God created life “according to its kind.”
20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its 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 birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good (Genesis 1.20-25).
Introduction: The Science That Never Was
No scientific evidence exists for evolution. By evolution, I mean the idea that life began from a common ancestor and that changes have occurred in organisms over time to produce new species. When I state no evidence exists to support evolution I mean exactly this. I do not mean evidence is weak in some areas or lacking in others. I mean no scientific evidence exists period. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. This was true in Darwin’s day and nothing has changed in 150 years.
What I do not mean by evolution is the scientific fact that changes occur within species. Darwin observed that beak sizes varied among finches. Darwin was practicing science. Everyone knows such changes occur. This is known as microevolution and has been observed for thousands of years. It is science.
What is Evolution?
Since evolution has no scientific support, what is it? Evolution is literature, myth, ideology, religion, or philosophy. Take your pick. What it is not, is science. When evolutionists talk about science in relation to evolution they use microevolution (which everyone has observed and agrees happens) as evidence. But invariably, evolutionist “proof” exits the realm of science into metaphysics and teleology.
How evolutionists think is revealed by a quotation by Richard Lewontin, a Harvard evolutionary biologist:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.1
In a lecture on Darwin’s influence to modern thought, Ernst Mayr stated:
Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.2
Tom Wolfe, in his book The Kingdom of Speech, wrote:
There were five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Had anyone observed the phenomenon—in this case, Evolution—as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” test)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution…well…no…no…no…no…and no.
In other words, there was no scientific way to test it. Like every other cosmogony, it was a serious and sincere story meant to satisfy man’s endless curiosity about where he came from and how he came to be so different from the animals around him. But it was still a story. It was not evidence. In short, it was sincere, but sheer, literature.
In Wolfe’s words, evolution is literature. Stephen J. Gould, the Harvard paleontologist and evolutionist, called Darwin’s narratives, “Just-So” stories, based upon Kipling’s tales.3 C.S. Lewis called it myth. It is also ideology and politics. In theological language, it is idolatry. What it is not, is science.
Beyond this is evolution’s elitist appeal. Intellectuals (almost by definition, atheists) accepted evolution from its advent. If one wished to be hip, to be accepted in the social inner-ring, one embraced evolution. Not to accept it was to identify oneself with the witless mob. This zeitgeist has not changed. Wolfe noted:
At the higher altitudes of society, as well as in academia, people began to judge one another socially according to their belief, or not, in Darwin’s great discovery. Practically all Church of England clergymen were well educated and well connected socially, and by 1859 the demystification of the world had extinguished whatever fire and brimstone they might have had left. The sheerly social lure of the theory, the status urge to be fashionable, was too much for them. Subscribing to Darwinism showed that one was part of a bright, enlightened minority who shone far above the mooing herd down below.
Most people think science motivated Darwin to advance his theory of evolution. The truth is rather different. Darwin had grown up in a family of atheists. His grandfather, Erasmus, wrote about evolutionary ideas in his book Zoonomia. His father held these views. By the time Darwin boarded the Beagle to begin his biological exploration and survey, he had largely abandoned belief in the Bible. His most psychologically compelling motivation to advance evolutionary ideas, however, was the Christian doctrine of eternal punishment. Darwin wrote in his autobiography:
Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.5
Darwin recognized if Christianity were true, his family and friends were or would be in hell. Therefore, Darwin wished to create an alternate reality, one in which God was unnecessary. If God does not exist, mankind has no accountability for good or evil, future reward or punishment. What impelled Darwin was not science but theology.
What is Known by Science
The Bible is important in any discussion about the origin and progression of life for it is God’s revelation of reality. The Bible is a scientific book. Its record can be falsified by observation. We observe that species adapt, mutate, and variate. This is exactly what the Bible has declared. We produce seedless grapefruit. We breed sheepdogs. We observe numerous changes can occur within a species. But we also observe that boundaries exist. One species does not become another species. This is what the Bible asserts.
Gregor Mendel founded the science of genetics. Mendel discovered through experimentation the hereditary boundaries the Bible has revealed. Though Darwin and Mendel were contemporaries, Darwin had no scientific understanding of genetics. None. The evolutionary family trees Darwin created were imagined. He had no scientific basis for them.
Another area in which the Bible is confirmed as science is the Bible’s statement that all biological life was created within a 3 day period. We observe that lifeforms go out of existence. We do not observe them coming into existence. This fits with what the Bible declares. God created all biologic life at a point in time and ceased creating. If evolution were true, we should see new life forms coming into existence. We don’t. We observe species going out of existence. This is because God ceased creating after day six. The Biblical record is verified and evolution falsified.
Yet another scientific area that proves the Bible is true is death. All things die. Why? Science does not understand life or death. Why should living organisms not go on forever? Science has no explanation. The Bible does. The Bible reveals death is the result of sin. Science observes entropy. But why does everything go from a higher state of order to a lower state? Science does not know. But the Bible tells us why.
Proofs of Evolution
Evolutionists have proposed varying proofs for evolution. The problem with these proofs is that they can just as easily prove creation. Representative proofs of evolution are some of the following:
1. Evolutionists maintain we have a universal genetic code. So do creationists. The evolutionist claims the universal genetic code is evidence of a common ancestor from which all life descended. Is this a valid conclusion? It is one interpretation. But it fails upon further examination. It is better explained that God created or programmed living creatures to have similar characteristics. All watches have numbers or dials. But all watches did not spring from a common ancestor. Rather, each watch or watch type was designed after a common design. If someone demonstrated all watches came from a common source, they would also discover they were created by a watchmaker. And watches are a lot less complex than single-celled organisms.
Evolutionists expand such reasoning into the areas of morphology, cytology, pathology, etc. But again, equally strong arguments can be made that similar morphologies, cytologies, and pathologies demonstrate creation. The same may be said of natural selection, variations, and mutations. Evolutionary arguments work equally well in a creation model.
2. Evolutionists claim the fossil record shows that the simplest fossils are found in the oldest rocks and a smooth and gradual transition exists from one form of life to another. But fossils are regularly found “out-of-place” in the geologic column. To complicate matters, “living fossils” remain relatively unchanged throughout their history. Then there is that nasty matter of the Cambrian explosion. Embarrassing.
Abandon All Evidence Ye Who Enter Here or Problems of Evolution
1. One problem is the fossil data. No transitional forms exist. None. Darwin was aware this lacuna posed a significant problem for his theory. But he reasoned, given time, transitional forms would be discovered. They have not. Darwin should have recognized this was not a problem more time would resolve. We have millions of species. For Darwinism to be true we should find billions of transitional forms for each species in the fossil record. The vast spectrum of living creatures would require septillions of transitional forms. Instead, we have zero.
2. Another problem is the origin life. How does life come from non-life? No scientific evidence exists to show this occurs. None. People used to believe in spontaneous generation, e.g., maggots from garbage, in which life came from non-life. No one believes this anymore. Except evolutionists. They believe life came from non-life. They believe. They have no evidence. But they have faith it occurs. Enter metaphysics.
3. A third problem is design. We observe incredibly diverse and complex designs in living organisms. How did this happen? By chance? By natural selection? Darwin knew almost nothing about the complexity of organisms. William Paley’s watchmaker analogy remains unrefuted. Complex design requires a designer. Watch birds. They hurtle and suddenly brake into a mass of leafy branches to land deftly on a tiny limb. Think of the telemetry required. Our most brilliant computer, mechanical, and electrical engineers have no clue how to replicate such autonomous capability. Give scientists $100 billion. Tell them to develop this technology. They will fail. It is far, far beyond man’s intelligent design skill. Yet evolutionists tell us this technology happened by chance and random selection? Does anyone believe a million monkeys with paint kits will paint a Mona Lisa in a billion years? Or a Charlie Brown cartoon? If that is not enough, read the evolutionary explanation of bird flight. It is at the same scientific level as the belief that the earth is upheld by a giant turtle.
4. Another problem is that all observational data reveal kind produces kind.4 Variations occur. Mutations occur. But kind always produces kind. Transmutations do not occur. None. A dog always produces a dog. A cat is a cat. A bird is a bird. A horse is a horse, of course, of course. We find no counter-examples. The fossil record confirms the same. It reveals millions of different kinds. Each fully formed. None transitional. It has been that way for millennia and it’s going to stay that way. No transitional forms exist and none will be found. God did not design life in this manner.
