.” The farmer exercises systems planning: he has an overarching goal to produce a harvest that is supported by subsets of goals to plant, tend, and harvest. Each of these is variable as weather and other factors intervene in ways that cannot be predicted, but can be anticipated and compensatory actions prepared. The problem is that the farmer represents an intelligent designer, not the mindless mathematical probability of chance. Benz muses that change is a “recurring theme throughout the universe” but must be discarded even as a metaphor since “design implies an origin before the big bang when the design was established.” Benz’s problem with dynamic design is not that change does not occur, but that he cannot allow that change to be the result of an omnipotent God rather than chance. Chance as a force is vital in his unplanned plan: “The entire universe … would thus be part of this plan as well. A metaphoric design does not easily fit the concept of a developing universe where many processes play off one another and where chance intervenes at important points.” Denying the designer he repurposes the mathematical concept of probability into a pre-existent force with causal ability: the first cause wearing the mask of Chance. When Chance is not enough, Time becomes both cause and effect: “Time produces changes and new developments, and since 13.8 billion years ago has proceeded from cause to effect.” Benz says that chance and time produce “changes and new events.” This is a nonsensical statement: neither are causal. They have no force, no power, but simply represent probability and measure movement. Scientists who object to the anthropomorphic personification of the God who is Spirit excuse themselves for doing the same for Chance and Time.
Neils Bohr (1885-1962) and Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976): Appearance is More Important than Facts
These scientists also represent the ambivalence of modern science as expressed in Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Newtonian, Einsteinian, and Quantum physics present radically different views of reality, with each representing a niche rather than a universal solution. Light can be understood as being either waves in a Newtonian sense, or particles in a quantum sense. Rather than getting bogged down in fact, these scientists state that it makes no sense to “speculate about what photons really are.” It is more useful in contemporary science to “focus on how they appear.” Yet, Bohr states, “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.” Heisenberg also saw a lack of reality in physics: “We must remember that what we observe is not nature but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
Paul Davies (1946-2014): The Path to God
Davies wrote that, “Science provides a surer path to God than religion.” From the first attempts to date the universe, the “age kept coming out wrong. There wasn’t enough time for the stars and planets to come into existence. Worse still, there were astronomical objects that seemed to be older than the universe — an obvious absurdity. Could it be that Einstein’s time and cosmic time are not the same? Is Einstein’s flextime simply not flexible to stretch all the way back to the creation?” Rejection of the miraculous and inconsistent results in basic computations of time make claims for the vast age of the cosmos suspect. The god in Davies’ path is not the God of creation but the god of science, created intentionally as the antithesis of the true God.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955): Refused to Believe His Own Theory
Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity merged space and time into space-time to explain the concept that motion approaching the speed of light influenced the mass and shape of objects. Instead of a methodically recurring marker of events and history, time became a force affecting gravity itself. Einstein found a problem where relativity bounded upon quantum mechanics, and introduced a hypothetical variable to reconcile his theory with quantum physics. Today, some suggest that this variable is real and accounts for missing matter and energy from the big bang; others, like Einstein himself, reject it. The theory posited that space-time began at the big bang, but science has yet to account for the first 10-43 seconds after the initial expansion: all computer models working backward from the present cosmos toward the t0, the initial instant of the big bang, stop — they “hang up” — at 10-43 seconds before t0. The math is like trying to divide by zero: it is logically nonsensical. There is no successful model of the big bang’s bang, a crucial “era” in the expansion of the universe as space and time come into being. Einstein admitted: “The whole history of science has been a gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.” Genesis 1:1 explains the solution for those willing to learn.
J. T. Fraser (1993-2010): Ambivalence and Contradiction
Fraser confidently states that, “Soon after the universe left its purely atemporal, chaotic state with a big bang, the era of particle creation commenced. After another 1012— 1013 seconds the world settled down to enjoy its permanent complement of particles.” Fraser displays the confidence of the evolutionist and the contradictory explanations that characterize this science. Necessarily prior to the big bang and Genesis 1:1, Fraser’s pre-temporal universe consisted of an undefined something that was in disorder. It was, then, not the beginning. He employs the universal “It must be/have been” argument that surfaces when relevant data is limited or lacking: “In the evolutionary view of nature espoused by the hierarchical theory of time, the laws of the prototypical world must, therefore, be regarded as developmentally and hence ontologically prior to the laws that govern the behavior of the eotemporal world.” He explains the problematic opposition of evolution to the Second Law by calling upon an unknown set of “laws of the prototypical world” that must have existed, served their purpose, then succumbed to the familiar laws of our eotemporal contemporary cosmos.
Harold Fritzsch (1943- ): Mainstream Big Banger
Fritzsch represents mainstream evolutionary doctrine. Unavoidably borrowing from Genesis 1:1, he writes, in contradiction of Fraser’s atemporal chaotic pre-existing universe:
“In the beginning there was nothing, neither time nor space, neither stars nor planets, neither rocks nor plants, neither animals nor human beings. Everything came out of the void. It all began with space and time and a very hot plasma … . Finally life sprang up in many solar systems of the universe—in one case, on a planet of a most ordinary star … during 4 billion years, plants, and animals, and eventually human beings, developed out of the simplest organisms.”
His big bang begins with an eternally pre-existing singularity in pre-space and pre-time that violates the law of non-contradiction: something (a black hole) cannot exist in nothingness (pre-space and pre-time). It must exist in space and time or not exist at all. If it exists in space and time, then it is not located “in the beginning,” for that already occurred when or before the singularity developed. Hawking provides an “out” that allows logic to be discarded since in Special Relativity it is meaningless to speak of space and time outside of the universe; in General Relativity it is meaningless to speak of space and time outside the limits of the universe. Hawking did not mean that the existence of a singularity before time and space existed was incomprehensible, but that nothing about the singularity, including its existence or origin, could be discussed without the reference of time. Fritzsch seems to agree with the creationist that all came from nothing, but his “nothing” was a void from which all sprang without cause. He is more open than many in openly declaring that life “sprang up” in many solar systems over a period of 4 billion years through abiogenesis and evolution. He, of course, provides no evidence for the life that “sprang up” in those many solar systems. Where no proof exists, simply repeat the line often enough and it will become “fact.”
Edward Hubble (1889-1953): Eyes on the Big Bang
Operating the 100” telescope at Mount Wilson, Hubble discovered that the universe was “vastly larger” than previously thought. He found that bright areas assumed to be “gas clouds” were really made up of huge numbers of individual stars. Working with Vesto Slipher (1875-1969) Hubble employed spectroscopic analysis to the starlight and determined from an apparent Doppler shift of the starlight in the red direction that cosmological bodies were generally receding from earth. He noted that some bodies produced blue shifts that showed that the bodies are approaching rather than receding, but ignored this data. He used the results of the spectroscopic analyses to calibrate calculations to determine distance, speed, and age of various luminous bodies. Hubble understood his results to demonstrate a rapidly expanding universe, causing scientists to abandon the theory of a static universe. The Doppler effect is not the only cause of a red shift, however, and the other contributors complicate and may compromise the calculations of distance and time, therefore age. These include the color temperature of background radiation, the effects of the Eddington-Lemaitre model of the universe, and gravity.
D. Novikov (1935- ): The Evolving Universe
The universe is in a constant state of flux: it does not just exist or change: it evolves. “Today, the evolution of the Universe is a scientific fact, substantiated by many astrophysical observations and supported by the solid theoretical basis of all physics,” proclaims I. D. Novikov. To understand his claim, his use of the term “evolution of the Universe” must be clarified. If Novikov is simply stating that the universe is not static, then his claim can be accepted, for the moon revolves around the earth, the earth around the sun, and the sun moves within the solar system: this represents the dynamic universe. If, however, he means that it is changing in the sense of an ontological becoming, then the question begs, what was it before now, and what is it changing into? A third possibility is that evolution is simply a culturally accepted power word for any change. He adds confusion when he claims that early models of the universe neglected the “evolution and continuous change of the universe.” What is the difference between “evolution” and “continuous change?” His lack of precise language supported by relevant data meets popular expectations, but, unsupported by additional data, does not meet classical scientific standards. A legitimate conclusion is that Novikov expects his broadly presented claims to be accepted based upon assertion rather than proof. He says that it is “substantiated by many astrophysical observations.” As discussed in Arp, above, it is also refuted by astrophysical observations. Novikov, the evangelist of evolutionary cosmology, well represents the evangelical evolutionary community.
The Common Thread
“In the beginning” is a phrase that cannot be avoided. Contemporary science has largely discounted the infinite universe. Therefore, man must consider “the” beginning. Only two options are available: a supreme being, a first cause who is infinite, preexisting that beginning, having the intelligence, power, and resources necessary to accomplish the task, created the cosmos and all it contains; or, nothing created itself. The position of choice is not a matter of science, but of philosophy and religion: the atheist cannot acknowledge the existence of God, and the Christian cannot deny Him.
Chapter 3: The Appearance of Life
“The debate of inerrancy has rightly included discussion concerning the historicity of the Genesis account of Creation. A number of views vie for acceptance even among evangelicals.” (Charles C. Ryrie).
“The belief that the world was created by an Almighty God is called creationism. Most of those who hold this belief also believe that God designed his creation so wisely that all animals and plants are perfectly adapted to each other and to their environment. Everything in the world today is still as it was when it was created. … The beliefs of creationism are in conflict with the findings of science, and this has resulted in a controversy between creationists and evolutionists.” (Ernst Mayr).
Biblical creationism holds that God intentionally created life differentiated by “kinds (miyn: portioned out, sorted)”; and that each kind is bound by limits of variation (cf. Gen. 1). As Charles C. Ryrie noted (above), Christians hold differing views about the specifics of God’s acts of creation. Ernst Mayr finds that a similar range of opinions between those identifying as creationists and evolutionists creates controversy, a word that aptly describes both the juncture of the worldviews, but also the range of closely held beliefs within each camp. While the limits of “kind” are not settled, the biblical language clearly does not allow one kind to become another. Evolution disagrees. Fritzsch says, “Life on earth … developed spontaneously, through the constant interplay of chance and necessity.” Mayr summarizes Darwin’s thesis, describing two types of evolution: anagenesis, or a “gradual change from an ancestral to a derived condition,” and cladogenesis, or the process of speciation that is macroevolution. Some Christians have proposed melded biblio-evolutionary theories that allegorize the Bible to accommodate an adapted form of evolution. These do not comport with either the biblical account or evolutionary theory.
The Genesis 1 Account
Scripture reveals that God intentionally created life on three specific days (yowm: sunset to sunset) of the six days of creation: grass, herbs, and trees on Day Three (Gen. 1:9-13); sea creatures and fowl on Day Five (Gen. 1:20-23); and the beasts of the earth and man on Day Six (Gen. 1:24-25). Genesis 1 reveals a progression of logical cause and its effect as God not only created the stuff and life of earth, but implemented the rules that govern them; expressing His approval of each day’s work (except Day 2) that left nothing else to be done:
Chart 2
The Orderliness of Creation
DAY REFERENCE GOD’S PLAN ACTION LIMITS QUALITY
3 Gen. 1:11-12 Let the earth bring forth it was so after his kind it was good
5 Gen 1:20-21 Let the waters bring forth God created after their kind it was good
6 Gen. 1:24-25 Let the earth bring forth God made after his kind it was good
Each kind is a complete product of God’s work using materials He created in Genesis 1:1. Creationism expects distinctions within similarities in individuals and in populations. Moving outward to the separate kinds, there is no reason to argue against similar patterns as each is created to “be fruitful and multiply” on Earth. Each is composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen plus trace elements arranged in functional groups that are similar yet distinct, apparently ordered by the information contained in the DNA he placed in all living things. The diagram of Genesis 1 in Appendix 1 highlights the consistent language and pattern of creation that reveals several precepts:
1. The sovereign initiative and creative power of God is a manifestation of His perfect will;
2. Each step of increasing order is built upon the previous one, logical but not necessary;
3. God formed every lifeform from the elements of the earth and bestowed upon each extra-temporal life (chay: a living thing);
4. The offspring of each living entity (plant and animal) is both a unique individual, and a member of a kind (miyn), sharing characteristics with others of its kind; and,
5. Each is bound by limits of variation so that it remains within that kind.
Augustine understood that each created being possesses “all that is and will be needed for creation’s divinely ordained purposes … latent within the created order, even if it is yet to be realized.” The plain language of Genesis 1 admits no logical reason to deviate from this understanding. Allegorizing the text to force the days into “ages,” or to allow kinds to produce new kinds, is not supported by the primary text or by supporting texts throughout Scripture. The repetitive, “And the evening and the morning” limited the length of each day by the rotation of the earth, and acknowledged the boundaries between days. God then “calibrated” the day on Day 4: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for … days” (Gen. 1:14). Deviation from this plain understanding impugns the Word of God and requires the destruction of the concept of the inerrant, God-inspired Word of God.
Simon Oliver identifies essential elements in the doctrine of creation: the identity of the Creator; His sovereign act of creatio ex nihilo; the “natures and ends of created things;” and God’s “providential governance” of His creation. Oliver concludes that Augustine’s pneumatological source of creation corresponds with the source of goodness, “made not from any necessity … but simply from His own goodness.” Augustine finds this explicitly stated seven times in Genesis 1, culminating with the pronouncement: “And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good (m’od towb: wholly good or favored)” (Gen. 1:31). Paul acknowledged that “every creature of God is good (kalos: good or virtuous)” (1 Tim. 4:4).
Within the orderliness of creation are limits of form and extent, from the subatomic to the cosmos. The elements and the inanimate component parts behave in orderly and predictable ways: water (H2O) appears as a gas, a liquid, and a vapor, but always remains H2O. Lifeforms adhere to the same principle. “Though there are variations within the broad category of creationism, the principle characteristics of this view is that the Bible is its sole basis. Science may contribute to our understanding, but it must never control or change our interpretation of the Scriptures,” according to Ryrie. From the moment of creation, each biblical miyn is an expression of its unique complex of information and functionalities that allow it to survive in its environment and serve God’s purpose for it. The transcendent God of creation is not a part of His creation as the animist holds (Amos 4:13); nor does His transcendence limit His communication with His creation as some philosophers argue (Matt. 28:20b). Augustine finds that God’s seventh day rest proves that He stands above creation: “we take that God so rested from all his works which he had made that from now on he set up no new kind of nature any more, not so that he stopped holding together and directing the ones which he had already set in place. Thus both statements are true: that God rested on the seventh day (Genesis 2.2) and that he is working until now (John 5.17).” Literally, Augustine said, “It is not, you see, like a mason building houses; when he has finished he goes away, and his work goes on standing when he has stopped working … . No, the world will not be able to go on standing for a single moment, if God withdraws from it his controlling hand.”
God’s creation of living organisms begins on Day 3 with grass, herbs, and fruit trees, each bearing its own unique seed. The “earth brought forth … after its kind” by mandate (Gen. 1:11-13). On Day 5, God created “great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly … and every winged fowl after his kind.” God blessed them, commanding them to be “fruitful and multiply,” again finding it all towb (good, beautiful, bountiful) (cf. Gen. 1:20-22). The very next day, God commanded the earth to “bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind” (Gen. 1:24-25). There is no exception: each kind reproduced “after his kind” and God found it, too, towb. Extinctions would come after God’s curse following of Adam’s sin, but initially, life was perfect and abundant. Scriptural references to creation are given in Appendix 2.
Gleason Archer (1916-2004) represents those Christians lured away from divine revelation by human logic, finding that creation in six 24-hour days, “seems to run counter to modern scientific research.” Paul Nelson asks: “Do the considered opinions of scientists now have the last say in important religious matters that touch on history?” Some theologians have developed alternatives to God’s account as they attempt to resolve the Bible with science, or, perhaps, dissolve the Bible in science. None satisfy either biblical scrutiny or scientific theory:
1. Theistic Evolution posits that evolution is the modern understanding of the biblical language in which God has revealed the fact of creation but left the method of creation to be discovered. Augustus H. Strong believes that, after God’s initial creation, He later continued His creative work “through immanent means.” John J. Robinson believes that there are two different concepts of evolution: 1. The scientific theory that a Christian can accept and still maintain his faith; and, 2. The philosophy of evolution that is atheistic and must be rejected by the Christian. This is a good example of the relativistic worldview that rejects basic rules of logic, one of which states that the same concept cannot be true and not true at the same time in the same relationship. In this case, creation and evolution cannot both be true.
2. Progressive Creation: God created, but then left everything to evolve; He intervenes when necessary to adjust evolution to suit His will. Georges Curvier proposed this theory at the end of the 18th century, postulating that several renewing creations had occurred because of a series of world-wide catastrophes. He is joined today by Bernard Ramm, who states that, “creation was revealed in six days, not performed in six days,” while God intervened periodically to add new “root-species” as needed.