The first chapter of Genesis records God’s declaration that He created animal life after their kind (Genesis 1.20-25). This was also true for the vegetable kingdom (Genesis 1.11-13). God built biological systems with marvelous sophistication, complexity, and adaptability. He designed and programmed them to adapt to different conditions. Even at cellular and molecular levels immense complexity exists. God put limits on the design so that kind always produces kind. No genetic mutations or processes have ever been observed that increase information in the genome. That is science. This is what we see. We do not observe kinds crossing their programmed boundaries. We find no transmutations. Transmutations are the magical mystery tour of evolutionists. They are the stuff of myth and bad sci-fi. Evolutionary scientists (an oxymoronic term) are tailors of the emperor’s new clothes—a suit made from whole cloth.
5. Mathematics kills evolution. Scientists have proved the universe had a beginning. Given the complexity of life, mathematicians have demonstrated insufficient time exists to make the evolutionary changes and variations we see. Even if the universe were a million times older than it is it could not happen. The probabilities are too vast. One has a better chance winning the Powerball lottery a billion times in a row than for life to emerge through random selection. Because Stephen J. Gould, the Harvard evolutionist, recognized this problem he introduced the idea of punctiliar equilibrium: evolution by leaps and bounds. But again, we confront that nagging problem: no evidence.
6. Whence morality? How does evolution explain man’s moral nature? Morality is universal. Societies and cultures may have different particular laws but everyone agrees it is wrong to steal, to lie, to murder, etc.
7. What about the mind? How did intelligence form? How do mind and body interact? What about sex? The simplest organisms reproduce asexually. How did sex come into being? What about language? Man is the only biological creature with a language of syntax and grammar. What about love? How does evolution explain love? It cannot. Why is man the only creature who worships God? Evolution provides no answers. Nor does evolution provide answers to man’s deepest questions: Who am I? What is my purpose? Where happens when I die? We could go on, but the case is made. Why beat a dead horse? Any of the above points is a mortal wound to evolution.
Why This Essay?
This essay is written for two reasons. The first is to make you think. When evolutionists present scientific facts, they are facts useless in proving evolution. They present assumptions as scientific proof. But assumption is not observation. The only scientific evidence useful to prove evolution is a record of transitional and transmutational forms. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
In the early, heady days of evolutionary theory, evolutionists argued scientific facts supported evolution. Such “facts” have proved wanting. They do not exist. As more scientific investigation in the life sciences has occurred, scientific evidence for evolution has become increasingly elusive. As a result, to preserve the myth, evolutionists increasingly rely on propaganda, intimidation, and courts to impose their will.
Evolutionists are people to whom theory is dearer than fact. Darwinism is a 150-year-old moribund theory—a just-so-story, a world-myth, an imagineered Jedi-mind trick. Delusion.
The second reason for this essay is because of Jesus’ words to the Jews of His day. He told them if they would not believe Moses, they would not believe Him (John 5.45-47). Moses wrote that God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1.1) and fashioned the earth in six days (Genesis 1.3-31; Exodus 20.11). Moses wrote that God created a man, Adam, and a woman, Eve. If one will not believe Moses, it is unlikely one will believe the words of Jesus, the Creator (John 1.3, 10; Hebrews 1.2; 1 Corinthians 8.6;Ephesians 3.9; Colossians 1.15-17) who has the words of eternal life (John 6.68). Trust God. Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed (Romans 10.11).
1 Lewontin, Richard. “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p. 31.
2 Ernst Mayr was one of the towering figures in the history of evolutionary biology. The quote is from Mayr’s lecture, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought,” delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999. It was published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.
3 Stephen J. Gould, “Sociobiology: The Art of Storytelling,” New Scientist, November 16, 1978. Evolutionists never forgave Gould for this article.
4 The Hebrew word in Genesis for “kind” is מִין and means “kind,” “sort,” “species.” It is always expressed as לְמִינָהּ ,לְמִינֵהוּ ,לְמִינֹו “according to its kind.”
5 See the extract from Darwin’s Autobiograhy.
©2013 Don Samdahl. Anyone is free to reproduce this material and distribute it, but it may not be sold. Updated, 18 January 2019.
Very nice website brother!
The theory of evolution is one of the most tested scientific theory there is, and is better understood than other well known theories like the Theory of Gravity. Scientists have been attempting to disprove the theory without success for over 100 years. Given that it should be easy to disprove the theory such as a fossil out of place in the evolutionary tree would suffice, indicates the robustness of the theory.
You are probably aware that a good scientific theory has a built in mechanism for disproving the theory. This certainly applies to the theory of evolution.
No evolutionary biologists claim that new species are the result of chance – a purpose of evolutionary theory is to address this issue. The comparison with the design of a watch is not a rebuttal of the theory, but an indication of poor understanding (of the theory).
My challenge: disprove the theory of evolution based on science, and I’ll be confident that you will be a strong candidate for a Nobel Prize.
Doug,
My article provides sufficient proof of the inadequacy of evolution to explain the natural world. My challenge to you: provide scientific evidence to support evolution. Evolution is ideology, not science. The reason people believe it is because they want to, not because it has scientific merit.
Provide evidence of Intelligent Design at the same level that you demand for evolution and I’ll take you seriously.
Doug,
I’m not sure you read the article. Paley’s watchmaker provides ample evidence. So does Behe’s irreducible complexity. All of nature provides evidence of intelligent design. If you cannot see this nothing I can write can convince you. Paul’s statement in Romans 1 is your diagnosis.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen. A risen Jesus Christ is the substance of something hoped for. I haven’t seen Him with my eyes… yet. The evidence of things not seen… What causes a man to quit drinking while going through a divorce? A million country and western songs have been written saying the opposite occurs. My part in all that was to complain about my situation to anyone who would listen. His part was to keep me out of a bottle. Now, who did the heavy lifting?
Jesus saves.
Josh,
Thank you for your testimony. He is wonderful isn’t he? Praise God!
How would you explain fossil fuels with a six day creation story? Don’t they take years to develop?
Joab,
This is not an area in which I have expertise. You might be interested in http://creation.com/too-much-coal-for-a-young-earth for an explanation of coal. Other “fossil fuels” may not be fossil fuels. There is an abiotic theory for this energy source. See http://creation.com/oil-not-always-fossil and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin.
I am always amused, and disappointed, when I read someone citing the validity of evolution as a sound scientific principle. I used to buy into this. That is, until I got honest with myself. I am a scientist by both degree and profession. My field is biotechnology. I am degreed from a major university. I’m just setting the background to my upcoming statement.
The “theory” of evolution does not even meet the criteria that the scientific community itself has set to qualify as a theory. To be a “theory”, something must be 1) Observable and 2) Repeatable. Even freshman level Biology courses teach this definition. Evolution is neither….so far. Evolution is distinct from adaptation aka micro-evolution which does meet those criteria. Evolution demonstrating a change of kind has yet to be observed or repeated in a scientific environment. Therefore, it is a “hypothesis”. However, the supporters of evolution as fact are so determined to keep this labeled a “theory” that they are even willing to contradict their own accepted definition. I count this as scientific hypocrisy.
As a scientist, I marvel at the machinations of the world but, if I am sticking to scientific principle, I am left with no other conclusion that to keep an open mind. I cannot prove evolution to the standard required of every other scientific theory on the books. Therefore, I will not simply toe the line to keep egos sated. That, dear friends, is for those incapable of independent thought.
God exists. He is beyond our understanding. Evidence still favors a divine creator.
Just curious of your opinion on ” global warming”
Theresa,
Many questions exist about global warming as the data are not confirming the computer models. Like evolution, it is becoming a religion. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqVE-uiHs7w and http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151.
Don,
Evolution is simply a satanic plot to deny God created. Those who deny God and an eventual judgement are capable of the worst evil imaginable and unimaginable as stated in Romans chapter one. Evolution is without a doubt a false religion.
And I have always felt that if you don’t believe the first sentence of the Bible then you really don’t believe the rest of it. When I tell Christians who have fallen for the evolution lie they get defensive and make excuses but the fact remains, all of the Bible is God’s word and all of it is truthful and relevant.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1
Bruce,
Evolution is man’s attempt to avoid God and His righteous judgment (Genesis 3.8). Men fear God because of guilt. God has provided for man’s need and solved the problem of sin which alienated God from man by Christ’s death and resurrection. But if one rejects God’s love and provision only God’s judgment awaits. The response of rejection is to deny God, hence, evolution.
Good article. Recent DNA studies are conclusive that human living today have between 2-4% Neanderthal DNA (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8660940.stm). How does this fit in with your theory of human origins?
Roger,
What I have written is not theory. It is what God has revealed. It is fact, not theory. All life has certain DNA similarities since we are all built upon a common pattern. All life came from the dust of the earth. What makes humans human is having been created in the image of God and given a spirit by which to communicate with God. Animals do not have this.
I’m just re-reading this article and the posts that follow. One question is: how old do you think Neanderthals are? Since it’s an indisputable scientific fact that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens interbred, how long ago did this interbreeding take place?
Roger,
See http://creation.com/neandertal-manthe-changing-picture and http://creation.com/neandertal-mitochondrial-genome. Several other articles discuss Neanderthal also.
Good article. Thank you for posting it. The impression I get is that science is blurring the lines between humans and other species, as evidenced in the article “Debunking the Human Myth” in the 2014 July/August edition of The United Church Observer. It can be a scary thought, for sure, but as the well-known British atheist-turned-Christian Antony Flew put it, he “followed the evidence” and became a theist. I’m sure we agree that that should be our credo as well, right? Follow the evidence. We always need to keep the theological door open for any cosmic event or new scientific discovery. Recall how difficult it was and how many lives were lost and ruined by the discovery that the earth rotated around the sun. Let’s not get into *that* kind of mentality again!
And that’s the crux of the matter. As we’ve agreed upon before, all truth is God’s truth. There’s nothing to be afraid of.
One point from the article you posted was, “The PBS series pointed out that Neanderthal burials left little evidence of ritual as compared to those by later humans.” But “little evidence” doesn’t mean “no evidence” and it behooves us to keep our minds open for new discoveries and new truths, regardless of their potential affect on our beliefs (theology), wouldn’t you agree?
Roger,
It appears these people do not think humans are particularly special. The Bible states we are created in God’s image. If one does not believe this, it can lead to horrific brutality: Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc. Science has great value and is a tremendous tool but it cannot establish morality or purpose. It deals only with the material world.
True, “If one does not believe [in the Bible], it can lead to horrific brutality”: as well as among who *do* believe the Bible: as witness the Crusades, the Inquisition, burning witches and on and on among those who believe the Bible.
So perhaps you might consider writing an article – or even a post – to begin a conversation about the nature of the Bible. That seems to be where all discussion stops. Your readers could ask honest questions about *why* one should consider the Bible to be God’s Word, rather than merely using that claim to shut off conversation. Certainly *you’re* convinced it is, so you should be able to persuade some of your readers who don’t believe it is to accept your position, don’t you think?
Roger,
I doubt the inquisitors were Christians. They were religionists, who had bad theology–persecution of Jews and true Christians. Much the same can be said about the Crusades. However, I would qualify this statement because Islam was the aggressor power. It declared war on the Byzantine empire, the West, and Christianity. Charles Martel stopped Islam’s invasion of Europe at Poitiers but war continued for several hundred years. In Luther’s day, the churches prayed, “God save us from the Turk.” We are 1,000+ years later and face the same enemies. Islam is not a religion of peace, despite Geo. Bush’s declaration. Islam wants world domination, a Caliphate, headed by the Mahdi. Christians and Jews will be 1) killed or 2) enslaved. Whenever Ahmadinejad went to the U.N., that was his message.
How similar is human DNA to plant DNA?
Sandy Woo, M.S.: I provide genetic counseling (risk assessment, education, facilitating decisions) to families and individuals with or who are at risk for birth defects and genetic conditions. The basic structure of DNA (ie, double helix) is shared among all living organisms. The code or sequence of DNA (instructions for our cells) is different. Even so, our DNA is likely more similar to plants than different. For example, we share approximately 60% of our DNA with a banana plant.
Roger, You wanna see my banana? just having fun…..sorry if I offended anyone.
Hi, Joe. I just found your post. Not to worry, I really think I’m incapable of being offended! The older I get the more I find that what I used to find offensive is now merely amusing.
I came back to this forum on evolution because I wanted to post a comment on recent scientific discoveries. One of the more recent ones is the discovery in 2013 of the oldest tree still standing — almost 10,000 years old. (http://www.businessinsider.com/arbor-day-the-oldest-known-tree-on-earth-2014-4).
My question is: How do YEC (Young Earth Creationists) respond to the fact that there is overwhelming evidence from science that the world is much older than 6,000 years?
Roger,
I’ll weigh in before Joe. I think the view the earth is <10,000 years old has real problems. The larger issue is creation vs. evolution. I think the earth is old. Such a creationist view can be accommodated by the so-called "gap theory" or "ruin-restoration theory." It addresses the scientific issues of observed age as well as a number of Biblical questions and issues. The best address of this subject was by Arthur Custance.
Do you have a post on the Gap Theory? I use to believe in the Gap but have decided within the past couple of years that it is unbiblical. I am a YEC now. I think the dating methods used by Atheists are built on assumptions and presuppositions.
If you don’t have an article on the Gap I think that would be an interesting topic. I do like studying the issue, though I have only recently got into it.
The study on evolution is great though! –bro. Hoss
Hoss,
It’s a subject I’ve given a fair amount of thought to but am not prepared to write an article on it. My sense is a gap of time exists between Genesis 1.1 and 2 but it cannot be proven by the language of those verses. Arthur Custance tried and did a good job but I don’t think it’s convincing case. However, I think other Scriptures indicate a gap. I believe the earth is old but man and animals that exist now were created about 6,000 years ago. Glad you like the evolution article.
I re-read the article on evolution and you make a compelling argument. I agree with you on all points. The questions that come to mind are the following:
1. Since all humans have some Neanderthal DNA, does that means that God created Neanderthals before humans?
2. When did God breath life into humans?
3. What, exactly, do you believe about the human timeline? (i.e how long have humans been on the earth?)
Thanks for your hard work.
Roger,
We have limited information but the Bible reveals the human genome was compromised and corrupted (Genesis 6.1-5). The Neanderthals may have resulted from such manipulation. While the earth is very old, human life began about 6,000 years ago according to the Biblical genealogies and chronologies.
Thank you for discussing these things with me (us). I recently finished reading Dr. Francis Collins’ book The Language of God (2006). Collins is the Director of the Human Genome Project. He is also a committed evangelical Christian. He tackles head on most of the conclusions you arrive at in your article on evolution. I wonder if you are familiar with his book and/or the Human Genome Project. As a geneticist and biologist, he makes the case that believing in Darwinian evolution and believing in a personal God are not mutually exclusive. Where do you stake your ground on this important issue?
Roger,
People like Dr. Collins mystify me. Having a common genetic code, morphology, pathology, etc. provide no evidence for evolution. Science is the enemy of evolutionists for science is based upon observation and experimentation. Without transitional forms, evolution cannot be demonstrated. If evolution had occurred we should have septillions of transitional forms. We have none. I respect Dr. Collins’ work on the human genome, but he is clueless about evolution.
Don, could the Neanderthals and the other ‘hominid’ types simply have been animal species completely unrelated to human beings, like any other animal, that went extinct before Adam and Eve were created? I wonder about this whenever I look at the evolutionist drawings or computer ‘recreations’ of the various purported ape like ‘human ancestors.’ There are animal species even to this day that we’re still discovering, extinct or living. With the insect kingdom probably being foremost.
Brian,
The science of Neanderthals is not settled and I do not know. I believe 2 Peter 3.6 and Ezekiel 28 point to an inhabited world prior to God’s creation of Adam but I do not know where Neanderthals fit. There is much that the Lord has yet to explain.
Thank you for your response. You wrote, “…human life began about 6,000 years ago according to the Biblical genealogies and chronologies.” Perhaps, but what about recent scientific discoveries? Civilization and recorded history may be only 6,000 years old, but what of the plethora of research that shows that homo sapiens have been around for almost 200,000 tears? (http://www.universetoday.com/38125/how-long-have-humans-been-on-earth/). I bring this up not to “get into it” but to understand it. In my class I brought in many examples of bones, skulls, etc. as we were discussing past and current dating methods. Such bones today can be dated with tremendous accuracy. As for the advent of civilizations, archeological sites such as Gobekli Tepe indicate functioning agricultural societies from of 50,000 years ago. Looking further back, into the valleys around the Black Sea, we can logically surmise that man, in his present societal state has most certainly been here much longer than 6000 years.
I guess my point is that, as Christians and trained researchers, our mandate is, As Anthony Flew suggested, to “follow the evidence” wherever it may lead, be it in the natural world or the metaphysical. You are surely well-versed with the problems of using OT genealogies and chronologies to dictate scientific reality. We ought not be afraid of WHATEVER science may find, right?
Roger,
I have every confidence science and the Scriptures do not conflict. But we have to have good science. The reason I wrote Evolution was because it is bad science. In fact, it’s not science at all. Large questions exist about dating methodology. There are some good articles at at creation.com about this subject. Search under “carbon-14 dating” and “radiometric dating”. These folks are YEC which I am not but make good points.
Back to the original question: You wrote, “…human life began about 6,000 years ago according to the Biblical genealogies and chronologies.” By those same genealogies and chronologies, YEC proponents claim that the earth itself is only that old. Do you believe that YOM indicates a twenty-four period?