3. The Day-Age Theory states that each day of creation is an age corresponding to the large times required for evolutionary development of the cosmos and life. This is allowed by the fact that yowm is used in the OT both as a solar day and as an age, or extended period. William Bell Riley (1861-1947), accepted the day-age theory of creation as a reasonable interpretation of Scripture that comported with science. George McCready Price asserts that this theory corresponds to the geological and fossil records.
4. The Gap Theory holds that Genesis 1:1-2 is a prior creation from an unknown time necessitated because an unknown catastrophe left it tohuw, bohuw. God then re-created the world some six thousand years ago in six days, establishing it as it is now. This allows the fossil record and extreme ages of the cosmos to stand since they were part of the “old” creation.
Abiogenesis: The Forbidden Topic
Abiogenesis is the theory that life began spontaneously from inorganic matter. For the atheist it is a necessary theory since the choices are limited: either God created life, or it developed spontaneously. The unlikeliness of self-generation causes many evolutionists to avoid the topic, but it is embraced a by dedicated core of scientists who are attempting to duplicate, by carefully controlled experiments, what they claim occurred naturally by chance. Science struggles to form order from chaos. “Life is one … way in which the matter of the universe is organized. The scientific study of the origin of life … assumes that life emerged through a combination of deterministic laws and particular boundary conditions,” states Loris Serafino. The missing laws of evolution surface again, this time as unknown “deterministic laws.” Robert Pascal, et al., recognize that, “A sudden transition in a system from an inanimate state to the living state … constitute(s) a highly unlikely event hardly predictable from physical laws…” Calculations by evolutionary biologists suggest that the combination of a complete set of sequences of 50 nucleotides over one billion years would require the synthesis of more than 4 x 1013 sequences per second, and still not form a complete lifeform. “Any scientific study of the origin of life must start from the principle that the transition toward life took place through non-zero probability of events,” according to Harold J. Morowitz (1927-2016). The essentially zero probability of abiogenesis lead some scientists to look beyond science for answers. Pascal, et al., muse that “the existence of some driving force governing the evolutionary process” is worthy of scientific investigation. Pascal atypically acknowledges that all living organisms contain a “life-ness” that is beyond man’s ability to specify or replicate. This “driving force” must be pre-existent, intelligent, capable of creative activities, and so on, all attributable to the God of creation, but not the scientist in the laboratory or a lump of inanimate material in the local swamp. Various mechanisms have been explored that might allow complex hydrocarbons, proteins, and other precursors of life to spontaneously generate and combine into a living being, but all fall far short developing a living creature. Darwin supposed the fountain of life to be a primordial soup, energized by lightning bolts. Alexander I. Oparin (1894-1980) concluded that the “molecular soup” theory was “vitally impotent,” unable to produce a living being from inanimate chemicals. Albrecht Moritz presented problems that abiogenesis must overcome: “the most elementary cells we currently know, which are not permanently dependent on host-metabolism, … have 482 protein-coding genes, of which 387 are essential,” while a recent “hypothetical study” shows that a lifeform requires a minimum of 206. Abiogenesis, then, requires that a minimum of 206 specific protein-coding genes form by chance in one location, then assemble themselves with other necessary components and functionalities such as the DNA system, catalysis, regulation, and structural function. Since none of these are living beings, none can survive or replicate while waiting for the others to form and fall into place. Elbert Branscomb and Michael J. Russell admit that “many of the processes that are most foundational to life and to its emergence are the ones that must be driven ‘uphill,’ that is, ‘endergonically,’ and must therefore be ‘powered.’ … a living system is, inherently, a state of extreme improbability—in both process and organization.’”
Even in the face of these improbabilities, Serafino believes that abiogenesis must rest on a solid philosophical foundation. He lists three critical issues:
1. A search for underlying causal mechanisms;
2. The role of emergence in complex open systems; and,
3. The emphasis on the role played by contingent features.
Causal mechanisms establish the “road map” that abiogenesis follows as inanimate materials “emerge” as living creatures. Complexity is required to provide opportunities for the vital systems to develop in situ to become the most elementary lifeform. He concludes: “Saying that life started ‘by chance’ is, in a scientific mind-frame, meaningless.”
The initial living being must have all the functionality required to live in its environment; to locate, ingest, and process immediately available nutrients; to use those nutrients to fuel all of the nascent systems required for a living being; and reproduce in sufficient quantities to sustain the population for the millions of years required for the first “accident” of nature to occur and evolution to begin. Jacques Monod (1910-1976) argued that a “highly improbable random event generating a system possessing essentially all of the basic features of life in one step to explain the origin of life on our planet, and considered it therefore had to be an exception in the universe.” More than “essentially all” the basic features of life, it must have been a functional lifeform. Instead of a “highly improbable” single step, Serafino argues for a multi-step process: “Abiogenesis may be modeled as a sequence of so-called ‘emergent’ properties, each of which represents a new stratum of complexity with its own set of causal mechanisms. … When self-replicating entities entered the scene, a primordial principle of chemical selection boosted and constrained the evolutionary path.” His is a theory without process, a mere set of speculations. He cannot explain how a non-living “stratum of complexity” can “emerge” through “self-replicating” steps into a living being. He suggests that each step has its own set of “causal mechanisms,” but no known laws of nature are adequate to effect these self-replicating steps. He could not specify what contrary laws might have been in effect or where they came from or why they are no longer in effect. His “primordial principle of chemical selection” is simply a restatement of his lost law theorem. Pascal, et al., suggest that life emerged through several steps of “partial ‘aliveness.’” Both are problematic since “a clear-cut frontier between a non-living state of inorganic matter and a living system” is rejected against clear observation. The “science” of abiogenesis has “progressed” to the point that it concludes that there is no discernable difference between inanimate matter and life itself. It has lost touch with the reality of the world it claims to describe. Life begets life daily, but it never “springs forth” from inanimate material in nature or the laboratory.
Erwin Schrodinger (1887-1961), in a minority opinion, demands that abiogenesis “obey physical and chemical laws in the same way that life has been demonstrated to do” in order to be scientifically acceptable.” Fraser demonstrates the illogical propositions that the scientists make to avoid God. He states that there “must” be a transitional process between the “inorganic and organic worlds,” that allows Darwin’s primordial soup to be guided by “mesoforms whose functions may be shared by the most organized inorganic forms and the least advanced inorganic systems.” Typically, he cannot describe these “mesoforms,” or explain what power they might have to “guide” the transition from inorganic material to a living being. He then asserts the principle of minimal entropy increase as suggested by Ilyia Prigogine that allows limited escape from the bounds of entropy as some “frequency of oscillation” within crystals that allow them to become self-sufficient. Fraser admits, “The viability of temporal organisms depends unequivocally upon their temporal organization. Mutually interdependent events must occur with appropriate timing as well as at appropriate spatial locations. Incompatible processes must be separated temporarily, otherwise they lead to decay and eventual death of the organism.” He incredibly finds “reproductive capacities to be of more recent origin than life itself.” Several problems are obvious:
1. His theory requires the suspension of observed laws of nature, to be replaced for one event by unknown, unobserved laws.
2. The not-yet-existing lifeform must pre-identify and “separate temporarily” processes that are potentially harmful.
3. Abiogenesis must be both the pre-existing cause and resultant effect in this process, a logical fallacy.
4. His lifeform had no need to reproduce initially, but somehow developed this characteristic later, requiring that that “unique” event, abiogenesis, had to be repeated if the lifeform died before developing a functional reproductive system (and suitable mate).
Carl Sagan embraced Darwin’s soup in inspiring popular word-pictures:
“Congealing and warming, the Earth released the methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen gases that had been trapped within, forming the primitive atmosphere and the first oceans. … After a time the seas achieved the consistency of a warm, dilute soup. Molecules were organized, and complex chemical reactions driven, on the surface of clays. And on one day a molecule arose that quite by accident was able to make crude copies out of the other molecules in the broth. … Those combinations best suited to further replication were favored by the sieve of natural selection. … Single-celled plants evolved, and life began to generate its own food.”
Again, causal ability is given to the inanimate: “molecules were organized, and complex chemicals reactions driven.” He then contends that plants evolved first, then “life began to generate its own food.” One wonders how long life survived without food. Sagan holds that life is equivalent with information that occurred spontaneously. Although this concept of the early atmosphere has been dismissed by science, this and other impotent theories remain in text books and in popular evolutionary literature. Dennis R. Venema believes that intelligence is necessary to beget information:
“Our uniform experience affirms that specified information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment—always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not strictly a material process. So the discovery of the specified digital information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA. Indeed, whenever we find specified information and we know the causal story of how that information arose, we always find that it arose from an intelligent source. It follows that the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified, digitally encoded information in DNA is that it too had an intelligent source.”
Information, once initiated by some form of creative activity, then primes the evolutionary information-making process: “biological evolution can add large amounts of information to DNA.” The Second Law is still suspended for evolutionary theorists.
Dennis Venema proposes that a “self-consistent representation of the origin of life process” developed in irreversible successive stages. These come at the cost of increasing “dissipation of free energy,” that is, increasing entropy. He admits that “there is still no generally accepted model for the process that could lead to the emergence of life.” Venema proposes that some unspecified “self-consistent representation” of abiogenesis increases complexity and entropy simultaneously since the “origin of the life process” that increases order also dissipates “free energy.” The quest for a scientific explanation for the beginning of life has no end in sight outside of the biblical account.
Evolution or Variation?
Life is characterized by order. Augustine said of the Creator: “you have arranged all things by measure and number and weight.” He recognized that God set a “limit for each creature, and thereby grant(ed) that creature a particular mode of existence and an appropriate goal. By establishing a creature’s boundaries, it is distinguished from other creatures and is prevented from any straining after limitlessness that would be an idolatrous mimicry of God.” Evolution denies these limits. Belief in the “oneness” of nature is a basic tenant of evolution: the difference between a single-cell lifeform and man is only complexity. John Gould builds on Goldschmidt, who separates biological change into micro-evolution and macro-evolution, a distinction accepted by creationists.
Species
Darwin considered species to be a fluid concept since every species is in a constant state of becoming. He refused to define species. The biological sciences have still not developed rigorous definitions of the taxonomic hierarchy. Taxonomy without standards makes any logical discussion of evolution meaningless. “Taxonomists,” Jonathan Weiner states, “can be classified into splitters and lumpers. Faced with the diversity of Darwin’s finches, some splitters recognized dozens and dozens of species and sub-species. Some lumpers went so far as to call them all a single species.” Species as a typological concept traditionally included loosely defining characteristics that distinguished it as a “constant-type, separated from any other species by an unbridgeable gap,” such as reproductive discontinuities. Creationists accept this since it reflects the biblical notion of “kind (miyn).” Evolutionists find it too restrictive, and have introduced the concept of population into the framework of species, arguing that “assemblages of populations distributed in geographic space is a species taxon,” thereby reducing species to an abstract statistical term, comporting with the necessary force of “chance.” This allows taxonomists to classify populations that can interbreed but choose not to do so, even when having no obvious taxonomic differences to prevent it, as separate species. With this relaxed definition, a “species to species change” that is no more than a superficial characteristic can be proof of evolution. Jonathan Weiner admits: “There are thirteen species of finches in the Galapagos. Some of them look so much alike that during the mating season they find it hard to tell themselves apart.” The question begs, “If the birds do not distinguish among themselves, why would man?” The answer must surely lie with the scientists who seize any opportunity to reclassify the various populations into ever more species to “prove” evolution. As an analogy, a collection of plaster casts of human noses, resembling a collection of samples from the fossil record, would give evolutionary scientists a fertile basis to classify contemporary man into a variety of species based upon the size and shape of their noses. This is, after all, the criteria used to classify Darwin’s finches. A return to Darwin is informative: “Natural selection is supposed to scrutinize the slightest variations in nature … . But as far as Darwin could say after his five weeks in the Galapagos, natural selection is blind to the beak of the finch. No wonder he left it out of the Origin.”
Taxonomists have historically relied primarily upon physical similarities. Contemporary science is beginning to rely on DNA and other testable criteria, but these present their own problems. Darwin said that for “forms to be distinguished as species … (the taxonomist) will have only to decide, whether any form be sufficiently constant to be capable of definition; and if definable, whether the differences be sufficiently important to deserve a specific name.” Mayr says that evolutionary ancestry is accepted “when two or more characters of two species or higher taxa are homologous.” He explains, “a feature in two or more taxa is homologous when it is derived from the same (or a corresponding) feature of their nearest common ancestor.” The factor missing in Darwin’s finches and Mayr’s definition is how to determine which evolved from which: which is the higher form, the robust beak or the gracile beak? Or, are they simply variations within limits?
Clifford J. Jolly admits that, “The many competing contemporary species definitions vary between those deliberately designed to be broad enough to include all, or most, organisms, to those that invoke a single criterion believed to capture the most meaningful aspect of evolutionary variation. … a differentiating population is likely to have indistinct boundaries in both space and time, analogous to a cloud or an epidemic.” “The central phenomenon of evolution is the process of differentiation, or divergence, of lineages from each other and from their ancestral stock.” How does one determine if, or when, evolution occurs when the basic unit of consideration is as firm as a cloud?
Jolly proposes a definition that includes interbreeding on the level of species, but only as a “history of interbreeding” rather than a biologic ability to interbreed, basing species upon observed social activity rather than biologic constitution. In this context, a group separated from another, segregated by preference or geography, becomes a new species. He qualifies this: it “should not be implied … that the ability of populations to exchange genetic information by interbreeding is no longer considered ‘important.’ The ability to interbreed is obviously a significant, continuously varying component of the relationship between a lineage and its sympathetic relatives.” Therefore, “it is meaningless to ask which definition captures the ‘true nature of a species,’ or which taxon is ‘really’ a species or not, in any sense transcending a species’ definition. The concept underlying such questions is a relic of the pre-Darwinian world in which species are interpreted as units of a plan of creation.” Darwin hedged here, also, leaving a practical definition of species to others “to sort out which forms should be distinguished as species, systematists will have only to decide, whether any form be sufficiently constant and distinct from other forms, to be capable of definition; and if definable, whether the differences be sufficiently important to deserve a specific name.”
In this age of continual scientific advances, why does biological science operate with ill-defined parameters and relativistic practices that prohibit unequivocal evaluation of taxonomic classifications? There is no doubt that biology is much different from the hard sciences such as physics and chemistry, but it is foundational that science exercises rigorous basic precepts such as A = A and A ≠ B, without which meaningful investigation, reporting, and discussion is impossible. Inconsistent definitions of technical terms such as “evolution” and “species” allows evolutionary speculation to replace empirical evidence as “proof.”
Microevolution
Microevolution, also known as variation, describes differences observed in individuals within a species that are maintained within limits by the information contained within that species from its creation. Though the repository of this information is somewhat disputed, it is generally considered to reside in the DNA of the individual as modified by bisexual reproduction and other forces. Varied characteristics are expressed specifically in the individual and statistically in the population. Variation is the set of limits that plant and animal breeders work with to produce “customized” tomatoes and pineapples that fit cans, high-yield plants and livestock to feed the world, and attractive pets and plants for animal lovers and gardeners as the outworking of discoveries by Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) who developed the theoretical and procedural foundations for the development of hybrid plants and animals produced today. Hybridization demonstrates the extreme limits of variation that allows specific modifications in a single generation at the expense of reproducibility: the hybrid is effectively incapable of producing offspring, requiring that similar hybrids be produced for each generation. Rather than evolution, this is literally a genetic dead-end. Darwin considered the variation he observed to be evolution. He found that significant variations in the beaks of birds he classified as finches on the Galapagos Islands to be a “most curious fact,” since these apparently diverse “flocks mingle together” as if they were but one species. The reason is clear today: they are one species. He observed a “nearly perfect gradation” in beak shape that could be traced, “from a beak extraordinarily thick, to one so fine, that it may be compared to that of a warbler.” Darwin believed that the predominant beak type of a population was a response to changes in the food source. Current research disputes this conclusion: “Like Darwin, most of the series of scientific pilgrims who made their way to Darwin’s islands arrived in the wet season … . The scientists watched closely, and they saw exactly what Darwin had seen. Most of the ground finches were hunting and pecking together … cracking the same birdseed.” These same birds did exhibit an expected preference during the dry season when variety and quantity was less opulent. Through it all, there are no new characteristics. Each variant is the same species as their next-door neighbors, and still demonstrably able, even if not always inclined, to interbreed, subsist on the same food, and co-exist in the same habitat.