Again, as I posted earlier, archeological sites such as Gobekli Tepe indicate functioning agricultural societies as far back as 50,000 years ago. Neanderthals died out about 30,000 years ago and we know for a fact that they bred with humans. Do you have any non-speculative evidence (other than biblical genealogies and chronologies) that humans began a mere 6,000 years ago? Also, does it matter to Christians? If so, how?
Thank you.
Roger,
The normal reading of the text is that יוֹם is a 24 hour day. The problem with the YEC view is they take these 6 days as the days of creation. I do not think this is valid. I think Genesis 1.1 indicates the creation and רֵאשִׁית is an indefinite period of time. The 6 days reflect work done afterwards. As for the dating, I am skeptical of the methodology and assumptions. Science is great but science has been wrong many times. Ptolemaic science indicated a geocentric solar system. If one interpreted the Bible according to it one would have an erroneous view. Several problems exist with seeing man as existing for 50-100,000+ years aside from possible dating methods. If man has lived that long, where are the structures? The oldest significant structures discovered date within the 6,000 period. If world population is nearly 7.5 billion in 6,000 years, what would it be if man had been on the earth for 10x as long? 100-200 billion? If they died, where are the graves?
You raise some interesting questions. One continues to press. Since we know that Neanderthals died out around 30,000 years ago, and humans share Neanderthal DNA, does that not provide evidence that humans and Neanderthals co-existed?
A recent discovery as reported in the journal NATURE sheds light on how Neanderthals and humans’ ancestors split from a common ancestor hundreds of thousands of years ago. It also revealed that Neanderthals and humans interbred about 50,000 years ago.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/science/at-400000-years-oldest-human-dna-yet-found-raises-new-mysteries.html?_r=0). Do you take issue with these findings?
I agree that dating methods can be slippery, but new methods in the past five years are providing much greater accuracy. Carbon-14 daring is becoming to be seen as “old school” with the discovery of potassium-argon dating, uranium dating and others. In that it is the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that humans were around at the same time as Neanderthals, how does that impact our view of human history?
Yours is the only website of which I am aware that is not afraid to tackle the tough questions. I have no vested interest in how you respond, but I thank God that you’re willing to give it a shot. I’ve learned a lot from these forums.
Roger,
I am skeptical about the dating. I think it goes against the Biblical chronology. Beyond that, if the dating is true it raises many unanswerable scientific and historical questions. There’s clearly a lot we do not know. The purpose of Genesis was not to answer all these questions. The text allows for an old earth but not an old humanity.
Don’t we need to account for the human\Angel hybrids from Genesis 6?
Dawn,
Yes. These offspring were superhuman and the source of the demi-gods of mythology.
Will they re-emerge during the trib?
Dawn,
This is unknown. About the only clue is Jesus’ statement about this period being like the days of Noah. Supernatural events characterize the seven years of the Tribulation but John does not mention this particular matter.
At the beginning of your article you write, “When I state no evidence exists to support evolution I mean exactly this. I do not mean evidence is weak in some areas or lacking in others. I mean no scientific evidence exists period.” As you know, there are tons of Christian scientists who do believe that the evidence for the evolutionary model of creation is compelling. What do you have to say to them?
You implied in one of your posts that you are not a Young Earth Creationist. How old do you think the earth is?
Roger,
My simple reply is they are wrong. I cannot explain how a scientist can accept evolution when science, by definition, is reality based upon observation and replication. I don’t know how old the earth is. Dating is complex and time is even more complex, subject to the observer.
In the article you write, “The Bible is a scientific book. Its record can be falsified by observation”; which, as you know, has been done over and over again if one takes the Genesis creation account ( and other “scientific” explanations in the Bible) literally. It *does* tell us what Bronze Age primitive peoples thought about the material world, and perhaps God decided to use such stories and myths in order to be sure to communicate with those people, but the Bible makes repeated statements about material reality (science) that we know just are’t true today. Certainly no serious scientist, Christian or not, takes the Noah’s Ark story as having really happened, wouldn’t you agree? And that’s just one example of many.
Roger,
Why would anyone not believe in a worldwide flood and Noah? Jesus affirmed it (Luke 17.27). Every culture has a flood story. We find evidence of seashells on the highest mountains. See https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/. How can one reject history, culture, and physical evidence and claim to be a scientist?
Additionally, the ancient Sumerian king list, a clay prism, has been discovered. This artifact is regarded by many reputable scholars as corroborating the Genesis chapter 5 account. It states that a flood swept over the earth. Moreover, scholars have noted as there are eight generations between Adam and Noah, there are eight recorded kings between the beginning of kingship and the flood on this list. Thus, the Sumerian king list not only documents a great flood in early human history, but it also reflects the same pattern of decreasing longetivity as found in the Bible. Men had very long life spans before the flood, and much shorter life spans after the flood. (Taken from ‘Antediluvian Patriarchs and the Sumerian King List’ by Raul E. Lopez, CEN Technical Journal 12 (1998): 347-357)
Brian,
Ancient cultures upon all continents have a flood story. It is a universal constant of folklore and mythology. The problem with the Sumerian king list is that the reigns of the kings extend for tens of thousands of years while Biblical lifespans are under 1,000 years.
Don, although it’s non-essential when compared to the main Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the Gospel, Virgin birth, etc., it troubles me that some prolific old earth/universe creationists like High Ross advocate a “universal” rather than a “globalised” flood. Despite evidence to the contrary as you’ve cited by the ‘Answers in Genesis’ link. Ross argues for a more localized/regional flood than involved all the human population at the time. And the flood did not have to extend to the rest of the Earth. Ross goes to great ‘scientific’ lengths to further his case. But I agree with the global evidence that you pointed to. So do you think that maybe some of this, outside of essential doctrine, is not worth fiercely debating over?
Brian,
I don’t know how fiercely one should debate this. The Scriptures are quite clear that the Flood waters covered the entire earth, the tops of the mountains. The scientific case against this depends upon certain assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong, which they are, the case falls apart. One could built a strong scientific case against resurrection. But Jesus rose from the dead. So there you are. Happy Easter! Christ is risen, indeed!
No scientsists believe the Bible account of creation and the flood?
http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation
Also the world famous Neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson is a literal biblical creationist (sadly he is also a SDA) There are thousands of Bible believing scientist. You should get the book “In Six Days” which is a compilation of scientific papers written by over 50 PhD scientists on why they believe in creation.
You ask, “Why would anyone not believe in a worldwide flood and Noah?” Lots of reasons, all based on science. You and your readers may be interested in reading about this issue at the following site: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
As he does with other OT stories (Adam and Eve, Jonah and the Big Fish), Jesus references what his hearers understood. Recall that he was trying to communicate to a primitive audience who believed that the sun revolved around the earth.
We can ay least agree that we are agnostic when it comes to the age of the earth. It does sound, as well, that you agree that the earth is at least millions (not mere thousands) of years old.
Roger,
The accommodation view is condescending nonsense. The disciples knew people didn’t walk on water (Peter was a fisherman), lepers weren’t healed, and the blind did not get their sight. They knew miracles when they saw them. Bultmann attempted to demythologize the Bible but what he was really doing was removing belief in God. God is beyond nature. He is supernature. If one does not believe in miracles one doesn’t believe in God. QED. The talkorigins objections have been rebutted many times. It’s a silly argument. Does this fellow really think that a God who created life, who created the universe, can’t save a family and animals on a boat?
Careful about calling an argument silly when it applies to the response as well. You’ve already said that you are agnostic when it comes to the age of the earth; why not just admit to being agnostic about the Noah and the Ark story? You reduce the story to being about “saving a family and [some] animals.” This forum requires honesty and sincere debate, does it not? Such a story has too many real problems to be taken literally. It sounds silly to the 21st century reader, and justifiably so in light of the scientific evidence such as presented on the web site I sent. Certainly we must keep our minds open when it comes to new knowledge and information, wouldn’t you agree?
You wrote, “The talkorigins objections have been rebutted many times.” Please direct me and your readers to one of the rebuttals to which you refer. I love learning new things and I haven’t been able to find a rebuttal to the issues raised in that site.
As for being accommodating, of course Jesus was accommodating to his (often thick-headed) disciples, using simple parables and stories to illustrate deeper truths. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” He was speaking to a (mainly) illiterate audience in a relatively primitive time.
Finally, certainly one can believe in miracles (although we’ve never seen one in our lifetimes) and not believe every story in the Bible is literal. there are some smart people interacting on this site, and to use simple aphorisms and claims such as “…they are wrong” do nothing to further the conversation. At least direct your readers to an article or web site or book (or something) that will help us/them better understand your position(s) on these kinds of things.
p.s. Is there anybody alive out there? Jump in anytime…
Roger,
See https://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.php, http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark. Many sources about this. I do not think I just said, “they are wrong.” A scientist who abandons evidence and the scientific method of observation and replication and declares evolution to be scientific has entered the “you are wrong” category. I think you are using the word accommodating in a different sense. The disciples, thick-headed as they were at times, understood the difference between the natural and supernatural.
Ok . I’ll jump in. If Jesus said there was a flood nothing else needs to be said.
Roger, you post a lot. Are you truly desiring to know the truth of scripture or just being argumentative?
Thanks for your response, Dawn. Beginning decades ago with a B.A. in Biblical Literature and three years of Greek, I’ve kept up my studies over the years. I spent fifteen years translating the New Testament and portions of the OT into the Algonquin language in northern Quebec and I’ve always found the Bible fascinating. So if I come across as argumentative it’s only because I’m an excitable boy!
I was brought up to “question everything” and to have reasons and evidence for what you believe. I being that credo into my university classroom. My pet peeve is that most Christians I know personally *don’t* know why they believe what the believe. So I ask questions, sometimes make claims and hope that these kinds of forums help to encourage people to think about *why* they believe *what* they believe. In this particular discussion, the question is: do you know why you believe the the Bible is the Word of God? Or do you just “accept” that as true without knowing why?
Thanks again for jumping into the fray!
Roger, it sounds as if you are peeved with Christians who don’t operate the same way that you do.
Whatever happened to “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed”? John 20:29.
Don’t forget that not all members have the same office. Romans 12:4 My grandmother had a deep love for her Savior, and for her brothers and sisters in Christ. She rejoiced with people, and wept with people. She didn’t know a word of Greek, nor much about science. Does this peeve you? I surely hope not.
Yes, the church needs men like Don, but it also needs women like my dear grandmother. 1 Cor. 12:17-18.
My pet peeve is the opposite of yours, I believe. It really bothers me when Christians bring extra-Biblical texts into a Biblical discussion, as if man’s word can be trusted. Just yesterday I was told by a man that if I truly studied my Bible, I would see that there are only two options: Atheism or Judaism. He chose Judaism, thanks no doubt to all the Jewish “scholars” that he found on the internet.
So I suppose that I can’t tell you to not be peeved at certain Christians, when I myself am guilty of it, too. Maybe we should both work on that….
I am unable to put a smiley face here, but I would if I could.
Thank you, GraceReceiver. I really didn’t realize I was creating a climate of confusion with my posts. I kind of thought this forum was for honest questions and to see how they can be answered from Doctrine’s perspective. As I mentioned in my post to Jack, I’ve been posting to this site for two years and Doctrine has always answered them, so I thought it was appropriate. I guess I figured wrong.
Roger, no one has said, as far as I can see, that your questions are inappropriate. You wanted readers to “jump in”, so we did. I realize that your hope was to get people involved in your theological discussions, not to get lambasted. :-) Speaking only for myself, I’m on this site to learn more about the Bible, because I have faith that God has protected His word, and that He wants us to study it. Sorry if this puzzles you.
If I wanted to learn more about why I should DOUBT my Bible, there are countless other sites that I could go to, and I would get actively involved in the discussions.
Yes, Don is gracious and knowledgeable. I’m very glad that you have found him.
Grace and peace, excitable friend.
Roger, I ask you this in all sincerity and gentleness: are you not willing to let God be true, and every man a liar?
Thank you, GraceReceiver. I do take your question in the spirit in which it is offered. God is True and everything we know to be true (about anything) is His truth. So there’s never a reason to fear what might be discovered in the future (about anything) that may go against what one believes about God. Recall when Copernicus first discovered that the earth revolved around the sun ,and not the other way around, The Church went into a rage for decades, deeming such a thing as contradicting Gods’ Word. Now, of course, we know better.
I guess the point I’m trying to make in a very inelegant way is that your questions need some clarification. But I’ll try anyway.
Yes, I believe that I am *always* willing to let God be true in my life. As for the second part of your question, I’m not sure what you mean. Are people capable of being truthful? Of course they can. Are people truthful at all time? Of course not.
Hope that helps.
Good point about Copernicus. See, Roger? I’m getting less peeved already. LOL
Thanks, GraceReceiver. The feeling is mutual! Just to clarify, by “pet peeve” I didn’t mean that it makes me “angry,” merely that I’m puzzled when people believe something (anything, actually) and don’t know why they believe it! That’s why I’ve appreciated Don’s patience with me (and many others) who ask questions that some may consider “inappropriate” for this web site. I’ve learned a lot from this forum.
Thank you, GraceReceiver. You’re absolutely right.p.s. I really like your web name!
Trueorigins.com has rebuttals to the arguments of talkorigins.com
https://trueorigin.org/#to
Thank you, Hoss. Now we need to use these beautiful minds that God has given us to compare and contrast what we read and decide which case is more compelling, wouldn’t you agree?
Having now read both, I still find the talkorigins presentation much stronger than the rebuttal from trueorigins. But that’s just me. The important issue, in my mind, is to know *why* we believe *what* we believe. That’s a main reason I value Doctrine’s web site. It challenges me to do just that.
Dr. Soren Lovetrup, scientist from Sweden, said, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” He added that evolution is “anti-science,” and is “false.” Scientists, who don’t know Lovetrup, should be driving trucks, not defending the farce, fakery, foolishness, and fraud of evolution.
World famous astronomer Fred Hoyle said, “The speculations of the Origin of Species turned out to be wrong,” The most respected French scientist Pierre Grasse called Darwinian evolution, “a pseudo-science.” A. E. Wilder-Smith, with three earned doctorates in science, said evolution is “impossible.” Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creationists.
Dr. H.S. Lipson, an agnostic physicist, admitted, “I think…the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” He further added, “To my mind, the theory [evolution] does not stand up at all.” No, but it’s being propped up at every secular university in America-with taxpayers’ money!
Fossil expert, Stephen Gould wrote: “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change.” Darwin even agreed with that! No informed evolutionist appeals to the fossil record to support his philosophy of origins. When he does so, he places himself in the category of flat-earthers, phrenologists, astrologers, and snake handlers.
After evolutionists admit they made fools of themselves with the fossil record, they should admit they cannot explain: the answers to the beginning of life; the Cambrian explosion; design of the universe; the absence of transitional fossils; the anomalies in the geologic column; why evolution suddenly stopped; how males and females evolved at the same location and time in history; where the scientific laws came from (how does a “law” evolve?) and did they come before or after the “big bang”? Furthermore, what was the catalyst for the big bang? And where did the cosmic egg (that allegedly exploded) come from? Maybe the cosmic chicken laid it?
Thanks for jumping in, Joe. I’m not sure what what your asking for, though, Do you want me to counter your claims and those made by your references with the claims and references of Christian scientists who subscribe to evolution? We could go back and forth forever.
Instead, how about this. I’ll suggest one book by one author and you can do the same. We can read the other’s book and then have a discussion. I’m sure Doctrine would join us with his take on things.
So, the book I propose is “Then Language of God” (2006) by Francis S. Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project and an internationally respected scientist. He’s a Christian scientist who makes a case for evolution which you may not be familiar with. If you can’t access or don’t want to read the book, just Google him (and the book) and that may be enough to start a conversation. I’ll do the same with the author and book you send me. Are you game?
Roger,
If you want a book to read try Jonathan Sarfati’s Refuting Compromise. After reading it please post your objections to the book.
As has been mentioned before regarding your abundant posts… are you seeking real answers or just being argumentative.
Bob
Thank you, Bob. I will take a look at the book you suggested. It sounds intriguing.
As for your wondering about why I keep posting, well, I have a lot of questions and no one in these parts to ask, so I find this forum really cool. Please see my responses to Jack and GraceReceiver from earlier today.
I was puzzled by your post this afternoon (April 9, 2016 at 2:49 pm). My main point was that it would be so cool to begin a conversation on how one knows (or how one comes to believe) that the Bible is the Word of God. From what I’ve read in other forums (e.g. Inspiration of Scripture), there would be a lot of interest in this topic. And it does seem to be an important issue that grounds virtually every post in every forum. What do you think?