Gould evaluated Darwin’s specimens and concluded that they represented fourteen different species including twelve new ones: all on the appearance of the beak. Both believed that all evolved from one original species on the island. Isolation on the islands resulted in interbreeding caused these evolutionary changes. Evolutionary theory meets an obstacle with the Galapagos evolutionary forms. Evolution is supposed to be an always-upward process with no reversals possible. However, the scientists closely scrutinizing the animal populations on the islands find that “year after year they are seeing oscillating selection from one year to the next,” including in the finches. The scientists “on the ground” in the Galapagos are increasingly recognizing that natural selection does play a role in observed characteristics, but that these are “oscillations” within limits. Popular evolutionists and many textbooks still hold Darwin’s finches to be an example of macro-evolution. Variation is not uncommon. It is so familiar in humans as to be overlooked. Common variableness even within families include hair color (and amount), height, weight, skin color, and so on. Lacking proof for macro-evolution, micro-evolution is considered by most evolutionists to be evolution writ large.
Macroevolution
Macroevolution produces change that transcends the boundaries of kind to produce new species. This is the evolution that produced millions of species from one initial lifeform over millions of years by natural means. Macroevolution is the essential outcome of the evolutionary process. The ambiguity of evolutionary language implicit in evolutionary practice flourishes here: in the 150 years since Darwin, the definition of macroevolution is not firmly established. Creation scientists consider the inability to reproduce viable offspring to be the boundary between species, while evolutionary scientists are less specific. When pressed for evidence of macroevolution, evolutionists increasingly point to micro-evolutionary events. Darwin assumed an ongoing process of minute incremental changes that inevitably result in transitional forms, then, new species. The transitional forms however, are not to be found; even Darwin acknowledged the complete lack of these in the fossil record, although he hoped it would fill out over time. These transitional forms became known as “missing links” Even as the number of classified fossils increase, the missing links remain missing. This has encouraged some evolutionists to propose a theory of “punctuated equilibrium” in which drastic changes occurred for some unknown reason in short periods of time, leaving the intermediate forms unlikely to be found since they existed for only a short period of time. Punctuated equilibrium simply compresses Darwinian evolution into a relatively short timeframe requiring short-term macro-changes instead of slowly evolving micro-changes. Neither can produce a viable mechanism or examples.
This marked ambivalence clearly makes any discussion of speciation problematic. Since speciation is a major premise of evolution, it becomes one more area where “proof” of evolutionary change lacks any credibility to the creationist while allowing the relativistic evolutionist a broad path of assertions as “proof.” The biblical term “kind” is of little help unless one considers it to establish boundary lines based upon procreative ability. Darwin understood species to be “units in a plan of creation,” a concept not shared by modern evolutionists who disavow any plan as necessarily intimating God and the miraculous. Ambivalently, he also thought his theory to be a “naturalistic, seamless, evolutionary origin of species-level diversity in nature” that eliminated the need for a “plan of creation.” Natural selection replaced God and brought about the appearance of new species from predecessors in an accidental but orderly process through small incremental steps.
Evolution Evolves
The theories of evolution are not static. The lack of a factual foundation for these propositions encourages an ongoing search for theories that will support the evidence. Darwin formalized the initial proposition:
“The fact that we have seen, that all past and present organic beings constitute one grand natural system, with group subordinate to group, and with extinct groups often falling in between recent groups, is intelligible on the theory of natural selection with its contingencies of extinction and divergence of character. On these same principles we see how it is, that the mutual affinities of the species and genera within each class are so complex and circuitous. … It must be admitted that these facts receive no explanation from the (biblical) theory of creation.”
Darwin believes that chance assisted by natural selection provide a better explanation for the diversity of life than does the intentional creation by the infinite God. That, of course, is hardly a scientifically supported hypothesis: it is simply the prejudice of one who claims of a former believer turned atheist. The evolutionist argues that what appears to him to be unnecessary complexity and variety to prove evolution against creation, then argues that the similarity of lifeform components such as arms/wings/fins proves evolution against creation. This typical ambivalence of the evolutionary position continues to illustrate the weakness of both foundation and superstructure.
Microevolution, again, is not disputed. Weiner says, “It is one thing to demonstrate … that natural selection leads to evolution.” But, he continues, “It is another and much more complicated thing to demonstrate precisely how this evolution leads to new species,” a process and result that even Darwin never was able to explain or exhibit. Evolutionists can argue for or against Weiner’s proposition based upon the highly flexible definition of species. When Scripture says, “In the beginning …” the evolutionist must search through a whole litany of possible replies.
Lee Strobel finds several iconic “images of evolution” that are staples in textbooks and the popular literature that the evolutionary community to prove conclusively that evolution is fact, not simply theory. The logic and experimental proof attributed to each of these, he says, influenced him as a high school and college student to embrace evolutionary theory. These include the Miller-Urey experiment (1952-53); Darwin’s Tree of Life; Ernst Haeckel’s drawings of embryos. In time, Strobel carefully evaluated each “image” on its actual merits.
The Miller-Urey Experiments
Stanley Miller (1930-2007) was, in 1952, a graduate student at the University of Chicago under the tutelage of Nobel laureate Harold Urey. Operating on assumptions of the time concerning the primitive earth and its atmosphere, Miller successfully synthesized amino acids, building blocks of life. This was highly lauded as proof of the possibility of life forming spontaneously. There is no dispute that amino acids were formed. The conclusions are, however, not simply disputed, but discounted as false by the scientific community including major evolutionists, and have been for decades. First, his experiment was carefully planned and executed, showing, that if true, that rather than an undirected evolutionary progression of chemical reactions, it required a Planner to accomplish. Next, the “hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor” atmosphere he chose, espoused by Urey, is not based upon empirical evidence, and could not have existed. Using Miller’s experiment adapted to an atmosphere considered today to be representative of the early earth, scientists hold that organic molecules (not living beings) may be created, but they would be lethal compounds such as formaldehyde and cyanide, both of which are actually highly toxic.
Darwin’s Tree of Life
One of the most recognizable icons of evolution is Darwin’s “tree of life,” or a modified and highly illustrated version of it. It is a roadmap of evolutionary development. Darwin adapted it from a diagram devised by Carl von Linne (1707-1778), in which he divided life
“… into kingdoms, kingdoms into classes, classes into orders, orders into genera, and genera into species. … Linnaeus’s system is often drawn as a tree of life. The trunk of the tree divides near its base into form kingdoms, and each great trunk divides again and again into ever-finer branches and twigs: into species, sub-species, races, varieties, and, at last, like leaves on the twigs, individuals. … We depict the order of life … as a family tree, a genealogy, in which the branches trace back to a common trunk. Every living thing is related, … and every animal and plant shares the same ancestors at the root.”
Darwin refined this to present his belief in what would become known as evolution. Presented as factual, this diagram in its many incarnations, has encouraged even the skeptical to embrace the “evidence” of evolution. Darwin, himself, acknowledged that the diagram was more theoretical than factual, bemoaning the absence of linking, or intermediate, fossils (and living examples) that show the change from species to species demanded by his theory. Instead, the prolific growth in fossil collections and evaluation, the record remains essentially the same: most life appeared suddenly at the beginning of the Cambrian geologic period (the “Cambrian Explosion”) without any record of intermediate forms: these remain the missing links. In fact, many anomalies appear in the geologic record that invert the increasing complexity that evolution requires. “Some paleontologists,” Strobel reports, “even though they may think Darwin’s overall theory is correct, call it a lawn rather than a tree, because you have these separate blades of grass sprouting up.” Again, discredited data continues to be promulgated as “fact” that “proves” evolution.
The Embryonic Spoof
Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) found significant similarities in the developing embryos of fish, salamander, tortoise, chickens, hogs, calves, rabbits, and humans that convinced him that this was proof of evolution. He claimed that these were so indistinguishable in their earliest stages of development that descent from a common ancestor could not be disputed. To prove this, he published drawings of these embryos that were, indeed, remarkable in their similarity, and in some cases were indistinguishable. He produced these illustrations from actual embryos and photographs, but did not publish his photographs. They were so well done that they have needed little revisions through the years. Like Darwin’s tree of life, these illustrations are still found in textbooks and the popular media. A fatal problem surfaces when qualified investigators look at actual samples of these embryos. First, the states that he claimed to be the “earliest stages” of development were actually midpoints. Both before and after the stages he selected there are marked differences in the embryos. Next, his illustrations did not match the actual samples. Some drawings were simply copied from one animal to the next, guaranteeing “striking similarities.” In other cases, the drawings were altered to construct non-existent similarities. These blatant errors have been known since the 1860s, Strobel says, yet they continue to be used without adverse comment in textbooks and the popular literature as “proof” of their evolutionary claims. There is simply no single pattern of development for all lifeforms.
The Common Thread
Abiogenesis and biological evolution follow hand in glove. If one believes that inanimate materials can become a living being, then it is far less difficult to believe the next step: that a living being can change by chance into a completely new species, and do that millions of times. A large part of American society has extended these suppositions into a predominant worldview, one that has been shown to be far more speculation than science. The lack of empirical foundations is of little importance, though, since evolution is simply the vehicle upon which evangelistic secularism is carried. An objective review of the above data demonstrates: 1. There is no ,logical or scientific basis to support the processes required for abiogenesis or biological evolution; 2. No one has observed either in nature, or in the laboratory; and, 3. The evolutionary community intentionally buffers the believer from the lack of these deficiencies by bold hyperbole proclaiming the “fact” of the position: it is essentially relativistic.
The biblical account of creation by the eternal, all-powerful God provides the counterpoint. Creation cannot provide empirical scientific evidence of its claims as has been discussed above. Proponents who attempt to compete with evolutionary science often fail, not because their position is not true, but because the evolutionary position is fluid. An objective review of the biblical position suggests: 1. Logic, the basis of all communication, requires a cause for every effect, thus the beginning of life requires a first cause; 2. Generally equating the biblical “kind (miyn)” with an understanding of species as bounded by the limits of physiological procreative ability fits well with the observation of similarities with boundaries; and, 3. The biblical message of creation introduces God but is not the message of the Bible, for that is to seek God and His righteousness first (proton: before all else).
Chapter 4: Man Appears
“Possibly no subject is more widely debated in various forums today than this question of how man originated.” (Charles C. Ryrie).
“The status of Adam and Eve … has been a keen topic of interest in Christian circles over the last several years. Much of this interest has been sparked by a variety of studies that call into question (in effect, if not intent) the historicity of the Bible’s first couple.” (Daniel C. Harlow).
The controversy about the origin and development of life pales when the focus shifts to man. This discussion is personal. Creationist or evolutionist, man is generally ego-centric, considering himself to be the apex of all life, unsurpassed by any other living being. The biblical creationist upholds the scriptural revelation that God made man and woman in His “own image (tselem: resemblance)” (Gen. 1:27), embodying a unique attribute called a “living soul (chay nephesh: a living, breathing creature)” (Gen. 2:7). It is the seat of man’s desire for his creator: “My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?” (Ps. 42:2). It is the seat of man’s relationship with God, whether in submission and adoration: “Bless the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless His holy Name” (Ps. 103:1); or, the seat of his rebellion: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. 14:1a). The body is mortal, corruptible (Rom. 1:23), but the soul possesses eternal existence after conception: the righteous to an eternity with his Creator, those who reject Him to “everlasting punishment” (Matt. 25:46). The evolutionist has no such basis for elevating man above the lowest animal: he is only another chance result of evolutionary processes with his only basis for morality founded in self-interest, and no afterlife.
The Biblical Account
Man is the last creature that God created on the last day of creation: not the epitome of God’s ability, but the peak of His created beings. The Bible declares that man (‘adam) was formed (yatsar: fashioned, as a potter forms his work) (Gen. 2:7), complete, intelligent, articulate, and eternal from conception forward. He is imago Dei (Gen 1:26, 27), the image of God, both by intent (Gen. 1:26), and execution (Gen. 1:27). Moses explicitly states that God bara’ ‘adam (created man, a human being), zakar (male) and nqebah (female). He is one “kind” and two genders. Genesis 1 devotes a scant four verses to man’s beginning, including God’s charge to exercise dominion over specific aspects of creation, and to procreate. Genesis 2:4-25 expands this as it describes creation from man’s perspective. Man is “formed of the dust (‘aphar: clay, dirt, mud) of the ground,” (Gen. 2:7a) that God created in Genesis 1:1. His uniqueness is not found in the substance of his physical being, in his temporality, but in the unique non-temporal endowment as God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (chay nephesh: vital breath, the soul, life)” (Gen 2:7b). He then created woman from man’s rib (tsela’: the side). This places a high value on each man and woman, for each is more than simply another part of the natural world. This establishes the model of the monogamous marital relationship. Man alone walks and talks with his Creator; marriage exemplifies the relationship that God desires with man.
Man is given radah (subjugation, rule over). This practically translates as authority and responsibility, over creation, including the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, and every other living (chay) thing that moveth upon the earth.” ‘Adam complied as he named the animals, then maintained the Garden that God had planted for him (Gen. 2:8). God gave him “every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and of every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat” (Gen. 1:28, 29). Man’s responsibility extends to his own actions. This includes his exercise of making choices, both good and bad: “16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17). This free will allowed ‘Adam to intentionally choose to sever the intimate fellowship he had enjoyed with God (cf. Gen. 1-3), and allows man today, suffering under God’s curse for that action, to continue to reject Him. God, however, has established a plan of redemption for sinful man. Reconciliation is available through God’s plan of salvation established even before Genesis 1:1: “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love:” (Eph. 1:4). ‘Adam, an explicit creation of God, unique in the possession of his eternal soul that bridges the gap between the infinitude of God and the finiteness of man, exists for the pleasure of his Creator: “13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:24:13); and, again: “11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created” (Rev. 4:11). A summary of Biblical accounts of creation are given in Appendix 2.
Evolutionary doctrine rejects both a First Cause (or any cause) and the miraculous in favor of uncaused causes. It is in complete opposition to the God who brought all into existence by His Word. A slight digression is important at this point to address the position of some theologians who are supplanting biblical precepts with evolutionary language. One such theologian is Daniel C. Harlow, who, not content with promoting evolutionary science, searches the Bible to “discover” error: “anthropologically sensitive studies of Genesis have observed that the biblical Adam and Eve and their early offspring are portrayed as figures living in the Neolithic period, around 9,000 to 7,000 BCE, which is some 30,000 later than the earliest archeological evidence for religious behavior and culture among humans.” He continues: “The first couple’s humanity was not given to them complete but was a work in progress. God created them neither mortal nor immortal, neither good nor bad (morally speaking) but neutral and free.” One wonders what lies between mortal and immortal. His contentions do not comport with a plain reading of Scripture. As discussed above, Genesis 1:26-27 states that man was both conceived and made imago Dei, while Genesis 2:7 further reveals that, as soon as man was formed from the “dust of the earth,” that God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Nothing suggests that man was “a work in progress.” Scripture does state that man was among God’s creation that He found “very good (m’od towb: emphatically, ‘wholly beautiful and bountiful’)” (Gen. 1:31). To deny this is to deny God, for, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Adam was immediately given several tasks, including having “dominion” over and naming all the “living creatures (Gen 2:19-20),” and maintaining the garden God had planted for him (Gen 1:26-28; 2:8), showing his immediately functioning cognitive abilities that included critical thinking and use of language.
It is logically and theologically impossible for man to be imago Dei and not be good. Logically, the law of non-contradiction will not allow man to be both good and not good at the same time in the same relationship. Theologically, all the creatures were created good: “For every creature of God is good, and nothing be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving” (1 Tim. 4:4).
Man was created a free moral agent as demonstrated by the freedom that Adam was given to name the animals (Gen. 2:19), by Adam and Eve’s choice to sin (cf. Gen 3) and of their choice to hide from God after their sin (Gen 3:9). Paul, in Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22; and 1 Timothy 2:13 refers to Adam and Eve in contexts completely in line with the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts. Nothing in Scripture allows for any sort of evolution in man. He was created individual, intelligent, mature, and with a sense of right and wrong.
The Evolution of Man
Man is not the penultimate end of the ongoing evolutionary process: one day, by chance, he will be replaced by a new, improved version. This is part of a concept known as transhumanism that also includes human intervention such as genetic engineering. Paul Gocke wrote:
“Transhumanists argue that due to our natural and social environment, accidental mutations, genetic drift and adaption, the biological nature of human beings will continue to change in the future. In fact, it is likely that our offspring will change so much … that they turn into a new species, with which homo sapiens can no longer produce reproductive offspring.”
Homo sapiens sapiens, he says, will ultimately evolve into new species unable to produce viable offspring with H. sapien. Gocke expresses three primary tenants of human evolution: 1. Evolution does occur as an ongoing process, 2. Humans are included since they are but one part of the animal kingdom, and, 3. Where evolution drags its feet man will intervene to develop characteristics considered better. An interesting addition by Gocke is the “social environment” as a cause of evolutionary change. For him, the social environment is part of the natural selection process as it is the human version of the herd that largely limits the reach of procreation, thus enhancing over time specific group characteristics. The fluidity of evolutionary terminology is often unnoticed until an attempt is made to discuss the theory and evidentiary claims. Then problems surface caused by the lack of fixed definitions of key words such as species. While Gocke, in this instance, clearly bounds a species by the ability or inability to procreate, others find no problem subdividing existing species “despite the fact that there are no reproductive barriers, and populations may inter-grade morphologically.”
Gabriel Ward Lasker states: “Human evolution is a fact, not a theory. It has the same kind of status as any other “fact” studied by scholars.” Later, in discussing scientifically founded proof derived from fossils, he says, “The assessment of the relationships of fossils depends on our appraisal of whether, in the length of time predicated, a change of the magnitude and kind represented by the differences would have been likely to occur, or whether the fossils more probably belong to different lines of descent.” He further muddies the waters as he allows some species wide ranging potential for evolution while limiting others from the same chance processes: “Those forms that preserve the capacity to evolve are called “generalized,” while those that can survive only by a single restricted way of life (and can only evolve in one direction) are called “specialized.” Lasker begins by stating the fact of evolution, offers proof based upon assessment based upon the appraisal of factors predicated, and the deduction of what might be more probable. This degree of certainty would rate a failing grade in Physics 101 or Chemistry 101, but is accepted in evolutionary parlance. Of special interest in Lasker is his predetermination of which species may freely evolve and which may not. This seems to contradict the tenant of either “chance” or “survival of the fittest” as causal agents. Again, the evolutionist appears to insert some sort of outside intervention, some direction, into the processes of evolution. The certainties of the biological proof of evolution dissolve upon examination.
The objective observer finds no evidence for man’s evolution based upon the boundaries of procreation as the definition of species, while the evolutionist finds evolution in every variation. The creationist accepts variation within limits while the evolutionist believes that variation has no bounds, therefore each variation is a link in the evolutionary chain. This gives rise to conflicting and confusing classifications of hominid fossils. Of primary importance at this point is understanding that the evolutionary tree of man is anything but settled. One version is shown in Chart 3:
Chart 3
Man’s Recent Evolutionary Tree
Lived Years Ago Hominid Name
150-40 thousand Homo sapiens
400-200 thousand Homo helmei
700-400 thousand Homo heidelbergensis
1.3 million-700 thousand Homo erectus
1.6-1.3 million Homo ergaster
2.3-1.5 million Homo hablis
3.9-2.6 million Australopithecus afarenesis
Some evolutionary scientists believe that Homo hablis, H. rudolfensis (inserted between 2. And 3. above), and H. ergaster are all one species. Others insert Homo neandertalensis between 5. and 7. above) while removing 6. For some, H. hablis and H. erectus are evolutionary dead ends, while A. africanus is in the direct lineage of H sapiens. This is simply representative of the lack of consensus among the evolutionary community on the “settled proof” of man’s evolution. There is no settled lineage among evolutionists, and there is no complete series of exemplary fossils that show any clear linkage on this mythical tree. If there were no other reasons, the failure of evolutionary science to establish a single, accepted lineage of human evolution in even the later hominoid stages clearly demonstrates the deceptiveness of the claim that evolution is empirically proven.
Finding “scientific evidence” against the biblical account, Rebecca L. Cann, Mark Stoneking, and Allan C. Wilson assert that:
“Research in molecular biology indicates that the genetic diversity of the present human population cannot possibly be traced back to a single couple living in Mesopotamia a few thousand years ago. The best mathematical models suggest, rather, that the ancestors of all modern Homo sapiens were a population of about 10,000 interbreeding individuals who were members of a much larger population living in Africa about 150,000 years ago.”
This begs the question: “Where and when did the original 10 thousand interbreeding individuals originate? Did not they, or their ancestors, begin at some point from a single pair? Or, did some mass effect cause these 10 thousand to be birthed as a new species, male and female, from the ‘much larger population?” In such large populations, how did incrementally small changes survive without being “overwritten” by existing dominant characteristics? Given the large numbers and relatively isolated locations postulated, it seems that fossil remains would be much less scarce, even granting the relatively low percentage of remains that are fossilized. Appendix 3 contains a chart of the evolutionary progression of man. It is compiled from several sources, but is representative of the many highly differing charts, tables, and lists published. This chart has been adapted from Jim Foley to include the type of evidence available. Note that many hominids have been “fleshed out” from fragmentary and incomplete skulls, teeth, or other bones rather than complete specimens as the literature suggests. The challenge of interpreting fossil evidence will be discussed in detail below in “The Broken Chain of Evidence.”
Java Man was discovered in 1891 along the Solo River in Java by Eugene Dubois, who was intent on finding the missing link between apes and man. His entire find consisted of a skullcap. He deduced that this was indeed a transitional form, and named it Pithecanthropus erectus, but it became popularly known as “Java Man.” The next year Dubois found a femur some 50 feet from the original site that he assumed belonged to Java Man. By accepted evolutionary methods such as those articulated by Lasker, he was fully described and dated at 500-300 thousand years old. The speculative practices of evolutionary scientists come to the surface again. Dubois’ collection of Java Man remains expanded from a skullcap fragment and femur to a few teeth. These allowed him to describe both man and species with impunity, and to have his conclusions accepted within the evolutionary community. The public description is given as fact, but within the evolutionary community reclassification abounds. Java Man has been reclassified as Homo hablis, placing him in the direct lineage of modern man. Dubois followed accepted evolutionary protocol by assigning an acceptable lineage to the sample, then dating the layer in which it was found to conform with the era expected, then dating the sample by the newly dated layer. G. H. R. von Koenigswald says:
“When Dubois issued his first description of the fossil Javanese fauna he designated it as Pleistocene. But no sooner had he discovered his Pithecanthropus than the fauna had suddenly to become Tertiary. He did everything in his power to diminish the Pleistocene character of the fauna, …The criterion was no longer to be the fauna as a whole, but only his Pithecanthropus. Such a primitive form belonged to the Tertiary!”
Other problems exist with Java Man’s classification. Some researchers believe that the femur is that of a modern man, and the teeth are those of an orangutan. Lubenow suggests five basic problems with the current position of Java Man on the family tree:
1. Evaluated under the rigor and data of current biological science, Java Man appears to be a post-Flood human.
2. It appears that Dubois knew that he was misinterpreting the data to reach the conclusions he wanted rather than found.
3. Given the associated femur and teeth, the dating of Java Man is suspect.
4. Modern-appearing humans were contemporary with Java Man.
5. The acceptance of Java Man as a missing link is more to fill a gap in evolutionary evidence than as rigorous science.
In about 1900, Dubois essentially withdrew from the public eye and refused access to the Java Man remains to scientific review. Java Man has transitioned from Pithecanthropus erectus to Homo hablis, to become Homo erectus. There is much more, of course. But the bottom line, for now, is that H. hablis and H. erectus are both the same, with the differences simply reflecting the wide range of human variation such as we see in today’s human population.
Discounting, for the moment, the absolute age claims, dates can still be useful as a relative measure if properly evaluated. The oldest known human artifacts are believed to have been preserved on the lowest level of the Olduvai George in Tanzania. This site has been the source of many early hominid specimens and relics. Found by Mary Leakey (1913-1996) during the 1961-62 season, this artifact consists of a circular stone structure 14 feet in diameter that appears to be man-made, is of non-indigenous stones, and has been dated to 1.8 million years ago. The exact purpose of the structure is, of course, unknown from this great distance in time. Of major interest to the objective observer is that quite similar, even identical, objects can still be found among the Okombambi tribe in southwest Africa as the foundations of their homes. Similar structures are still being constructed by the Turkana tribesmen of the northern Kenyan desert. In this same vicinity, Leakey also found the “usual stone and bone waste, as well as Oldewan tools.” Archeologists consider these primitive tools to be proof of the early age of their construction and use. This same investigator reports that similar tools are still in use by remote Turkana tribesman today. This most ancient of human sites then has yielded a foundation and tools that are easily recognized as still being use today. This should cast doubt on the extreme age ascribed by radiometric dating. Leakey and her husband Louis (1903-1972), who were among the most prolific and respected paleoanthropologists in the world, also found what appear to be three sets of human footprints (69 individual prints) in the strata at Laetoli, some 30 miles south of Olduvai George. Leakey told National Geographic that the footprints were “remarkably similar to those of modern man.” The striking thing about these human tracks is that they were found in volcanic ash sandwiched between a layer dated at 3.6 million years ago and one dated at 3.8 million years old. Thus, this human trekker must have lived, according to the evolutionary time scale, about 3.7 million years ago, or long before the Homo genus is allowed by the evolutionary community to exist. The reaction against Leakey is to assign them to the “Lucy-type hominid known as Australopithecus afarensis. Since the known fossils of A. afarensis do not include a complete foot, this speculative assertion cannot be tested, and evolution continues to protect its theory.
Man is separated from his (supposed) single cell beginning by many more developments than a cell count. In addition to the obvious developments of bipedalism, an opposed thumb, vision, hearing, speech, and so much more, somehow chance has also produced cognitive abilities: the mental ability to know, to be aware, to reason, and more. Lasker makes a compelling admission: “Indeed it would be sheer chance if any fossil man now known were in fact your very ancestor.” But, he contends, accuracy is not all that important:
“In tracing relations between fossils we need not imply direct ancestry. We merely refer to the taxonomic group to which the individual belongs, and arrows of relatedness should be taken to show connecting groups rather than kinship between the former owners of individual skeletons. In the past some anthropologists have, on occasion, emphasized details in their fossil material that may very well represent nothing more than individual idiosyncrasies.”
Lasker, the staunch evolutionist, admits that the evolutionary tree is more of a bush with no branch that leads from anywhere to man except by inference driven by a desire to prove a preconception. He also admits that hominid classifications very likely represent variations in individuals within populations rather than distinct species, a position with which the creationist would agree. The extremely limited sample size, as shown in Appendix 3, makes this a legitimate conclusion even if not popular within the evolutionary community.
Evolutionary theorists believe that small populations of plants and animals are optimum, since this is more likely to allow small changes to reproduce without being absorbed into the “herd,” defining reproducing groups (the “breeding population) among humans seems to be all but impossible due to the fluidity of movement within social environments. The distinctions of “race” are proven immaterial as man proves that Homo sapien sapiens is but one species as created in one act by God. Even when small groups exist for long periods in relative isolation, when that isolation is broken, the individual or group is rapidly assimilated into the larger population.
The Broken Chain: The Geologic Record
Proof of biological evolution is clearly seen in the geologic record, the evolutionist says. This solid record of worldwide uniformitarian deposition and fossilization is highly visible and easy to read. The results are conclusive, according to the evolutionary mantra.
Age is a major point of contention between creationists and evolutionists. Biblical creationists hold to six days of creation while evolutionists find the earth and the cosmos to be billions of years old. Compromising creationists try to settle for some median age to satisfy both positions.
Rocks arranged in layers, or strata, are familiar to all who travel the highways of America. Modern highways tend to go through hills rather than over them, exposing layer upon layer of rocks, some layers thin and others much thicker, some flat and others folded. These strata are the mines in which fossils are found that help evolutionists date the age of the layer and of the fossil.
“That our present-day knowledge of the sequence of strata in the earth’s crust is in major part due to the evidence supplied by fossils is a truism. Merely in their role as distinctive rock constituents, fossils have furnished, through the record of the evolution of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the relative positioning of strata in widely separated regions and from continent to continent, says Hollis Dow Hedberg.”
Darwin understood that the fossil record was an inconsistent and incomplete history of what he thought were the facts of his theory. Since he saw nature progressing in a constant, gradual development of lifeforms that at some point brought about new species, he thought that this broken chain of evidence would be completed in time.
The geologic record consists of three types of rock; igneous rock of volcanic origin; metamorphic rock that has been changed from an original type; and layered sedimentary rock that may contain fossils. The geologic record is mainly contained in the sedimentary layers laid down, one upon another in water. Charles Lyle summarized the principles of geology in the 1830s:
1. Superposition: in a vertical sequence of layers, the higher series is the youngest and the lowest is the oldest. After deposition, various forces often tilt and fold these layers in various ways. One problematic, though extensively studied, anomaly is the inverted layer that has what are considered the younger sediments and fossils on the top. One example is the Denison Trough in the Bowen Basin of Eastern Australia. This formation is explained by stating that after the basin was formed, it remained very warm and plastic during its formation and for several million years after that allowed geologic activity that finally resulted in a complete inversion while not deforming the sedimentary layers. Others examples include the High Atlas Mountains of Morocco and the Dorenaz Basin of the Swiss Alps.
2. Original horizontality: rock layers (especially sedimentary) were deposited on a horizontal plain.
3. Original lateral extension: a layer continued indefinitely in the horizontal plain unless interrupted by an obstruction.
4. Cross-cutting relationships: an intrusion that cuts another is younger than the layer it cuts.
5. Inclusion: a layer that is included in another is older than the including structure.
6. Uniformitarianism: the physical laws of today were operating in the past.
Of primary interest to the evolutionist are the fossils contained in the various layers. Since evolution is not reversible, the fossils are thought to “offer an unambiguous timescale for relative age determinations and for worldwide correlations of rocks,” according to Otto H. Schindewolf. While the timescale is unambiguous to Schindewolf, it is often lost in the application that this is, as he states, a relative timescale. Its worldwide application is questionable as discussed below.
A fossil is the remains of a plant or animal that has been preserved by minerals that replace the living material. The fossil is mainly found in the sedimentary rocks since they are most often formed, according to current theory, by the rapid deposition of sediments that trap, encapsulate, and preserve lifeforms by replacing the organic material with minerals from the sediments. Other sources of fossils include tar pits and coal layers, minerals such as amber, and cooler volcanic depositions such as ash. Most often only the hard parts such as shells and bones are preserved in the fossilization process. Kin to the fossil are remains preserved in ice that are often remarkably well preserved and provide a bonus of detail for the scientist. These fossils provide two types of information to the evolutionist: the fossil itself is a graphic representation of lifeforms that existed at some point, and the location of the fossil in the strata is used to date the strata. The assumption that “fossils occur in a consistent succession is known as the ‘principle of faunal (and floral) succession,’” according to Andrew MacRae. Harlow says that “This genetic evidence corroborates the fossil evidence for the date and location of the earliest anatomically modern human beings.”
Evolutionists state that the fossil record proves the evolution of man from other primates. This record is said to be conclusive and all-but-complete. Appendix 3 summarizes important examples from the fossil record that are held up as exemplary and inescapable proof. As with other fossils, since only the hard parts of the specimen have been preserved, many details used by contemporary forensic scientists to make their determinations are simply not available. The paleontologist must creatively develop his opinions from very little hard data. A cursory review of the data presented shows that even the hard parts (bones and teeth) have not been preserved intact in most cases. The genus Homo is populated by those considered to be close relatives of man (Homo sapien sapien). The observer will note that most of these specimens consist of very few fossilized remains from which an investigator can use to determine the proper taxonomic category including genus and species, sex, and age. Here, the variations discussed above become problematic. Significant differences in size, build, and so on are generally expected between males and females of the same species as is clearly observed among humans today, even in the same families. Adding the depth of history, the observer finds that these differences are magnified as different generations are compared. This makes the dogmatic pronouncements of evolutionary scientists based upon a few teeth, or a jaw, or a partial skull quite remarkable. This is slueuthery that modern forensic scientists could envy. This is especially remarkable considering the fluid nature of taxonomic classifications discussed above. Sometimes these problems do become visible. Scientists have had problems with the specimen known as “Hobbit,” and found in LB1 that is relatively recent and remarkably complete with a “partial skull” and “partial skeleton.” It has been classified as both a Homo floresiensis and Homo erectus. A similar problem, again with a wealth of fossilized remains to examine, is the well-known Peking Man, who has been classified as both Homo hablis and Sinathropus pekinesis despite having “14 partial craniums, 11 lower jaws, individual teeth, and some skeletal bones.” These individuals have been dated at 500-300 thousand years old despite having been found mixed with modern humans. Others, such as the Chellean Man has been solidly classified as Homo erectus based solely on one partial braincase, which is a skull minus the face, upper and lower jaws. One determinative used by evolutionary scientists is brain size. In theory, the evolution of man-like into man should leave a trail of increasing brain size. Scientists examining living human populations have identified many variations among them, and have used these differences to “identify” races of men. These differences have led some evolutionary scientists to conclude, “With the growing knowledge of probability it became clear that these differences in average dimensions permitted statistically valid generalizations. … It was generally assumed, therefore that these ‘real’ differences … were racial … ,” according to Lasker. He contends that anthropologists questioned the attribution of these characteristics to “race” rather than other variabilities in population.” But, the distinctions remain as a supporting force for unwarranted racism, even as racists can excerpt Biblical passages to support the same wicked position.