As for your post, it likely helped some readers better grasp the context of the atrocities and the mass killing that took place in the name of Christ during the Middle Ages, and that’s good. Learning new things helps inform what we believe. But surely you weren’t attempting to lay the groundwork for mounting a defence of Church barbarisms throughout the centuries! (Please tell me you weren’t…)
Roger,
Your response to my post seemed to imply Christians are just as evil as atheistic ideologies or false religions. My point was one may claim to do something terrible in the name of Christ but that doesn’t mean he’s a Christian. He’s just a propagandist and liar. Christians sin but not at the magnitude of genocide like the ideologies of Nazism and Communism. And surely you do not think Islam is a religion of peace! As for how one knows the Scriptures are God-breathed, that is relatively simple: fulfilled prophecy and the resurrection.
One thing at a time. Certainly you are not suggesting that terrible atrocities were not committed under the auspices of the Christian Church during the Middle Ages! Are you suggesting that no one who ordered, participated in and supported the Crusades, for example, were Christians? Even Pauline Christianity comes through the Roman Catholic doorway. We all share that heritage, with all of its historical barbarisms.
And why would you even suggest that I might think that Islam is a religion of peace? Any reader is welcome to go back and view my post and see that I never mentioned Islam. I don’t get it.
Finally, there are many Christians who do not believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, but that the Bible *contains* the mind of God through its stories, myths, poetry, histories, aphorisms, parables, allegories and so on. One can certainly believe I Cor. 15:1-4 without sharing the perspective of an infallible, “God-breathed” Bible. I just thought that your readers might welcome a dialogue about *other* views of the Bible from those who believe that it *contains* God’s Word. Maybe you could direct your readers to different views in order to show them how you believe one ought to subscribe to it as being the infallible Word of God. Unless, of course, you think that holding to only one view of the Bible is necessary for one’s salvation…
Roger,
You’re missing the big picture. The source of all evil is anti-God ideologies or false gods. The Roman Catholic Church, the Popes, were no more Christian than Stalin. The gods of the OT with whom Israel came in contact were evil. This is why God gave the first and second commands in the Decalogue. Behind all false religion is Satan and fallen angels. The atheist’s religion is evolution. It’s is just another deception and false path.
Thanks for the response. It seems to me that atheism is illogical – one would have to be everywhere in the universe at the same time to say with any conviction that God does not exist.
But, as human beings, we are all “agnostic” when it comes to the metaphysical, don’t you think? If we knew with certainty what happens after one dies, then there would be no room for faith, and God values faith, right? And if it could be “proved,” everybody would be a believer. But instead, we *believe* and place or trust in God.
You may have noticed that I’v received a view posts from a few of your readers (which I welcome!). I guess I figured my posts were okay because you kept responding to them. Your responses make me think.
Anyway, I guess I better lay low for awhile until the dust settles!
p.s. Maybe some day in the future you’ll write an article or a post relating to how one can still be a
I Cor. 15:1-4 Christian while believing the Bible *contains* God’s truth without subscribing to the the teaching that God wrote a book. That would be an interesting discussion (for me, anyway; perhaps too scary for your readers).
Roger,
Faith is a means of perception. It is part of the epistemological trinity with reason and experience. As I’ve written before, 99% of knowledge comes by faith. The Scriptures make it clear that knowledge of reality is based upon faith. The believer knows Christ rose from the dead, that his sins or forgiven, and that he will be with the Lord at death. These are not uncertain hopes. They are realities, just as real as one know 2+2=4 and that the sky is blue. Christian faith is based upon the trustworthiness of God. God has demonstrated thousands of times how and why what He says can be believed. These things are most easily revealed by fulfilled prophecy and Christ’s resurrection. Christian faith is not faith in faith but faith in demonstrated reality. It is hope in the sense of expectation.
That was cool. Your post raises more questions, but I think I’ve worn out my welcome with your readers so I’ll just ask one. You wrote, “99% of knowledge comes by faith.” I can’t seem to remember when or in what forum you wrote that, but I’m puzzled by what it means. Can you point me in the right direction or add a sentence or two of explanation? Thanks.
Roger,
Think about it. All history is knowledge by faith. All the news we get is by faith (unless you were there to witness it). I haven’t done the Michelson-Morely experiment but I take it by faith. I’ve never been to Japan but I take it by faith it exists. Etc.
All of your questions are answered in Doctrine’s excellent articles. Have you read them? Read all of them and more than once. Then you will learn about the Bible and its truth. These articles answer all your questions.
Hi, Carole. Yes, I’ve read them all (except the one about Esther, I think!), and find them so thought-provoking. Please see my posts to Jack and, GraceReceiver and Bob for why I was posting on this web site.
Roger,
It is becoming obvious that you have too much free time.
Your comments are chock-full of hypothetical minutiae parading as pseudo-intellectual inquisitiveness, and it is becoming boring.
This website appears to be for people who love the Lord, take the Bible literally, through faith, and want to learn about Bible truths while they grow. You, on the other hand, appear to say that you are a Christian, but always want to question and investigate what is behind Door B and Door C in Scripture…..that is not faith. One cannot be a Christian and doubt the Bible; you are either in or out.
I am a retired physician and understand the scientific method; the Bible is the Word of God, the creator of ALL, who has revealed as much as he wants for our edification. The Bible leaves a lot of unanswered questions that believers take on faith now and will learn more about when we are in the presence of the LORD. His mind is not the same as our mind.
Maybe I don’t speak for anybody else who is a regular reader of this FANTASTIC, knowledge-based website, but I had to state my feelings.
Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma, said, “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them….” And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no “fossil traces” of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!
Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, “…geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” Dr. Eldredge further said, “…no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.”
World famous paleontologist Colin Patterson agreed saying, “there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Not one.
All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been discarded and is considered a phantom and illusion because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can’t be counted on being a horse then of course we’ve got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.
Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig’s tooth, not an ape man! Neanderthal Man was simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired “ape man.” The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact as compared to gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as some evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.
Do those who teach evolution know that scientists have characterized Darwinism as speculation, based on faith, similar to theories of little green men, dead, effectively dead, very flimsy, incoherent, and a myth. Hey, with friends like that, evolutionists don’t need scientific creationists to hold their feet to the fire. Nevertheless, our public school textbooks and teachers, even up to most colleges and some universities, are not up to date on current thought. Did you get that-current “thought”?
So you see evolutionists are dishonest or uninformed when they suggest that creationists are backwoods, snake handling fanatics. In fact, over a thousand scientists with advanced degrees belong to one group that takes a stand for scientific creationism and against the guess of evolution.
College professors were correct in stating that Darwin’s book does not deal with the origins of life even though its title was Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. So a book about origins does not deal with the beginning of life!
Later Darwin suggested that life began in a warm little pond, but he never suggested where the pond came from! Most evolutionists teach that life started there also, but scientists have proved conclusively that spontaneous generation is impossible. So where did the first spark of life come from? You think maybe God was involved?
And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the nonexistent ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne, Professor Edwin Conklin, and others preached white superiority – because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all, evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible teaches, so what’s a few million lives to be concerned about?
There are numerous problems that evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.
Evolution is a guess, a speculation, a hypothesis, a theory, and a faith.
Hi, Joe. That was quite the post! But, alas, many people make their living off of writing books for and against creationism, evolution and on and on. I stand by the compelling argument that Dr. Francis Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project and an evangelical Christian, makes in his book “The Language of God” (HarperCollins, 2006). There are Christian scientists on both sides of the issue, so we might as well leave it like that, agreed?
Roger,
The problem with Dr. Collins is that while he is a great genetic scientist, he has abandoned science in the area of evolution. I have no idea why he has written what he has in this area. How can he claim evolution is scientifically true when no scientific evidence supports it? Dr. Collins lives in an academic environment in which tremendous academic and social pressure is exercised for evolution and against creationism. One is not going to be hired in a biology department if one is a creationist. One is not going to have a scholarly article published in a peer reviewed journal in the life sciences if he is a creationist. One is not going to be celebrated in the life sciences unless he affirms evolution. Dr. Collins is aware of these realities.
I understand about the academic realities he is faced with; nevertheless, I find his arguments compelling (to a layperson). I can’t summarily dismiss them as easily as you. I’m certainly not impressed with Ken Hamm’s arguments, but I don’t think (at least I hope) he represents the highest calibre of creationists. Anyway, I guess I’m just interested in finding out stuff, regardless of the discipline; turning things around in my mind, determining to the best of my ability what “makes sense” and what doesn’t, and engaging others in learning and adding to one’s stock of knowledge. I sense by your articles and posts that you like doing that, too.
Thanks for your post.
Roger,
Dr. Collins knows about genes. But he doesn’t know his Bible. He thinks the similarity of genes and DNA supports a common ancestor and evolution. The Scriptures state God created creatures after their own kind. He created horses, dogs, cats, cows, etc. They all have similar DNA because it is the language of physical life. It has nothing to do with evolution except each kind can adapt to a programmed degree. Common ancestry requires transitional forms. We have none. Dr. Collins has constructed a scientific fantasy land, an imaginary world in which he appears content.