The disagreement with classification among evolutionary experts is exemplified by Taung Child, classified as an Australopithecus Africanus by Raymond Dart who received the partial skull in 1924 from workers who had found it in a South African cave. He named it and dated it between 2 and 3 million years old and considered it to be the oldest direct non-human ancestor of man, according to Marvin L. Lubenow. Problems arose when T. C. Partridge examined the cave and dated it at no older than 870 thousand years. Simply changing the date would not do. Evolutionary theory requires the replaced species to die out to prevent gene mixing and retrograde evolution to the earlier species. Since humans were “on the scene” at that time, there was simply not enough for “chance” to evolve A. africanus into Homo sapien sapien. In retrospect, scientists who readily accepted the Dart’s evaluations, found out that he and his successors had never published detailed measurements and other data in support of his claims. In fact it still has not been done. To summarize, after 96 years, Taung Child has joined a growing number of increasingly controversial individuals residing in the hominid tree of life.
Brain size is a standard argument to show the evolutionary development of primates. Graph 4 is adapted from a display at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City on “The Evolution of Man.” It suggests that this progression represents the development of the brain as man evolved from the Gibbon to his present state. “However, no evolutionist in the world—past or present—believes that it (evolution) happened in the way that the chart implies it did. No evolutionist believes that evolution went from the gibbon to chimpanzee to gorilla to the australopithecines to Homo erectus to Neandertal and then to modern humans.” Though this display was in the early 1990s and the concept was false throughout, the literature is rife with brain size today as genetic engineering is touted as the end-all to creating a new and better world through selective modification of human attributes such as brain size. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics believe that the evolution of the neocortex “is linked to our cognitive abilities such as reasoning and language.” The acceptance of purely naturalistic evolution leads to the manipulation of nature including man as a reasonable extension the evolutionary process. Some, such as Wieland Huttner, who led this study, stated that marmot fetuses were selected since the expected modification of the cortex in humans might have unintended results that have ethical implications. If the American Museum’s display, represented here by Graph 4, was not accurate in the early 1900s, it was certainly predictive of the direction science would take in the 21st Century. If the theory that a larger brain size indicates evolutionary superiority as expressed by survival and domination, it would be well to note on the graph that the Neanderthal had a larger brain than does modern humans. This, of course, suggests that brain size may not be as critical as evolutionists might think as defining characteristics that assure the “survival of the fittest.”
Radiometric Dating
A more “scientific” approach to finding the age of strata and fossils is radiometric dating. It is the gold standard of evolutionary time-scaling that uses the use of the statistically predictable decay of a radioactive element into another element(s). Textbooks and the popular press present radiometric dates as absolute and irrefutable. Radiometric dating is like imposing real time on a metronome: both simply mark the passage of time. The concept finds little opposition from creationists, but the application is seen as heavily flawed. Though many others exist, two problems will be considered: 1. The calibration of the radiometric “clock”; and, 2. Determining the correct result from the array of results given by a single test sequence.
Calibration
A radioactive element is one that loses or casts-off electrons because of the instability of the outer, or valence shell. The behavior of a single radioactive atom is less predictable than the toss of a coin, for a coin (discounting one landing on its edge) has only two possibilities. The radioactive atom has many more variables. Like the coin toss, the repeatability of atomic degradation improves with the size of the sample. Nor is a radioactive atom a clock, for it is not in any way tied to the motion of the earth, the sun, or any other body in the universe. Its use as a time-determining standard is its statistical regularity: each radioactive element (parent) decays into a known (daughter) element at a known rate. Given the known (or assumed) properties of the natural conversion of radioactive parents into children through principles explained by the sometimes discarded Second Law, assumptions can be made that can allow the extrapolation of relative or apparent age of the sample. The primary assumptions of radiometric dating are like those of creation and evolution: they cannot be tested, for all have roots in pre-history, according to Henry M. Morris. He lists three basic assumptions:
1. The sample existed in a closed system. This eliminates the possibility of contamination through natural chemical and physical processes. The problem is that there are no closed systems. Every sample exists in an active natural environment where result-altering processes are the rule rather than the exception.
2. The initial ratio of parent to child must be precisely known. A popular assumption that the child element is entirely the result of the decay of the parent. There is no empirical evidence of this, and no scientific reason why it should be true.
3. The decay process must have been consistent throughout the life of the cosmos. Recent studies have shown that there are several causes of variability that affect the decay rate of radioactive elements. The rate of decay is measured in half-lives, that is, in the time it takes one half of the sample to decay from the parent into the child element. Each radioactive element has a unique half-life. Some creationists argue for a variable rate in dispute of the extensive lengths of time that radiometric dating often presumes.
Half-lives of elements vary from 5,730 years for Carbon-14 to 1821 years for Xenon-124. Xenon-124 has far too long of a half-life to measure anything. Every radiometric dating procedure yields a scatter chart rather than a single result. Points within an expected range are accepted and those outside that range are discarded.
Carbon-14
Carbon is one of the elements that is essential to life. It is estimated to be the fourth most abundant element in the cosmos by NASA. Carbon is virtually everywhere: it is found in the rocks including the carbon fuels, the seas, the atmosphere, in plants and animals. As carbon dioxide it is considered a greenhouse gas that limits the radiation of heat from the earth, thus the temperature of the earth. Carbon exists in two forms: C-14 that is unstable, and C-12 that is stable. Most Carbon compounds are formed with whatever combination of the two happens to be available. Carbon-14 is formed naturally in the upper atmosphere by incoming solar radiation acting on Nitrogen-14. Being unstable, as soon as it is formed it begins to decay back into Nitrogen-14.
Carbon-14 dating is useful for recent dates, that is, from roughly the present to a few thousand years ago. The upper limit is debated, but it is somewhere around 500 to 50 thousand years, though some experts would hold the upper limit to much less. Carbon-14 dating is only useful for organic compounds, with very limited exceptions. This does not diminish the important role it plays in dating historical artifacts. Given a reasonable expectation of accurate results, it is useful for dating burned and charred artifacts from campfires, cities, and forests, as well as the remains of living things. Radiocarbon theory holds that the C-14/12 ratio becomes fixed when the fire dies or life ends.
Radiocarbon dating is based upon several assumptions that are not founded upon irrefutable data, according to Mike Brown:
1. The rate of decay of C-14 has always been a constant: although some challenge this assumption, experimental evidence does not exist.
2. The C-14/12 ratio in the biosphere has remained constant: this is a major weak point in the theory. This will be discussed below.
3. The C-14/12 ratio in the specimen was in equilibrium when it was formed: if C-14/12 was in equilibrium in the earth and its atmosphere, and if the sample exhibited the same ratio at the time it was formed, this may be true. To infer this from the sample in order to calibrate the results of the test is another case of circular logic.
4. There have been no changes in carbon content other than through the C-14/12: carbon’s structure allows it to combine readily with other elements and compounds making contamination possible or even probable. Contaminating carbon is readily available to samples in contact with the atmosphere, with rain or groundwater, or with volcanic activity. “Marine shells in Hawaii show younger dates if preserved in volcanic ash instead of limestone,” reports Brown. Aerial Roth found that most living oceanic specimens date “several hundred years old, while some aquatic mosses currently living in Iceland date 6-8 thousand years old, and some living snails from Nevada yield apparent ages of 27 thousand years old.
5. The correct ratio can be accurately measured today: current results are not simple “answers,” but scatter diagrams that the investigator must evaluate, discarding unwanted results and keeping those that appear to the investigator to be reasonable. Subjectivity drives the selected date.
Regarding Assumption 2, two ratios are critical to radiometric carbon dating: the ratio between C14/12 at the time the sample was formed, and the current ratio. Four factors could significantly alter the carbon content and ratio: the earth’s carbon inventory, cosmic ray intensity, the strength of Earth’s geomatic field intensity, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. These are quantitatively unknown in the early earth, thus provide uncertainties in assessing accuracy of results. Hans E. Suess reports that, “It seems probable that the present-day inventory of natural C-14 does not correspond to the equilibrium value, but is increasing.” V. R. Switzer found that carbon ratios “indicate that the concentration increases at least during the past 10,000 years.”
Archeology has found similar problems with radiocarbon dating. William F. Albright and others date Sumerian and Egyptian written documents, based upon content, context, and other extant contemporary documents, at about 3,500 BC while C14/12 dating yields dates of 8-9 thousand years ago, or 6-7 thousand BC. “One of the greatest problems that archeologists have had to handle is the overlap and replacement of Neanderthal with anatomically modern humans in Central Europe. Matthew Mason finds the opposite problem: “Contamination by modern carbon sources suggests that the dates often thrown up at the greater end of the range of radiocarbon dating suggest that traditionally understood dates of the appearance of modern humans, disappearance of Neanderthals and the extent to which they overlap on the continent, suggest that dates acquired over the last 50 years may be too young in some instances.” Mason bases his opinion on the need to make fossils fit, rather than on a scientific evaluation of the science of radiocarbon dating, illustrating the driving force for radiometric dating. Research casts doubts on the accuracy of the validity of carbon radiometric dating in absolute terms.
Uranium-238
Uranium-238 is probably the best known of the long-term radiometric dating methods. It involves far more complex procedures than the C14-12 system, but maintains many of the same types of shortcomings in accuracy. The basic assumptions listed in Calibration, above. Three separate but interrelated decay chains come into consideration: U-238 >>> Lead-206 plus 8 Helium atoms (half-life = 4.5 billion years); Lead-207 plus 7 Helium atoms (half-life = 700 thousand years); Thorium-232 >>> Lead-208 plus 7 Helium atoms (half-life = 14.1 billion years). These plus Lead 204 (“natural” lead) and Lead 210 plus other isotopes are often found in the same sample. Unlike Carbon, these are naturally occurring elements that do not rely on the carbon cycle for their presence. Volcanism and the migration of radioactive isotopes as a gas are known sources of these elements. Without exploring the complexities, three arguments cast doubt on the accuracy of the processes as absolute standards: there are no closed systems, so contamination is possible; decay rates may not be fixed, so variability is compounded by the stacked set of radioactive elements; and, some daughter products were probably present in the beginning. A fourth problem is that, the included radioactive products may often be included products in the parent rocks, thus not representing that age well. Like radiometric carbon dating, ages can be significantly elevated. Experimental data that shows discordant results include the dating of modern lava flows
The Common Thread
Igor D. Novikov argues against an extreme age for the cosmos based on the existence of radioactive elements: “We can remind ourselves that the mere fact of the irreversibility of radioactive decay provides good evidence for evolution. If the Earth—a heavenly body—existed for an infinite time, all the radioactive elements would have (infinitely long!) since decayed. But we know that radioactive elements are present in the terrestrial crust. Hence, some finite period has elapsed since Earth, its crust and radioactive elements, formed.”
Chapter 5
Theological Considerations
“3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.” (Ps. 115:3).
“For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.” (Luke 21:15).
Man, by nature, seeks inclusion. He is uncomfortable as the “odd man out.” The proliferation of team clothing is but one example of his attempt to belong. Self-identification as an evolutionist is similar; including oneself in the mainstream helps to deflect individual feelings of inadequacy. When these needs are ignored, the progressive church finds itself in a quandary: only the resources of the mega church with throngs of pastoral staff, marketing experts, a creative worship staff, and a social message can compete with secular entertainment.
God’s plan is different. Biblical theology extols the “old time religion” that contemporary church leaders fear is a “turn-off” to the modern crowd, because it tells man that he is an abject sinner (Rom. 3:23), bound for an eternity in Hell, if he does not repent and accept God the Son (Rom 6:23), who became a man, suffered an ignoble death at the hands of His own people and the Roman government (John 3:16-17), and rose again as King of Kings and his only path to salvation Rom 14:9). In this relativistic feel-good society, this is not exactly a popular message. Does biblical theology have a solution? Is Genesis 1 part of that solution?
The God Who Is
God is. In His infinitude there is no past, present, or future. He made time for man and can transcend eternity to interact with creation, but is not in any temporal.
God communicates with man. YHVH ‘Elohiym revealed Himself to Moses “in a flame of fire” (Ex. 3:2), proclaiming emphatically: “hayah hayah”: I AM THAT I AM (Ex 3:14). God repeated the proclamation “hayah” ninety-three times in the Pentateuch, much of it in the Law. In the context of beginnings, this is the dynamic revelation of the eternal God to His creature man: man who, after ‘Adam, developed great skill at killing his fellow man, including his unborn, stealing, lying, coveting, and most grievously, blaspheming his Creator. YHVH ‘Elohiym is without beginning or end: “I am (eimi: emphatically stated) Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8). He eternally is. In philosophical terms He is Being, for He never changes, and in His perfection has no cause for change.
Christian dogma can be none other than the absolute sovereignty and eternality of the righteous triune God of creation. Attendant is the absolute inerrancy of His Word, the Bible. He created ordered complexity, according to D. A. Carson, that continues to astound researchers. Isaiah wrote:
“9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure:” (Is. 46:9-10).
Millard J. Erickson recognizes that this includes reality. Truth is absolute. Paul wrote:
“16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist” (Col. 1:16-17).
Here is a clear and irrefutable statement of cause and effect, and of motive: God (the cause), created (the effect), all for Him (the motive) (cf. Rev. 4:11). Confirming the immutability of the God of Creation, Isaiah wrote: “God never changes (Mal. 3:6). In addition, He remains a jealous God (Ex. 20:5; 34:14; Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; Josh. 24:19; etc.). Jeremiah warned: “Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit” (Jer. 2:11). Donald K. McKim explains well the foundational importance of the doctrine of creation to the Christian concept of God (therefore the Christian religion):
“Since God as Creator is the explanation for the existence of the world and for human existence, it is the activity of creation that establishes our deepest and most essential relation to God: as Creator, and thus Lord. The doctrine of God as Creator, then, is perhaps the most basic conception of God that we know.”
Man is indebted, accountable, to his creator. Contemporary man, as have so many since creation, would remake God in his own corrupt and limited image. The informing fire from which God spoke to Moses is a two-edged sword: “For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God” (Deut. 4:24). Since God is the creator of all, “there is no neutral segment of the creation devoid of spiritual significance, no division of reality into the inherently good and the evil, or sacred and secular,” Erickson concludes.
Bowing to the Experts
This is the information age. Highly refined marketing techniques selected for targeted audiences provide desired results for those willing to pay the price. Endless repetition of the message by “experts” is a primary tactic. The unity of the evolutionary community is found in the message, not the content. The goal is the conversion or elimination of God and His followers. Katherine F. Manwaring wrote: “Examining the world in the context of evolution is central to understanding the biological patterns and complexity found in nature. … This common rejection of evolution by the general population impedes the ability … to truly understand and embrace nature.” Wilkinson says that “religious authority within society has been replaced by science, and realms of explanation that were once thought to be the exclusive property of God are now in science’s grip.” Society awaits the next pronouncements of self-proclaimed experts for information and direction for their lives—if these are video presentations of short duration. This is in stark contrast to the biblical mandate to engage in a lifetime of study and learning to receive God’s approval (2 Tim. 2:15).
Contemporary Theology
The operational philosophy of contemporary Christian theology is inclusiveness, and the method is compromise. Paul warned: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come except there be a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;” (2 Thess. 2:3). Deceit is the norm in today’s relativistic society. Lies in the guise of truth emanate from politicians who promise one thing and deliver another, from the media that “creates” news to further its own agenda, and increasingly from theologians who claim the mantle of Christianity while rejecting the very Word of God. Sola Scriptura has been cast aside as outmoded as the church embraces scientiae et Scripturas (science then Scripture), and society at large proclaims Sola Scientiae (science alone). Man in his knowledge and wisdom thinks he has risen above God. Contemporary theology is characterized by those who want to “assist” God by modifying His Word to conform to current scientific wisdom. After all, these helpers commiserate, Scripture was written to a “pre-scientific” audience that was ignorant of modern science and wisdom. God had to dumb-down His presentation to make creation understandable to them. Harlow says, “Genesis tells us the absolute truth about the creation, but it does not tell us the complete truth; it is not enough.” This comports neatly with the wisdom of the evolutionary worldview. “Relevance” is the measure of theology. Erickson says, “The view of the Bible as giving scientific explanations stems from a period of belief in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Thus, all affirmations in the Bible, whether of religious or seemingly scientific character, were considered true.” For biblical Christians, that period of belief in the inspired inerrancy of the Bible continues, for the Word remains unchanged. The law of non-contradiction holds: the Word cannot be both true and not true at the same time and in the same relationship. Both Erickson and Jesus cannot both be right. Jesus also answered that question: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14:6).
Pressure Points
Contemporary theologians face great pressure to conform to scientific philosophy, that has infiltrated the churches that they are raised in and the seminaries that they attend. It is often overwhelming because they lack the personal foundation to hold fast in their faith and the support of mentors and peers. The evolutionary worldview has succeeded in discomfiting Christianity as certainly as did the heresies since the Apostles. Evolutionary marketing attacks the Bible with several myths.
The Bible as a Storybook
Harlow suggests a reevaluation of creation as a fable: “Adam and Eve are strictly literary figures—characters in a divinely inspired story about the imagined past that intends to teach primarily theological, not historical, truths about God, creation, and humanity;” a position he finds attractive since it “does not contradict modern science;” and “does not read into the biblical text anachronistic notions that would have been inconceivable” to the original author and audience. By reducing the Bible to a storybook, Harlow believes that he can remove the tension between Creator and created. He castigates Christians who take the creation account literally, arguing that “Genesis has been a bone of contention throughout the course of Christian history.” Reflecting enlightened theology he says: “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.” In other words, these imaginative biblical creation narratives may contain some truth, but are largely myth intended to teach religious or moral values to a primitive, pre-scientific people in antiquity, and to less-educated people today.
The Outdated Text
Another technique to keep Christianity “relevant” is to continually “update” the Bible to current vernacular English. This is inherently a never-ending cycle, since language constantly changes. The King James Version eliminates this problem since it is a fixed reference; the archaic language is a known factor that can be learned and applied as one would any language. An ancillary problem is the source documents of these translations. No autographs, or original manuscripts, exist. “Modern” translations also adopt “modern” versions of the original languages that have inherent problems and do not have the extensive unbroken history of the texts used by the KJV. This tempts preachers to choose the translation that supports their worldview, sometimes using several versions in one sermon to “prove” their thesis. Bible students using multiple translations find it difficult to memorize or understand Scripture as the Psalmist finds necessary (Psalm 119:11).
The Inaccurate Bible
Science has “proven” that the biblical account of creation contains obvious inaccuracies:
1. The cosmos is far older than the few thousand years allowed by the reckoning of Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656) and others.
2. Each step of the beginning of the cosmos, abiogenesis, and biological evolution, is eons longer than the mythical six days of biblical creation.
3. Man, who is currently the top rung in biological evolution, is but another example of evolution and not in any way a special creation.
The knowing theologian will, then, adapt the biblical account to conform with the reality presented by the current, but ever-changing, knowledge and wisdom of science. As part of this process, he will allegorize biblical accounts of the supernatural and miraculous as religious fable intended to teach religious principles rather than recount historical events. Cornelis van der Kooi disagrees, stating that Scripture is historical fact that reveals a “world (that) is . . . in the midst of a universe that God willingly created for his glory, and for the wellbeing of human(s).”
The Pre-scientific Bible
The Old Testament is pre-scientific. The myths and legends are of little use outside of religious activities for those so inclined. Augustine, in “De Genesi ad Litteram,” set the stage for the modern scientific conflict in the church. He argued that Christians should avoid speaking of biblical matters that conflict with the modern opinions of science, where “one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from the most certain reasoning or observation. … (but should avoid) the Christian writing and uttering such nonsense that, knowing him to be as wide of the mark as … east is from west, the unbeliever can scarcely restrain himself from laughing.” This position roughly marked the beginning of the attempt by the church to reconcile the apparent differences between revelation and observations in nature, requiring the development of Christian doctrine now beset with a “Christianized metaphysics and epistemology in order to give appropriate shape to the hermeneutical principles needed to interpret both biblical texts and the Greek claims about nature,” according to Robert E. Snow. Thus, theology was drawn away from sola Scriptura, by an emphasis by some on church history, and now to a tertiary authority: science. The church, perhaps unwittingly, provided the basis for the development of science. Christian naturalists such as Copernicus (1473-1543) and Galileo (1564-1642) challenged biblical precepts of nature. Science, as understood by Robert Boyle (1627-1691) and others, was the “essential tool” to learn about “created nature.” The Enlightenment elevated an anti-God element opposing divine revelation. William Paley (1743-1805) argued that the “watch on the beach” found by an intelligent but unknowing individual must lead to the conclusion that it must have an intelligent designer; that this was a close correlation as the same observer saw that creation, by analogy, must also require an intelligent designer. Paley’s position is championed today by William Dembski (1960- ).
The Final Authority
There is but one authority for creation: God the creator. His revelation is both general, as demonstrated in nature (John 1:9), and special, as revealed in God’s Word (Psalm 119:160). God is unchanging (Mal. 3:6). Scripture remains constant, open to those who diligently search for its truth: “27 He that diligently seeketh good procureth favour: but he that seeketh mischief, it shall come unto him” (Prov. 11:27). As the source of ultimate truth, the Bible is accurate but not comprehensive. Its accuracy does not contradict real facts, but the observer needs to differentiate fact from theory. Facts that seem to contradict Scripture require two avenues of investigation: 1. The standard against which truth claims are evaluated, assure that the exegetical analysis of Scripture is consistent with the whole of God’s Word; and, 2. Evaluate the “fact” to discern error (1 Kings 3:9). Both require the exegete to seek the instruction of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14; 12:7-11). Some questions will not be answered by this process: this is God’s choice: the efficacy of this process does not depend upon the skill of the investigator, but the will of God and the relationship of the investigator with Him:
“17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.” (Ephesians 4:17-19).
The theologian must actively seek Spirit-led discernment. The Catholic church, as the sole interpreter of Scripture, came into conflict with Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) over the position of the earth in the cosmos. In direct opposition to the church (but not Scripture), these early scientists claimed that the sun was the center of the solar system and that the earth travelled around the sun. This was blasphemy to the Church, that held the literal understanding of select Scripture: “Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble” (Job 9:6). Obviously, if the earth is fixed upon pillars, it could not move. Persecution followed until the church finally agreed with the observed facts of science. The church had failed to take the Bible as a whole, and ignored passages such as Job 26:7: “He stretched out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” Hindsight makes the error seem obvious, but this type of problem continues today as biblical theologians struggle to properly interpret and divide the Word of Truth (2 Tim 2:15).
Christian Theology Recovered
Martin Luther (1483-1546) is largely credited with bringing the focus of the biblical Christian back to the Bible, though there has always been a remnant of God’s people who did not waver from the truth. The popularized term is Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone. As in Luther’s day, the church is drifting from this dogma as it incorporates other sources that often override inconvenient or “unscientific” biblical principles.
Sola Scriptura
Sola Scriptura admits no other authority regarding the things of God than Scripture. Verbum Dei acknowledges that Scripture is the unalterable inerrant complete revelation of God to man. The Bible has no equivalents, no supplements, no peers. Verbum Dei cannot be compromised and still maintain the sovereignty of God: “For the Word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth” (Ps. 33:4). Truth has no degrees; something is either truth or not truth. History may illuminate the biblical account, science may add depth to revelation, but it stands complete and adequate to achieve every purpose of God in His relationship with man. The attack on the veracity of Scripture cannot result in damage to God or His Word, but to natural man’s understanding and relationship with his Creator. The theologian, preacher, teacher, and parent must understand and teach that the Bible is the complete, inerrant, inspired, infallible Word of the triune Godhead. Anything less is apostasy, for either one accepts God as sovereign or judgment awaits: “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” (1 Peter 4:17).
The Real Enemy
Distraction is an effective tool of the enemy of the soul. This enemy is not the scientist or his followers, but is Satan himself: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). The lie of evolution must be addressed and some tools to do that have been presented above. Evolutionists are consistent if nothing else: the type of fallacies dissected from “truth” statements are found throughout evolutionary rhetoric and are discernable by the theologian intent on debunking the lie that God’s truth may be seen.
The battle is one of the spirit world, and the enemy must be attacked on all fronts. The foundation of evolutionary misinformation is the educational system, supported by political and information systems that build upon and reinforce those teachings. The social system follows in lock step. Therefore, Christians, as unique individual members of the body of Christ, are called to serve Him in the capacity for which He has equipped them. Some are called to teach or serve on school and college boards. Others are called to be Christian politicians, while others are equipped to serve in the media. All are called to be His representatives in the home, in business, and in the social environment. The call is certain: “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15).
Revive Us Again
The Christian’s call to service is explicit. It is twofold: 1. Love God with all your being and your neighbor as yourself; and, 2. Go into all the world, beginning where you are at this moment, and testify to the Good News of salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ. Time is limited, both by the limited lifespan of the witness and by the coming tribulation. This is not to scare the biblical Christian, for His Word comforts: “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” John 16:33). Daniel summarizes the road to revival:
“3 And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes: 4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments; 5 We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments: 6 Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.
Three branches of the “tree of life” of evolutionary theories have been briefly reviewed. Each has been shown to be logically inconsistent, inherently self-contradictory, and lacking empirical evidence. Yet evolution has usurped the hearts and minds of many Americans. Some biblical Christians respond with bluster, some with scientific creationism, and others simply ignore the problem. The root problem is not the scientist, the educator, or the politician, but original sin followed by personal sin. The solution includes an informed offensive to proclaim the truth of the Word as the Christian re-assumes responsibility in education, science, and government, but requires a specific methodology: “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting” (Matt. 17:21).
Chapter 6
Conclusions
“Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. … We accept our life as all and enough.” (Humanist Manifesto III).
“Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.” (Eph. 3:20-21).
All that exists begins and ends with the eternal God who transcends His creation. All that God does is for his own pleasure (Rev. 4:11) as opposed to any necessity. He is Creator. He has graciously provided man with a written revelation of His creative acts that is completely accurate but not comprehensive. These acts are written chronologically in outline in Genesis 1 and from man’s perspective in Genesis 2. Both are historical accounts where God is the sole witness until Adam and Eve are created, fully human, on Creation Day Six. The primary purpose of both accounts is to introduce the eternal self-sufficient God to man the creature, who alone of all creation possesses a living soul, eternal from conception. Man’s value is extrinsic, derived from God, not intrinsic, based upon the base materials of his physical being.
Evolution denies God and holds militantly that all that exists came from nothing by chance: the cosmos, life itself, and the panorama of species as they developed from the lowest form of life through man. It is a manifestation of the secular humanist worldview that sets the individual as the standard for all considerations and decisions, except for God, which it categorically denies. The end of every individual is oblivion, and no universal truths exist. Secular humanism is a widely held worldview in American society that has as its published intent to radically change society, in large part by destroying Christianity. Current events suggest that this is not an idle threat.
This investigation has compared the biblical account of creation with primary claims of evolutionary science. The initial disclaimer stands: neither creation nor evolution can be proved by the scientific method. Both are supported by diametrically opposed religions: creation by the Judeo-Christian religions; and evolution by secular humanism. Neither stands solidly within a uniform position supported by most adherents. Both clearly demonstrate the distinctly human proclivity to stand alone and above both peers and God. The claims of the biblical account have stood the test of time, though assailed by many on diverse fronts. Experiential proof exists in the hearts of those changed by the saving grace of Jesus Christ. This is not adequate for those influenced by the forces of Satan, but that is the purview of the Holy Spirit. Evolution claims victory over the pre-scientific myths of the biblical account, and over God Himself. Those claims have been shown to fail tests of logic and evidence. Many of those claims have been shown to be outright fabrications. Yet, these claims are largely believed and are integrated into the worldviews of much of society.
Science is proclaimed to be the savior of mankind, the replacement for regressive and dangerous religions, especially Christianity. Contemporary man is programmed to believe that science reigns supreme, and the world of marvelous gadgets supports this claim, causing even the Christian and his theologians to waver. But doubt sometimes surfaces. “Today we can say that we understand the evolution of the cosmos,” muses Fritzsch, “but can we truly find an underlying meaning? Or is all cosmic evolution ultimately senseless? Is our existence merely a futile attempt by the cosmos to transcend its limits, to give itself a meaning that it does not and cannot have? Science cannot answer these questions.” Fritzsch reveals the questions that all men have, even if hidden: these are the questions that opened this inquiry: How did it all begin? Where did we come from? What comes next? Is there a God? While rejecting God in favor of human wisdom, he betrays a need for a higher power, shown by personifying the cosmos with some form of wisdom and power, a causal force not found in inanimate objects, or in finite beings. Hawking found that his naturalistic approach was problematic: “The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.” The universality of order that interlocks the smallest conceivable increments of matter and energy with the entirety of the cosmos confounds the most astute minds that attempt to refute the God of creation. There is simply no reason to believe that this incredibly finely-tuned system exists by accident.
Wilkinson states, “Science asks us to think again about theology. … At the same time, science also raises questions that go beyond its own ability to answer and therefore invites theology into a dialogue.” For that dialogue to be possible, the biblical church must engage science; it must encourage its young people to enter the fields of science and engineering as practitioners and teachers; it must re-engage public education at all levels from entry-level through post-doctoral. The Christian community, led by biblical theologians, must actively engage in the education of its youth to overcome the results of the evangelistic secular system now in place that draws Christians away from Biblical truth in the name of science. The indoctrination of modern man by secular humanism must be met head-on by the clear revelation of Scripture as commanded by Jesus:
“36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matt. 22:36-40).
“18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matt. 28: 18-20).
As ‘Adam was given work and the responsibility to complete it, so is the modern Christian. Love for our neighbor (and our children) surely extends to their eternal soul. Teaching those we love to observe all that God has commanded surely includes a true understanding of creation. Reaching the lost who are grounded in evolutionary worldviews is certainly enhanced by an understanding of their concerns and confusions. In the end, God’s will prevails.
Appendix 1
Chart 4: Genesis 1:1-2:3
1. In the Beginning God created
The heaven and the earth
2. 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. And
3. God said,
Let there be light: and
There was light. And
4. God saw
The light, that it
Was good: and
God divided
The light from the darkness. And
5. God called
Light Day, and
The darkness
He called
Night. And
The evening and the morning were the first day. And
6. God said
Let there be a firmament
In the midst of the waters, and
Let it divide the waters
From the waters. And
7. God made
The firmament, and
Divided
The waters which were under the firmament from
The waters which were above the firmament: and
It was so. And
8. God called
The firmament Heaven. And
The evening and the morning were the second day. And
9. God said
Let the waters under the heaven
be gathered together unto one place, and
Let the dry land appear: and
it was so. And
10. God called
The dry land Earth; and
the gathering together of the waters called He Seas: and
God saw
that it was good. And
11. God said,
Let the earth bring forth grass,
The herb yielding seed, and
The fruit tree yielding fruit
after his kind,
whose seed is in itself,
Upon the earth: and
It was so. And
12. The earth brought forth
grass, and
herb yielding seed
after his kind, and
the tree yielding fruit,
whose seed was in itself,
after his kind: and
God saw
that it was good. And
13. The evening and the morning were the third day. And
14. God said
Let there be lights
In the firmament of the heaven
To divide the day from the night
Let them be for signs, and
For seasons, and
For days, and
For years: and
15. Let them be for lights
In the firmament of the heaven
To give light upon the earth: and
It was so. And
16. God made
Two great lights;
The greater to rule the day, and
The lesser to rule the night:
He made
the stars also. And
17. God set them
in the firmament of heaven
to give light upon the earth, and
18. to rule over the day and
To rule over the night, and
To divide the light from darkness: and
God saw
that it was good. And
19. The evening and the morning were the fourth day. And
20. God said
Let the waters bring forth abundantly
The moving creature that hath life, and
Fowl that may fly above the earth
In the open firmament of the heaven. And
21. God created
Great whales, and
Every living creature that moveth,
Which the waters brought forth abundantly,
After their kind, and
Every winged fowl
After his kind; and
God saw
that it was good.
22. God blessed them, saying,
Be fruitful, and
Multiply, and
Fill the waters in the seas, and
Let the fowl multiply in the earth. And
23. The evening and the morning were the fifth day. And
24. God said
Let the earth bring forth the living creature
After his kind;
Cattle, and
The creeping thing, and
Beast of the earth
After his kind:
And it was so. And
25. God made
The beast of the earth
After his kind, and
Cattle
After their kind, and
Every living thing that creepeth upon the earth
After his kind: and
God saw
That it was good. And
26. God said
Let us make man
In our image,
After our likeness: and
Let them have dominion
Over the fish of the sea, and
Over the fowl of the air, and
Over all the earth, and
Over every creeping thing
That creepeth upon the earth. So
27. God created man
In His own image,
In the image of God
Created He him;
Male and female
Created He them. And
28. God blessed them, and
God said
Unto them
Be fruitful and multiply, and
Replenish the earth, and
Subdue it: and
Have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and
over the fowl of the air, and
over every living thing
that moveth
upon the earth. And
29. God said
I have given you
Every herb bearing seed
Which is upon the face of all the earth, and
Every tree,
In the which is
The fruit of a tree yielding seed;
To you it shall be for meat. And
30. to every beast of the earth, and
To every fowl of the air, and
To every living thing that creepeth upon the earth,
Wherein there is life,
I have given
Every green herb for meat: And
It was so. And
31. God saw
Everything that He had made, and
Behold, it was very good. And
The evening and the morning were the sixth day.