Hi, Jack. Thanks for your input. You wrote, “This website appears to be for people who love the Lord, take the Bible literally.” I didn’t know that. I’ve submitted posts for a couple of years now and Doctrine has always responded to them, so I figured my posts were acceptable for this web site. I stand corrected.
My personal favorite is #10
1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: “The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon.”
“The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled” (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
“To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation” (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel’s drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff “specimen,” and Piltdown Man.
“Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that “the best-known ‘evidences’ for Darwin’s theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked.”
3) Creationists see the “survival of the fittest” and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.
4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: “Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species” (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
“To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest” (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).
5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.
6) Evolving of new species has not been witnessed during known history.
7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.
8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.
9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the “wrong” rock-layers according to what evolutionary paleontology would require.
10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
“A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations” (Michael Denton, author).
“The astounding structural complexity of a cell” (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: “Without the motor protein, the microtubules don’t slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection” (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).
11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. “The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It’s fantasy” (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).
12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. “Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races” (Steven Rose, author). He also “reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females” (B. Kevics, author).
13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.
14. “Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists.” William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.
15. “Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age.” Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)
16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a “billions of years” age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the “old Earth” theory would postulate.
c) The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.
e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there
Add this one to the list
In the early 1960s, in one of the landmark advances in 20th-century science, Noam Chomsky showed that all human languages share a deep invariant structure. Despite their very different “surface” grammars, they all share a deep set of syntactic rules and organizing principles. All have rules limiting sentence length and structure and all exhibit the phenomenon of recursion — the embedding of one sentence in another. Chomsky has postulated that this deep “universal grammar” is innate and is embedded somewhere in the neuronal circuitry of the human brain in a language organ. Children learn [human] languages so easily, despite a “poverty of stimulus,”1 because they possess innate knowledge of the deep rules and principles of human language and can select, from all the sentences that come to their minds, only those that conform to a “deep structure” encoded in the brain’s circuits.
Hi, Joe. I really enjoyed your posts, especially as one who was trained in linguistics following Chomsky’s model of Transformational-Generative grammar. Good stuff.
I would recommend a careful reading of Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” (2006). I’m not recommending it because I necessarily subscribe to his central hypothesis about natural selection, but he addresses almost all of the 16 points you make in your first post. I’m really impressed with your research on and presentation of the issues. In my opinion, one ought to read both sides of the issues in which one is interested, comparing and contrasting evidence and ideas, and coming to (albeit tentative) conclusions about what one believes.
Way to go, Joe.
The bottom line with the theory of evolution is that eventually something has to spring forth from nothing. Even the big bang postulates that everything known to exist, all matter was in one little ball. One little compressed ball so small and hot that it exploded into the the universe. The questions I have for the evolutionist are as follows: Where did the little ball of compressed matter come from? Where did the explosion take pace. Empty space isn’t empty. The big bang took place not only in space but in a thing called time. (space time) Where did space and time come from. The main point of evolution is itself unscientific because according to science everything has a first cause. Something never just springs forth from nothing. To tell the truth I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution. The first cause is either a divine designer (God) or some other first cause (evolution). After the big explosion a lot of faith has to really kick in to arrive at where we are now. We haven’t even started talking about DNA yet.
Pete,
For evolutionists life comes from non-life. The counter-argument to God, “Who created God?” is a question of a finite mind. We are creatures. We had a beginning. We cannot comprehend eternal existence and only God is eternal. Everything else had a beginning. You have a better change at winning the mega-powerball lottery a billion times in a row than for evolution to be true. Even if you’r lucky, not happening.
Good Morning Don, Hope you are well. Try not laugh at me when I say “Flat Earth”. I have of late been looking at this issue from a Biblical aspect and its not easy. Many people read into Genesis but the history of the flat earth goes back to Jospehus. I know it wont change my Salvation but its an interesting topic. Perhaps a diversion but wanted to know your take on this. Thank you. 1 Thess 5:21. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. I am trying to prove if its a sphere or flat. My family think I have gone bonkers.
Vanessa,
Isaiah wrote the earth was a circle (Isaiah 40.22), Aristotle determined the earth was round, and Erastothenes calculated its circumference in 240 B.C.
Thank you Don. Yes I had read that scripture. With the firmament around the earth it keeps it circle BUT I am just looking at this making sure testing all things. Did not know that Aristotle and Erastothenes had done those tests. Always thank you.
Vanessa,
Hee hee, I studied that for awhile too. It’s interesting. I couldn’t be so sure even though I read a lot of articles and saw videos of why people think this. The main scriptures that puzzle me with this subject are the ones about things “below or beneath” the earth. They could refer in the middle but why don’t they say in the middle? I finally came to the conclusion that it’s purely speculation even if it seems like it might be so. Interesting subject, as is the gap theory. G. E. Pember has a fun book called “Earths Earliest Ages”, you might like. Good luck with your study. We are inquisitive children:-)
Hello Bobbi, Thank you so much for your note. Its day 3 of my research and I am beginning to see holes in the flat earth argument. But over and above that my discernment has kicked in and I have begun to notice that most of the people who support the flat earth are Hebrew Roots people and the once famous John Lennon who was so anti God. What I can say is that I did have such fun researching and I found scriptures that I had never read before which was an “Oh Wow, how come I had never read that scripture.” Thank you for making me feel less foolish for even going down that path. My family are letting out a sigh of relief as their Mother has gone full cirlce and is back with her family again. Lol.
Hi Vanessa, Absolutely welcome sister :-) Yes, there are many holes there and overall, and either way it all belongs to God, whose children we are. When we are wondering (and hee hee some are more inquisitive than others) you were correct in saying we need to search out what the scripture says! The funniest thing about that study for me was to see the great glory of God. The creation , place he made for us to live is beautiful and vast with the Glory of God. Some of the scriptures for that study are awesome! Job for one, is packed with fun things. I finally just decided it was okay to just wonder … my family thought the same thing btw. It’s fun to wonder!
Dear Doctrine,
I found your website by accident, but I’m happy I did. I earned my Ph.D. in Evolutionary Biology and found your article on evolution disheartening. Rather than take the time to go through your article point-by-point, I thought I’d see if there might be interest among your readers to revisit it. Evolution is a fact. Point-by-point your article is replete with misinformation and outdated concepts. I’m not sure where you learned the information upon which you base your article, but suffice it to say the article needs vast revision with a focus on facts. I believe in God, but not the god of the Bible, so I’m not interested in in a theological debate. Perhaps I could start with a question and see if there’s any interest in pursuing the truth about evolution: Where did you obtain your information used in this article and why have you not revised it?
Dr. Menard,
From what you have written, I am not sure you read the article carefully. Science is a discipline that gains knowledge through observation and experimentation. Have you observed one kind evolving into another kind or have you found a record that shows this? Have you observed new kinds coming into existence and witnessed the boundaries of kinds being crossed? Apart from such evidence, evolution is at best an unproved theory. As far as I know, no one has witnessed these things at the macro level nor does the fossil record show this. Keep in mind, for every kind or species there would have to be literally thousands of trillions of modifications and mutations. One would need the see millions of these in a clear line of succession to demonstrate evolution of on kind of creature to another kind. If Darwinism had scientific credibility, we should find billions of fossils of transitional forms given the millions of years posited by evolutionists. The ground should be literally covered with these records. And this should not all be in the past. We should be observing new species coming into existence regularly. When you state, “evolution is a fact” I’m not sure what you mean by this. Micro-evolution is a fact. It is observed. But macro-evolution has never been observed or discovered in the fossil record. As I wrote in the article, kind produces kind. That is the bedrock of biology.
As a reader of this Bible Doctrine site, I am happy to say we live by faith. It is sad to me that people refuse to believe what we see with our eyes in this planet especially designed for habitation by man-kind.
Every person today has an internal witness of God, our creator.
Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
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:
No theological debate here, but our witness of God leaves evolution in the dust.
Respectfully,
Bobbi
Please call me Sylvie. One of the many things that bothers me is that your article refuses to acknowledge the current evidence from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
Macroevolution studies involve inference from fossils and DNA. In the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, among others), hypotheses can be tested by checking whether they support the physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions. The consensus among evolutionary biologists, for example, is that, between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one finds a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern. This is well-attested in the fossil record. Perhaps you’re not aware of this because these findings are relatively new to evolutionary science (withing the pas 5-10 years). Evolutionary biologists are well aware of these recent findings above the level of species change, although dissemination of such knowledge takes time to make it to the public.