1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and
All the host of them. And
2. on the seventh day
God ended
His work which He had made; and
He rested
on the seventh day
From all His work
Which He had made; and
3. God blessed
The seventy day, and
Sanctified it; because that
In it
He had rested from all His work which
God created and made.
This box diagram is after Charles Finney who held that this method helped to provide an understanding of Scripture that was not possible by other methods. This diagram considers only the English transliteration of the Hebrew text as presented in the King James Version of the Bible. The author acknowledges the shortcoming of this when compared with a thorough exegesis of the original Hebrew, but admits his inadequacy for that task. For the purpose of this paper, however, it is adequate. Chart 2, “The Orderliness of Creation,” is useful in evaluating this diagram.
Bullinger states that Genesis 1 is the first example in the Bible of a literary technique known as an anadiplosis, that is, like words or sentences repeated for emphasis. Specifically, “it is used to call our attention to, and emphasize, the fact that, while the statement refers to two things, “the heaven and the earth”; the following statement proceeds to speak of only one of them, leaving the other entirely out of consideration.” He states that though both were created “in the beginning,” the earth at some point “became without form (tohuw) and void (bohuw), a paronomasia, that is rhyming words whose meanings are not the same but are brought together for emphasis. Isaiah, writing many years after Moses, stated that:
“18 For thus saith the LORD that created (bara’) the heavens; God Himself that formed (yatsar) the earth and made it (‘asah); He hath established it, He created (bara’) it not in vain (tohuw), He formed it (yatsar) to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else” (Is. 45:18).
The diagram illustrates the clear distinctions the inspired author made between each of the six days of creation as well as between the “In the beginning” prologue and the “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished” epilogue. Moses opened Days 1 through 6 with “And God said” (‘elohiym ‘amar), and closed: “And the evening and morning were the “Xth” day.” While many conservative theologians over the years include the prologue with Day 1, this diagram strongly suggests that it is, rather, God’s introduction to His six days of preparing the earth and in a limited sense, the cosmos, for man. The opening two verses are distinct from the remainder of the creation narrative. Rather than outlining the events of a specific period, these identify the subject of the narrative to follow. Verse 1 identifies the timeframe, the primary actor, His action, and the limits of his actions, while verse 2 identifies the initial characteristics of the material He would work with throughout the creative process, and the non-temporal nature of the plural singular ‘elohiym. This passage reveals that God began (Gen. 1:1) and ended (Gen. 2.2) the creation process in an intentional and ordered way that is logically sound and scientifically irrefutable.
The account speaks of seven days (yowm). The first six days are clearly bounded by ‘ereb boqer, while the seventh day, mentioned three times (twice in Gen 2:2, and once in Gen. 2:3) is unbounded. The seventh unbounded day emphasizes the boundaries revealed by the repetitive ‘ereb boqer for the six days. Anything other than six solar days is problematic. The length of the solar day was “calibrated” by God on Day 4 (Gen 1:14-19) as He “made the two great lights; the greater to rule the day … ,” giving room for discussion of the length of Days 1-3, but the consistency of ‘ereb boqer does not seem to suggest any significant deviation from the nominal 24-hour days that Moses’ readers experienced.
The six days were discussed in the body of the text. God’s rest on Day 7 is found in Gen. 2:2-3. Here He ended the six days of creation and rested. From this vantage He blessed and sanctified it, “because that in it He had rested … .” The question of the length of this rest is beyond the scope of this discussion, but one NT passage provides some insight: “11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created” (Rev. 3:11). Here creation is both present and past tense.
Appendix 2
Biblical References to Creation
Following is a partial list of biblical references to creation:
Old Testament
Genesis 1; 2; 3:17-19; 5:1, 2; 6:7
Exodus 20:11; 31:17
Deuteronomy 4:32; 32:4
Nehemiah 9:6
Job 12:7-10; 26:13; 33:4; 38:7
Psalm 8:3-4; 19:1, 6; 33:5, 6, 9; 51:10; 89:12; 97:6; 102:25; 104:24, 30; 113:4; 115:16; 124:8; 135:6; 136:5; 145:10; 146:5-6; 148:5
Proverbs 3:19; 8:22; 16:4
Isaiah 40:26, 28; 41:20; 42:5; 43:1, 7; 45:7, 8, 12, 16, 18; 65:17
Jeremiah 10:12
Ezekiel 28:13, 15
Amos 4:13
Malachi 2:10
New Testament
Matt. 19:4; 24:21
Mark 10:6; 13:19
John 1:1-3, 10
Acts 14:17; 17:26
Romans 1:20, 25; 4:17; 8:19, 28, 39
1 Corinthians 8:6; 11:9
2 Corinthians 4:6; 5:17
Ephesians 1:10; 2:10; 3:9; 4:24
Colossians 1:16-17, 20; 2:10; 3:10
1 Timothy 4:3, 4
Hebrews 1:1; 11:3
2 Peter 3:5, 10-13
Revelation 3:14; 4:11; 10:6
Appendix 3
Chart 5: Hominid Fossil Summary
Index Fossil Name Location Pseudonym # Individuals Sample Content Age
Sahelanthropus tchadensis TM 266-01-060-1 1 Partial cranium 6-7 million
Ardipithecus ramidus ARA-VP 17 teeth, one partial lower jaw, one partial cranium base, two partial arm bones, one individual 45% 4.4 million
Australopithecus anamensis KP 271 Kanapoi Hominid 3 lower humerus, lower jaw w/all teeth, partial tibia 4.0 million
Australopithecus afarenesis AL 129-1 1 portions of both legs including one knee 3.4 million
Australopithecus afarenesis AL 288-1 Lucy 1 40% skeleton 3.2 million
Australopithecus afarenesis ??? AL 333 First Family 13 not specified variety
Australopithecus afarenesis AL 444-2 1 70% skull 3 million
Kenyanthropus platyops KNM-WT 40000 1 mostly complete cranium, some teeth 3.5 million
Australopithecus Africanus Taung 1 Taung Child 1 full face, teeth, jaws, braincase ???
Australopithecus Africanus TN 1512 1 partial face, upper jaw, braincase ???
Australopithecus Africanus Sts 14 1 partial vertebral column, pelvis, some rib fragments, part of one femur 2.5 million
Australopithecus garhhi BOU-VP-12/130 1 partial jaw with upper jaw w/teeth 2.5 million
Australopithecus sediba MH1 1 partial skull, partial skeleton ???
Australopithecus ??? Stw 573 Little Foot 1 partial foot, leg, hand, and arm, complete skull 3.3 million
Australopithecus aethiopicus1 KNM-WT 17000 The Black Skull 1 Partial cranium 2.5 million
Australopithecus robustus (formerly Paranthropus robustus) TM 1517 1 five teeth, few skeletal fragments ???
Australopithecus robustus (formerly Paranthropus crassidens) SK 48 1 partial skull 1.5-2.0 million
Australopithecus robustus DNH 7, DNH 8 Eurydice; Orpheus 2 one partial skull, 2 lower jaw 1.5-2.0 million
Australopithecus boisei OH 5 Zinjanthropus, Nutcracker Man 1 partial cranium 1.8 million
Australopithecus boisei KNM-ER 406 1 intact cranium w/o teeth 1.7 million
Australopithecus boisei KNM-ER 732 1 cranium 1.7 million
Australopithecus boisei KGA 10-525 1 partial skull w/lower jaw 1.4 million
Homo hablis2 OH 7 Jonny’s Child 1 2 cranial fragments w/lower jaw 1.8 million
Homo hablis OH 8 1 set of foot bones less back of heel and toes 1.8 million
Homo hablis OH 13 Cindy 1 lower jaw, teeth 1.6 million
Homo hablis OH 16 George 1 fragmentary parts of skull, teeth 1.7 million
Homo hablis OH 24 Twiggy 1 partial crushed cranium, seven teeth 1.9 million
Homo hablis or Homo rudolfensis ??? KNM-ER 1470 1 partial skull 1.9 million
Homo hablis or Homo rudolfensis ??? KNM-ER 1481 1 femur, tibia ends, lower fibula ???
Homo hablis ??? KNM ER 1805 The Mystery Skull 1 cranium, teeth 1.85 million
Homo hablis KNM-ER 1813 1 partial skull 1.8-1.9 million
Homo hablis ??? Stw 53 1 cranium fragments, teeth 1.5-2 million
Homo hablis ??? OH 62 Dik-dik hominid 1 fragments of skull, arm, leg, teeth 1.8 million
Homo hablis OH 65 1 upper jaw, partial lower face 1.8 million
Homo erectus, formerly Homo hablis, formerly Pithecanthropus erectus Pithecanthropus I, Trinil 2 Java Man. 1 skullcap; teeth (possibly belonging to orangutans); femur now assigned as modern human 500-300 thousand to modern
Homo erectus, formerly Homo hablis (formerly Sinathropus pekinesis) Peking Man Multi 14 partial craniums, 11 lower jaws, teeth, some skeletal bones; plus modern human remains 500-300 thousand
Homo erectus Sangiran 3 Pithecanthropus II 1 braincase ???
Homo erectus OH 9 Chellean Man 1 partial braincase 1.5 million
Homo erectus OH 12 Pinhead 5 skull fragments 1.2 million -800 thousand
Homo erectus Sangiran 17 Pithecanthropus VIII 1 Partial cranium 1.7 million -800 thousand
Homo erectus or Homo ergaster KNM-WT 15000 Turkana Boy 1 skeleton missing only hands and feet 1.6 million
Homo georgicus D27003 1 partial skull, lower jaw 1.8 million
Homo antecessor ATD6-69 1 partial face 480 thousand
Homo sapiens or Homo heidelbergensis Heidelberg Heidelberg Man, Mauer Jaw 1 lower jaw, teeth 700-400 thousand
Homo sapiens was Homo rhodesienesis Kabwe Rhodesian Man, Kabwe 1 cranium 200-125 thousand
Homo sapiens or Homo heidelbergenesis Arago XXI Tautavel Man 1 partial face, partial braincase, five teeth 400 thousand
Homo sapiens or Homo erectus4 Petralona 1 1 skull, teeth 500 thousand
Homo sapiens Atapuerca 5 1 skull with lower jaw, teeth 400 thousand
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis5 Feldhofer Neanderthal 1 1 skullcap, thigh bones, partial pelvis, some ribs, some arm and shoulder bones ??? to modern
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Grotto of Spy Spy 1 and 2 2 almost complete skeletons 600 thousand
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Krapina Site 2-3 dozen “significant remains” ???
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis La-Chapelle-aux-Saints, Fr Old Man 1 “nearly complete” skeleton 50 thousand
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Shanidar Site 9 partial skeletons 70-40 thousand
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis St-Cesaire, Fr 1 crushed partial skeleton w/partial skull 35 thousand
Homo floresiensis or Homo erectus LB1 Hobbit LB1 1 partial skull, partial skeleton 18 thousand
Homo sapiens sapiens6 France Cro-Magnon Man 5 5 buried skeletons 35-10 thousand
NOTES:
1. Australopithecus aethiopicus, robustus, boisei not being classified as Paranthropus
2. The genus Homo is considered the same general category as modern man
3. Considered an “almost perfect” transitional form between Homo habilis and Homo ergaster
4. Classified as by some to be a Homo sapiens neanderhalensis
5. Considered by some to be a modern human
6. Considered identical with modern man
LOCATION ABBREVIATIONS:
ER East Lake, Rudolf, Kenya OH Olduvai Hominid, Tanzania
WT West Lake, Rudolf, Kenya AL Afar Locality, Ethiopia
KP Kanapoi, Kenya ARA-VP Aramis Vertebrate Paleontology
SK Swartkrans, South Africa BOU-VP Bouri Vertebrate Paleontology, Ethiopia
Sts, Stw Sterkfontein, South Africa TM Toros-Menalla, Chad
TM Transvaal Museum, South Africa
GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONVENTIONS:
Skull: all the bones of the head.
Cranium: the skull minus the lower jaw.
Braincase: the cranium minus the face and upper jaw.
Skullcap: the top portion of the braincase.
Adapted from Jim Foley, “Prominent Hominid Fossils,” talk.origins Archive, 22 May 2011, npn, accessed 27 May 2020, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html. Used with permission of the author.
Appendix 4
The American Humanist
Secular humanism is one of many varieties of atheism. The American Humanist Association has attempted to codify a set of tenants that provide a point of reference for reviewers of the humanistic worldview. A major dogma of humanism is the primacy of the individual. This characteristic makes unity problematic. But there are points of commonality: the total rejection of God and acceptance of evolution. The motto of the American Humanist Association is “Good without God,” a philosophy that its founders have found to be somewhat untenable among its followers since there is no basis for morality and the entire system is relativistic. Yet, this is representative of the worldview that permeates all levels of education, government, business, and increasingly churches.
A series of Humanist Manifestos have been written, each attempting to define secular humanism, but each facing revision as the relativism that it promotes is the ever-changing quicksand upon which these are conceived. The first, entitled A Humanist Manifesto (1933) alone claimed to be a new religion and saw humanism as a religious movement that would replace all other religions. Excerpts from that manifesto follow:
1. “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
2. Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.”
3. “… the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of ‘new thought.’”
4. “Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation—all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.”
5. “Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here in now.”
6. “Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability.”
7. “The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted.”
This is limited to an overview rather than a detailed analysis, but several observations are necessary. Secular humanism is militantly godless and anti-Christian. It intentionally encompasses all of life. It speaks of reprogramming the minds of its followers without revealing the power structure that will control content and “educational” efforts. Finally, it promises to institute radical changes in society, again through the direction of an unidentified decision making and implementing structure.
Revisions were necessary as its proponents found that an assumed inherent goodness of man was illusionary. The original was followed by Humanist Manifesto II (1973) and Humanist Manifesto III (2003) continues the original premise, but in a subdued and abbreviated form, acknowledging the increasing awareness of natural man’s inherently evil nature:
1. Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.
2. Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.
3. Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.
4. Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
5. Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
6. Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.
Standing out in this manifesto is the first and second points that claim empirical evidence evaluated by the scientific method, and the acceptance of evolution as the only possibility for creation. The direction of this movement remains fixed even as the manifestos “evolve”: “We seek to minimize the equalities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.”
Francis A. Schaeffer, speaking of man’s understanding of his own existence, in terms of his own observation, puts it into logical perspective:
“The Christian view is exactly in line with the experience of every man, but no other system except the Judeo-Christian one—that which is given in the Old and New Testaments together—tells us why there is a subject-object correlation that one does and must act on. Everybody does act on it, everybody must act on it, but no other system tells you why there is a correlation between the subject and the object. In other words, all men constantly and consistently act as though Christianity is true. … The fact is that if we are going to live in this world at all, we must live in it acting on a correlation of ourselves and the thing that is there, even if one has a philosophy that there is no correlation.”
Endnotes
Bibliography
Albright, William F. “Sumerian Civilization.” Science, 141 (16 August 1963). Accessed 1 July 2020. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i299181.
“American Public Education: An Origin Story.” Education News (16 April 2013). Accessed 13 May 2020. https://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/american-public-education-an-origin-story/.
Aquinas, Thomas. Suma Theologica. 1. Q. 10.4.
Archer, Gleason. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.
Aristotle, Physics, IV. 11. 219b.
———-. “Posterior Analytics.” I.3 72b1-15. Translated by Patrick Byrne Hugh, Analysis and Science in Aristotle. SUNY Series in Ancient Greek Philosophy. NY: State University of NY Press, 1977.
Asimov, Isaac. “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even.” Journal of Smithsonian Institute (June 1970).
———-. “The Spiritual Life: Isaac Asimov Quotes” (undated). Accessed 6 May 2020. https://slife.org/isaac-asimov/.
Augustine. “De Gensi ad Litteram.” Translated by Meyrich H Carre. Realists and Nominalists. London: Oxford University Press, 1946.
Baggott, Jim. Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth. NY: Pegasus Books, 2013.
Benz, Arnold. Astrophysics and Creation: Perceiving the Universe Through Science and Participation. Chestnut Ridge, NY: Crossroad Publishing, 2016.
Born, Max. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. NY: Dover Publication, 1965.
Branscomb, Elbert, and Michael J. Russell. “Frankenstein or a Submarine Alkaline Vent: Who is responsible for Abiogenesis? Advanced Science News, Bioessays 40 (2018). Accessed 3 June 2020. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/doi/full/10.1002/bies.201700179.
Brown, Mike. “Carbon 14 Dating.” Mike’s Origins Resources, Molecular History Research Center, 3. Accessed 1 July 2020. http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/C14b.htm.
Bruylants, F. G., K. Bartik, and J. Reisse. “Prebiotic Chemistry: A Fuzzy Field.” Comptes Rendus Chimie 14, doi:10.1016/j.crci.2010.04.002. Accessed 2 June 2020. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/comptes-rendus-chimie.
Buiter, Susan J. H., O. Pfiffner, and Christopher Beaumont, “Inversion of Extensional Sedimentary Basins: A Numerical Evaluation of the Localisation Shortening.” Earth and Planetary Science Letters (November 2009), Vol. 288, 3. DOI: 10.1016/j.epsi. 2009.10.011. Accessed 1 July 2020. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223511612_Inversion_of_extensional_sedimentarybasins._
Campbell, John H. “Autonomy in Evolution,” Perspectives on Evolution. Edited by Roger Milkman. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1982.
Cann, Rebecca L., and Mark Stoneking, and Allan C. Wilson. “Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution.” Nature, 325 (1987).
Carson, Andrew P. “Creation and the Logic of Being in Leibniz.” Pennsylvania State University thesis (December 1997). UMI No. 9817445.
Carson, D. A. “A Theology in 12 Points.” desiringgod.org (undated). Accessed 21 August 2019. https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/a-theology-of-creation-in-12-points.
Clementson, Sidney P. “A Critical Examination of Radioactive Dating of Rocks.” Creation Research Society Quarterly, 7, no. 2 (December 1970). Accessed 12 August 2020. https://www.creationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/crsq-1970-volume-7-number-2.pdf.
Cohen, I. Bernard. “Scientific Revolution and Creativity in the Enlightenment.” Eighteenth-Century Life 7, no. 2 (1982).
Coyne, J. A. “Science, Religion, and Society: The Problem of Evolution in America.” Evolution, 66, 2654-2663. As cited by Jon S. Miller and Ronald Toth. “The Process of Scientific Inquiry as It Relates to the Creation/Evolution Controversy: A Serious Social Problem.” The American Biology Teacher, 76, no. 4 (April 2014). Accessed 21 August 2019. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/abt.2014.76.4.4.
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. NY: Avenel Books, 1979.
———-. Voyage of the Beagle. The Harvard Classics. Edited by Charles W. Eliot. NY: P. F. Collier and Son, 1937.
Davies, Paul. God and the New Physics. Hammondsworth: Pelican, 1983.
Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1999.
Eddington, Arthur S. The Nature of the Physical World. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1958.
“Educational Attainment in the United States.” Statistical Atlas of the United States (2018). Accessed 16 April 2020. https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Educational-Attainment.
Einstein, Albert. Personal letter to Heinrich Zangger, 20 May 1912. Quoted by Jim Baggott. Farwell to Reality: How Modern Physics has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth. NY: Pegasus Books, 2013.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
“Evolutionary Key for a Bigger Brain.” CBG Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics (8 June 2020). Accessed 26 June 2020. https://www.mpi-cbg.de/news-events/latest-news/article/news/evolutionary-key-for-a-bigger-brain/.
Ferris, Timothy. The Mind’s Sky: Human Intelligence in a Cosmic Context. NY: Bantam Books, 1992.
Florkin, Michael. “Ideas and Experiments in the Field of Prebiological Chemical Evolution.” Comprehensive Biochemistry, 29B (1975).
Foley, Jim. Prominent Hominid Fossils.” Talk.origins archive (22 May 2011). Accessed 27 May 2020. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html.
Fraser, J. T. The Genesis and Evolution of Time: A Critique of Interpretation in Physics. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1982.
Fritzsch, Harold. The Creation of Matter. Translated by Jean Steinberg. NY: Basic Books, Inc.,1984.
Gocke, Paul. “Panentheism, Transhumanism, and the Problem of Evil: From Metaphysics to Ethics.” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 11, no. 2. Accessed 29 August 2019. DOI: 10.24204/EJPR.V11I2.2971.
Gould, John. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Gould, Stephen Jay. Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fulness of Life. NY: Ballentine Press, 1999.
Groves, Colin, and Peter Grubb. Ungulate Taxonomy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011.
Guggenheim, E. A. Thermodynamics: An Advanced Treatment for Chemists and Physicists. 7th ed. NY: North-Holland, 1986.
Hanby, Michael. Augustine and Modernity. London: Routledge, 2003.
Harlow, Daniel C. “Creation According to Genesis: Literary Genre, Cultural Context, Theological Truth.” Christian Scholar’s Review, 37, no. 2 (Winter 2008). Accessed 3 July 2017. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/201262399?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=12085.
Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. NY: Bantam Books, 1988.
Heck, Joel D. In the Beginning God: Creation from God’s Perspective. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2011.
Hedberg, Hollis Dow. “The Stratigraphic Panorama.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 72 (April 1961).
Heide, Michael, et al., “Human-specific ARHGAP11B Increases Size and Folding of Primate Neocortex in the Fetal Marmoset.” Science (18 June 2020). DOI: 10.1126/science.abb2401. Accessed 26 June 2020. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/06/17/science.abb2401?rss=1.
“How Often do you Attend Church or Synagogue?” Statista (2019). Accessed 16 April 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/245491/church-attendance-of-americans/.
“Humanism and its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933.” American Humanist Association (2003). Accessed 9 April 2020. https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto3/.
“Humanist Manifesto I.” American Humanist Association (undated). Accessed 31 March 2020. https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto1/.
“Humanist Manifesto III.” American Humanist Association (undated). Accessed 29 August 2019. https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto3/.
“Humanist Manifesto III.” Humanists of Greater Portland (undated). Accessed 10 July 2020. https://www.portlandhumanists.org/content/humanist-manifesto-iii.
Hurd, James P. “Hominids in the Garden?” Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. Edited by Keith B. Miller. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Jolly, Clifford J. “A Darwinian Species Definition and its Implications.” Evolutionary Anthropology, 23, no. 1 (January-February 2014). Accessed 15 April 2020. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/doi/full/10.1002/evan.21396.
Kennedy, Kenneth A. R. Neanderthal Man. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company, 1975.
Kidner, Derek. “Genesis: An Introduction & Commentary,” Tyndale Old Testament Commentary. Edited by D. J. Wiseman. Inter-Varsity Press: Downers Grove, 1967.
Koenigswald, G. H. R. von. Meeting Prehistoric Man. Translated by Michael Bullock. NY: Harper and Brothers, 1956.
Kooi, Cornelis van der. “International Journal of Systematic Theology,” 18, no. 1 (January 2016).
Langdon, Adrian E. V. “God the Eternal Contemporary: Trinity, Eternity, and Time in Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics.” Ph.D. thesis, McGill University, 2008.
Lasker, Gabriel Ward. The Evolution of Man: A Brief Introduction to Physical Anthropology. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961.
Leakey, Mary D. “Footprints in the Ashes of Time.” National Geographic (April 1979).
Liu, Y. “Darwin and Mendel: Who was the Pioneer of Genetics?” Rivista di Biologia, 98, vol. 2 (May-August 2005). Accessed 17 June 2020, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16180199/.
“Live Population.” www.livepopulation.com. Accessed 16 September 2019. https://www.livepopulation.com/.
Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by A. C. Fraser. London: S. Birt, et al., 1690; reprint Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894.
Lubenow, Marvin L. Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1992.
Lyell, Charles. Principles of Geology. NY: D. Appleton and Company, 1853.
MacRae, Andrew, “Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?” The Talk.origins Archive (2 October 1998). Accessed 26 June 2020. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html.
Maimonides, Moses ben Maimon. A Guide for the Perplexed.
———-. Hilchot Avodat Kochavim.
Manwaring, Katherine F. “Accepting Evolution and Believing in God: How Religious Persons Perceive the Theory of Evolution.” Order No. 10107995. Brigham Young University, 2016, 3. PROQUESTMS ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; SciTech Premium Collection. Accessed 23 July 2019. http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1793408614?accountid=12085.
Mason, Matthew. “Chronology: Tools and Methods for Dating Historical and Ancient Deposits, Inclusions, and Remains.” Environmental Science.org, (2020). Accessed 30 June 2020. https://www.environmentalscience.org/chronology.
Mayr, Ernst. What Evolution Is. NY: Basic Books/Perseus Books, 2001.
McCrea, W. H. “Cosmology After Half a Century.” Science, 160 (2 June 1968).
McKim, Donald K. “Doctrine of Creation.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1948.
Miller, Jon S. and Ronald Toth. “The Process of Scientific Inquiry as It Relates to the Creation/Evolution Controversy: A Serious Social Problem.” The American Biology Teacher, 76, no. 4 (April 2014). Accessed 21 August 2019. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/abt.2014.76.4.4.
Monod, Jacques. Chance and Necessity: Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology (Le Hasard et la Necessite: Essai sur la Philosophie Naturelle de la Biologie Moderne). Translated by Austryn Wainhouse. NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971.
Moore, Raymond Cecil. Introduction to Historical Geology. 2nd ed. NY: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
Morain, L. and M. Morain. Humanism as the Next Step. Washington, DC: Humanist Press, 1998. As cited by Jon S. Miller and Ronald Toth. “The Process of Scientific Inquiry as It Relates to the Creation/Evolution Controversy: I. A Serious Social Problem.” The American Biology Teacher, 76, no. 4 (April 2014). Accessed 21 August 2019. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/abt.2014.76.4.4.
Morris, Henry M. “Scientific Creationism.” Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985.
Moritz, Albrecht. “The Origin of Life.” The Talk Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy, 31 October 2006. Accessed 30 April 2020. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#Miller1953.
Morowitz, Harold Joseph. Beginnings of Cellular Life: Metabolism Recapitulates Biogenesis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
Nast, Phil. “Understanding Evolution.” National Education Association: Great Public Schools for Every Student. Accessed 21 April 2020. http://www.nea.org/tools/lessons/55490.htm.
Nelson, Paul and John Mark Reynolds. “Young Earth Creationism.” Three Views on Creation and Evolution. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishers, 1999.
Newport, Frank. “God Created Human Beings in Present Form: Results by Education.” American Beliefs: Evolution vs. Bible’s Explanation of Human Origins: Education, Church Attendance, Partisanship Related to Beliefs, Gallup News Service (8 March 2006). Accessed 21 April 2020. https://news.gallup.com/poll/21811/american-beliefs-evolution-vs-bibles-explanation-human-origins.aspx.
Newton, Isaac. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. As quoted by Gerald L. Schroeder. Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible. NY: Bantam Books, 1990.
Novikov, Igor Dmitriyevich. Evolution of the Universe. Translated by M. M. Basko. NY: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Numbers, Ronald. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. NY: Knopf-Doubleday Publishing Group, 1992.
Oden, Thomas C. Agenda for Theology; Recovering Christian Roots. NY: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1979.
Oliver, Simon. “Augustine on Creation, Providence, and Motion,” Durham University (undated). Accessed 28 April 2020. https://www.academia.edu/login?post_login_redirect_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.academia.edu%2Ft%2FbhFDr-NPpZqwe-bjmiDJ%2Fresource%2Fwork%2F38793838%2FAugustine_on_Creation_Providence_and_Motion_penultimate_draft_%3Femail_work_card%3Dview-paper.
Oparin, Alexander Ivanovich and S. Morgulis. The Origin of Life. 2nd ed. NY: Dover Publishing, 1953.
Pascal, Robert, Addy Pross, and John D. Sutherland. “Towards an Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of Life Based on Kinetics and Thermodynamics.” Open Biology, The Royal Society Publishing (November 2013), 3. Accessed 30 April 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3843823/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract.
Pond, Finn R. and Jean L. Pond. “Scientific Authority in the Creation-evolution Debates.” Evolution Education Outreach, 3, no. 4. Accessed 6 April 2020. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1007/s12052-010-0242-0.
Price, George McCready. The New Geology. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1923.
Prigogine, Ilya. Introduction to Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes. NY: Wiley, 1955.
Rad, Gehard von. Genesis: The Old Testament Library. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1973.
Ransom, J. E. Fossils in America. NY: Harper and Row Publishers, 1964.
Riebeek, Holi. “The Carbon Cycle.” NASA Earth Observatory (16 June 2011). Accessed 1 July 2020. https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle.
Riley, William Bell. “Christian Fundamentals in School and Church,” The Christian Fundamentalist, 4, 5. April-June, 1922.
Riser-Kositsky, Maya. “Education Statistics: Facts about American Schools.” Education Week. (16 April 2020). Accessed 16 April 2020. https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/education-statistics/index.html.
Robinson, John T. “Creation-Evolution,” Seminary debate. University of Wisconsin, Madison, 10 February 1978.
Roth, Ariel. Origins, Linking Science and Scripture. Nashville: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1998.
Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago: Moody, 1999.
Sarfati, J. Refuting Compromise. Green Forest: Master Books, 2004.
Schaeffer, Francis. He is There and He is Not Silent. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1972.
Schindewolf, Otto Heinrich. “Comments on Some Stratigraphic Terms.” American Journal of Science, 255 (June 1957).
Schleiermacher, Fredrich. The Christian Faith. Edited by H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart. Berlin, 1830; reprint Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1890.
Schmitz-Moormann, Karl. Theology of Creation in an Evolutionary World. Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 1997.
Schrodinger, Erwin, What is Life? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1944.
Schroeder, Gerald L. Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible. NY: Bantam Books, 1990.
Serafino, Loris. “Abiogenesis as a Theoretical Challenge: Some Reflections.” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Australian College of Kuwait, 402 (2016). Accessed 3 June 2020. https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/2072699797?pq-origsite=summon.
Snow, Robert E. “How Did We Get Here? A Brief Sketch of the Historical Background of the Science-Theology Tension.” Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives of the World’s Formation. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1990.
Spencer, Herbert. First Principles, 4th ed. NY: Rand, McNally and Company, 1880.
Spinoza, Baruch. Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. Translated by S. Shirley. Amsterdam, 1670; reprint, Leiden: Brill, 1989.
Stebbins, G. Ledyard. “Modal Themes: A New Framework for Evolutionary Synthesis.” Perspectives on Evolution. Edited by Roger Milkman. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1982.
Stevens, Sidney. “Ten New Islands Formed in the Last Twenty Years.” MNN.com (5 July 2016). Accessed 13 May 2020. https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/10-new-islands-formed-last-20-years.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.
Strong, Augustus H. Systematic Theology. Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1907.
Suess, Hans E. “Secular Variations in the Cosmic-Ray Produced Carbon 14 in the Atmosphere and their Interpretations.” Journal of Geophysical Research, 70 (1 December 1965).
Switzer, V. R. “Radioactive Dating and Low-Level Counting.” Science, 157 (11 August 1967). Accessed 1 July 2020. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i299389.
Tharoor, Ishaan. “Pope Francis Says Evolution is Real and God is no Wizard.” Washington Post World Views, 28 October 2014. Accessed 29 August 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com /news/worldviews/wp/2014/10/28/pope-francis-backs-theory-of-evolution-says-god-is-no-wizard/?noredirect=on.
“There are Forty-Eight Active Volcanoes in Mexico.” Puerto Vallarta Daily News (4 June 2018). Accessed 13 May 2018. https://www.vallartadaily.com/volcanoes-in-mexico/.
“Understanding Evolution: Misconceptions about Evolution.” National Education Association: Great Public Schools for Every Student. Accessed 21 April 2020. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php.
Venema, Dennis R. “Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis, and Learning from History: A Reply to Meyer.” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 63, no. 3. American Scientific Affiliation. Accessed 30 April 2020. https://go-gale-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=vic_liberty&id=GALE%7CA264761197&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon.
Warfield, B. B. “On the Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race.” Princeton Theological Review (1911).
Weiner, Jonathan. The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time. NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994.
Whitrow, G. J. “An Analysis of the Evolution of the Scientific Method.” L’Age de la Science, 3 (1970).
Wilkinson, David. God, the Big Bang, and Stephen Hawking. Kent, Great Britain: Lion Hudson, 1993.
———-. “The Absence of God or a Surer Path to God?” Creation and Complexity: Interdisciplinary Issues in Science and Religion. Edited by Christine Ledger and Stephen Pickard. Adelaide: ATF Press, 2004.
Wolchover, Natalie. “Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning.” Quantum Magazine.org (6 June 2019). Accessed 28 August 2019. www.quantumagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606.
Wolchover, Natalie. “The Universal Law that Aims Time’s Arrow.” Quantum Magazine (1 August 2019).Accessed 8 November 2019. https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-universal-law-that-aims-times-arrow-20190801/.