New species arise when previously conspecific populations no longer interbreed successfully. This reproductive isolation can be explained as an incidental by-product of other evolutionary changes. Evolutionary biologists have written extensively how natural selection produces new species (Kleindorfer, S. et al., 2014; Wilson, 2015, among others).
I would encourage you to inform yourself about recent discoveries in evolutionary biology as you entertain the thought of revising your article.
Sylvie,
You have stated the problem. The problem is inference. The inference is that the hominids of 5 million years ago are related to us. But just because DNA is similar doesn’t mean there is a line of succession. That’s inference, not evidence. So the issue becomes how one interprets the data. Evolutionists interpret similar DNA to mean a common ancestor. I would interpret the data to mean that God created life with a basic genetic design but programmed controls in the design. One of those is that kind only produces kind. The problem for evolutionists is proving a line of succession. DNA, morphology, cytology, etc. are worthless in formulating such proof since all of them can be argued with equal or better facility from a creationist view. The only way I see evolution could be proven would be to observe it occurring or have a record it has occurred. But that is not what we have. If evolution has been occurring for millions of years, we should have a massive amount of transitional forms. Darwin was dismayed with the lack of evidence but thought it would be found. It hasn’t been. So the problem for evolution is a lack of scientific evidence. Evolution relies on inference and interpreting data to preconceived ideas: evolution is assumed to be true. But if we do not have clear examples of transition, do not observe evolution occurring, do not see new kinds coming into existence, and do not see kinds producing anything but their own kind, scientifically, what should one conclude? One should conclude the theory of evolution is wrong. Furthermore, we should conclude creation is correct since kinds only produce kinds and we only observe kinds going out of existence, not coming into existence. This fits the Biblical record. So the scientific view is the Biblical record. It is what we observe. So as a scientist, I would ask you what test would falsify evolution?
this is whacky flat-earth recent-flood theology, get real, you guys … the Bible was never intended to be a book on science,.biology, geology etc … and Genesis creation stories are metaphorical just as the remarks about God having a “throne” are metaphorical … his “throne” is a metaphor for his power and authority and majesty … understand?…scripture abounds in metaphorical language … accept that reality and stop taking the easy way out by sticking your heads in the deadly quicksands of literalism …
Andy,
Your comment indicates you have either not read the Bible or have misunderstood it. The Bible is not a science book but it contains science. You also reveal that you do not understand how language works. When the Bible uses figurative language, it is to reveal literal truth. See my article, Hermeneutics.
Don, is the ‘Apparent Age’ theory as proposed by Dr. Charles C. Ryrie and others a possibility? Could God have made everything to appear to be millions/billions of years to humans when it’s really only thousands of years old? I’ve read the ‘theistic creationist’ response to this at the ‘Biologos’ site, and they reject the idea that God could be a ‘trickster’ in this regard. And old earth/old universe/young human race creationists such as Hugh Ross also oppose the ‘Apparent Age’ theory. I lean towards the old earth/universe and young human race view. The gap theory that you and others suggest makes sense.
Brian,
I’m highly skeptical of “apparent age.” We really don’t understand time so dating anything depends on one’s clock. It seems to me the universe is old but mankind and the creation related in Genesis 1 is quite young.
Jer. 13:23—————–not sure. might be verse 33?
‘Can an Ethiopian change his skin?’ Is skin color ever addressed in the bible?
Joe,
Not that I know.
Don, I’ve concluded that Psalm 14:1; Romans 1:20; And 2 Peter 1:16 are more than sufficient for apologetics. Given that these scriptures are directly Holy Spirit inspired. All the extra human based scientific, philosophical or historical formulations pale in comparison. As you, C.S. Lewis, and others have stated, It come down to choice/free will/faith. People disbelieve because they choose to. And sadly, some or many people would still reject the Gospel truth even if an angel or Jesus Himself appeared to them.
Brian,
Those who deny free will do not understand God’s purposes or plan. God created us to resolve the problem of evil and the angelic conflict. Without free will, we are merely automatons, preprogrammed by God. If this is true, our choices are meaningless. They make no difference to God’s plan and defeat the very purpose of our creation. All God’s creations with God-consciousness have free will—the angelic host and us. The really wonderful thing is that God has given us such a amazing role in His plan.
Don, you’ve addressed the ‘theistic evolution’ view of Dr. Francis S. Collins. But sadly, this position has been growing in popularity among ‘worried’ adherents who see it as being a sort of ‘acceptable’ intellectual bridge between the religious and secular spheres. Even CNN has respectively interviewed Dr. Collins about it. And Dr. Collins has acquired more prominence as the former head of the human genome project and now as a part of President Trump’s/ Dr. Fauci’s White House coronavirus team. I note a particular troubling excerpt/theme of Collins’ ‘The Language of God’ book: “The real dilemma for the believer comes down to whether Genesis 2 is describing a special act of miraculous creation that applied to a historic couple, making them biologically different from all other creatures that had walked the earth, or whether this is a poetic and powerful allegory of God’s plan for the entrance of the spiritual nature (the soul) and the Moral Law into humanity. Since a supernatural God can carry out supernatural acts, both options are intellectually tenable.” (pgs. 207) I think it’s insidious. Your thoughts?
Brian,
I do not know Dr. Collins’ motivations but no scientific evidence exists for evolution. No theological evidence exists for evolution either. Those who accept evolution, naturalistic or theistic, are under the influence of τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, “the ruling principles of the world” Colossians 2.8, 20; Galatians 4.3, 9. Paul used this expression to denote Satan’s explanation of reality. It is deception. The channel through which it operates is unbelief.
Don, There’s always been a little flickering of a question as to why Gen. 9:11 says what it says. I can understand the verse much better if there is a hint of an indication that flooding has been ongoing (more than one) means of cleansing the earth. To me, it’s an offering or a promise that things won’t be as they have been in the past…..an end to a process….the last time.
Maybe I’m looking for something to help fill in what happened between Gen 1 vs. 1 and vs 2.
Thoughts? Thank you
Joe,
There’s nothing in Genesis 9.11 for evidence of another flood yes or no. The most compelling reason I think an earlier flood took place is Ezekiel 28. Lucifer was on earth, in Eden, before Adam and Eve. He fell and judgment occurred on earth for we find it covered in water or perhaps ice in Genesis 1. Without a “gap” between Genesis 1.1 and 2 I do not see how to account for Ezekiel 28.
good point. It’s not only what it says….it’s what it does not say. (Ez 28).
There is something called ‘Theistic Evolution’. ….God just pushed the play button and played hide and seek with us. Darwin gave many the reason/excuse to consider a naturalistic advancement from the first cell to now. How do you/would you address someone who’s bought in to this thinking and still considers them-self a Christian? Personally, I think someone can believe this and still believe in the death, burial and resurrection.
Joe,
The problem I have with such is Christ dying for our sins and rising from the dead is the great miracle. If one can believe this, why cannot one believe the smaller miracle? I simply find no evidence to support evolution. It’s like believing the stork bring babies. If evolution is true, then death did not come as a result of sin and the whole reason for Christ’s death and resurrection, our salvation, is bogus.
Don, is the big bang theory compatible with old earth/universe creationism or the gap theory? Proponents such as Hugh Ross contends that the universe’s origin can be traced to 13.8 or 13.7 billion years ago. Many Christians reject the big bang theory, especially young earth creationists, but I think it’s a non-essential and complimentary issue. It doesn’t seem to contradict scripture. And theoretically, the big bang had a definite starting point. In fact, some secularists think that it could support Theism.
Brian,
The whole “dating” aspect of the universe depends on how one measures time. Peter wrote 1,000 years for God is a day. It depends on your clock and your position. The Bible describes God’s creating the heavens in terms like “stretching the heavens like a curtain” and “spreading them out like a tent.” While metaphorical, it’s the place to start for cosmologists and physicists.
Here’s a disturbing glimpse into the racist mindset of Charles Darwin: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” (Charles Darwin) We can also easily see how a materialist/reductionist ideology can be used to justify racism, fascism, marxism, genocide, elitism, etc.
“If the various anti-clerical and anti-theistic forces at work in the nineteenth century had had to attack a solid phalanx of radical Christians the story might have been different. But mere ‘religion’ – ‘morality tinged with emotion’, ‘what a man does with his solitude’, ‘the religion of all good men’ – has little power of resistance. It is not good at saying NO.” (C.S. Lewis, “The Decline of Religion,” 1946, from “Compelling Reason,” pg. 80)
Don, I thought this funny and appropriate to the subject: “… a strict materialism refutes itself for the reasons given long ago by Professor Haldane: “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true… and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” (Possible Worlds, p.209)” (C.S. Lewis, ‘Miracles,’ 1947, p.22) This cleverly addresses the absurdity of naturalism.