"IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED..."

An essay on Creation and Evolution

INTRODUCTION

  "Where did I come from?" is a question that is common to all peoples but the answer to such a question will vary according to ones beliefs. This paper will discuss three schools of thought with regard to the origins and development of life. In giving definitions for these views it should be understood that within each field their are variations of beliefs. The first is Creation and for the purposes of this essay Creation will refer to the belief that God created the earth and all that is in it not by means of a gradual process but by specific acts of creation as recorded in the book of Genesis. The second is the theory of Evolution where life came about by chance and developed through a process of natural selection, mutations and survival of the fittest from simple organisms to complex organisms over millions of years and was not the result of a creator. The third is the attempt to blend the two together. Those who believe in  the God of the Bible and believe that it is from God that life originated but who believe that there is enough scientific evidence to accept that life developed by the process of evolution. That is, God created the simplest life forms and then allowed them to evolve through an evolutionary process guided by him. This essay will look at the origins of these views, the evidence for them and examine whether or not evolution and Christianity can exist together as they do in Theistic Evolutional theory. It should be noted that the Bible is assumed to be the Word of God as the scope of this essay does not allow the many proves for this to be presented.


ORIGINS OF CREATION, EVOLUTION AND THEISTIC EVOLUTION

  It has long been assumed among the inhabitants of the earth that life originated from a higher being. In fact the Bible tells us that the heavens declare God's glory and display the work of his hands (Ps 19:1) and that all men are without excuse because God has created things so that we know he exists (Rom 1:18-20). To pick up the Bible just one hundred and fifty years ago was to believe that God created life in the exact manner recorded in the first few chapters of Genesis. That God could make every living thing in six days was not disputed.

  Prior to the proposal of the evolutionary theory, the creation account for the origin and history of the earth was an acceptable model adequately explaining the observable evidence. The biblical account was then purposely rejected in favour of the evolutionary theory (McLean, Oakland and McLean, p. 92).

  When the theory of evolution began to formulate, it claimed scientific backing for its beliefs. It became the educated explanation for life and origins. The authors of The Evidence for Creation observe:

One hundred and fifty years ago such a theory [ie evolution] for the
origin and history of the earth and life would have been termed
absurd. Today, however, those who reject the idea of random
evolutionary processes being responsible for designing life and
shaping geological features of the earth are termed religious,
unscientific fanatics (Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean, p.91).

The idea behind the theory of evolution  was not to explain how a creator could have created life as we know it but to explain how life could come about without a creator. "The purpose of the evolution theory, as stated by several of its founders, was to show an alternative explanation for the origin of life could be made without giving credit to a Creator" (Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean, p. 93). Scientific evidences were brought forward to support the theory of evolution and Christianity was pushed away in favour of atheistic humanism. While many Christians held to the Biblical account of creation many others felt forced by such evidences to concede that evolution was correct. They did not want to give up their belief in God however so the Biblical account had to be reevaluated and reinterpreted in the light of evolutionary theory. The Biblical account was considered to be symbolic, figurative or just man's account of what he thought happened rather than the Word of God to be read literally and believed. For example, the six days of creation specified in the Bible are expanded to the millions of years necessary for evolution. Thus many adopted both an evolutionary and theistic view of the origins of life. Such a view is not truly Creationist, as it implies that different life forms evolved over a long period of time and were not the result of instantaneous creation, nor is it truly evolutionist as it accepts the origin of life to ultimately be God and that he was to some extent involved in the process of evolution.


GENERAL ACCEPTANCE OF EVOLUTION

  The evidence presented on behalf of evolution includes transitional forms, homologous structures, dating methods,vestigial organs,studies on peppered  moths and finches. All of which appears extremely convincing when left unchallenged. In such a tide of scientific assertion it is not surprising that many would be shaken and/or taken in by the theory of evolution. Add to this the fact that evolution is taught in the majority of western schools as though it were more fact than theory and it is not hard to see why so many Christians are left to balance their belief in the Creator and the theory of evolution.


EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION OR CREATION?

  Since the initial wave of evolutionary theory many scientists have been able to study the area and the evidences further. There are those who go on believing in evolution without question and there are those who have looked more closely at the supposed evidence. This we will do in this section if but
briefly.


THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

  Creationists have been accused many times of being unscientific and ignoring clear evidences. It should be pointed out that it is actually the theory of evolution that contradicts a known scientific law- the Second Law of Thermodynamics (also known as the Law of Increasing Entropy). This law basically teaches that "...all things change in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of running down." (Isaac Asmov, 1973, cited in Morris and Parker, p. 198). Morris and Parker explain further:

This principal is exceedingly important. Its operation is experienced
in everyday human life, as well as in the most sophisticated machine
and most complex process. If you let anything go, it deteriorates. If
you let your desk go it becomes cluttered... if you let your
automobile go, it runs down... And even if you don't let them go, but
do your best to take care of them, they will eventually wear out
anyhow! The Second Law inevitably triumphs, sooner or later. This
experience is so universal and so common that it is surprising that
anyone could ever believe in evolution at all." (Morris and Parker,
p. 198-199)

Evolution teaches that organisms become more ordered and more complex as time passes. Conversely the Biblical account of creation not only explains how complex organisms came into being it also explains why the Second Law operates ie. because of sin (Gen 3:16-19).


THE AGE OF THE EARTH

  Much of the evolutionary theory rests on the premise of an earth that is millions of years old whereas most creationists believe in a young earth. Much of the case for an old earth is supported by radiometric dating techniques. However these are not as reliable as we have been led to believe. Morris and Parker observe:

When I first became interested in the subject of cosmology almost
forty years ago, it was widely held that the universe was two billion
years old. The most persuasive "proof" of this age was the convergence
of several independent calculations on this date. The argument went
like this: "Although questions can be raised about the reliability of
any one method, the fact that several independent methods 'agree' must
prove that they are all basically correct. The decay of lead into
uranium, the expansion of the universe, and several other calculations
all yield an age of two billion years, so this is undoubtedly the true
age!"

It is now known, of course, that all these calculations were wrong. In
each of the methods, certain assumptions had been made which were
later proved wrong.

However, the line of reasoning still has a familiar ring. Even though
all currently popular geochronometers involve certain very
questionable assumptions, the apparent agreement in their results (or,
at least, in some of their results) is taken as proof that they are
correct (Morris and Parker, p. 255).

Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean explain the problem further:

The radiometric dating techniques are based on three assumptions:
1. The system must have been initially made up of all parent elements
   and no daughter elements.
2. The rate of decay must have been constant from the moment the
   process was started.
3. The system must operate as a closed system. Nothing from the system
   can be taken away; nothing from outside the system can be added.

As we examine these basic assumptions, the highly speculative nature
of the radiometric dating methods becomes apparent. None of these
assumptions are testable or provable, and therefore not scientific.
For example it is impossible for anyone to know the initial components
of the system. To state that the system began as 100% parent element
and 0% daughter element is an outright guess. Secondly, it is
unreasonable to suggest the decay rate has always taken place in the
past at the same rate it is observed today. Every process in nature
operates at a rate influenced by numerous environmental factors. In
the process of radiometric decay, for example, extreme temperature
change alters the rate very significantly. Thirdly, there is no such
thing as a closed system in nature. The whole concept of having a
process taking place over long periods without any outside
interference is purely hypothetical. It is totally impossible to make
the claim that parent or daughter elements have neither been added to
nor taken away from the system over millions of years of time
(Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean, p. 34-35).

Certainly if we believe the Biblical account of early human history, conditions were not static enough for the radiometric methods to apply. Consider the impact Noah's flood would have had. It was only after the flood that mans age was decreased by several hundred years.

  Even some "old earth evolutionists" such as William Stansfield admit that:

It is obvious that radiometric methods may not be the reliable dating
methods they are often claimed to be. Age estimates on a given
geological stratum using different methods are often quite different
(sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely
reliable long-term radiological clock (Morris and Parker, p. 285).

  On a more philosophical level it should be noted that, one does not know how old the earth was when it was created. This might best be explained by applying the idea to man. Adam, according to the Biblical account was created not as a baby but as a full grown man. If he were examined by a doctor at the time of creation he would be given an age above say twenty years even though he was only minutes old. The same way of thinking could be applied to the earth. Although it may appear old to some it had to be created that way to function as we know it. For example, if you don't believe God shaped the mountains and the valleys at creation than you have to believe it took millions of years for them to be carved out by the forces of nature.

  There are scientific evidences that point to a young earth. There is not enough time here to discuss them all but we will look at a couple, keep in mind that the theory of evolution is dependant on the old earth theory. Firstly, the earths magnetic field is getting weaker and weaker. "If we draw a graph using the data that has been collected, and make the assumption that the rate of magnetic decay has been the same in the past as it is today [evolutionists work with the concept of static behaviour in their radiometric dating methods] , the strength of the earth's magnetic field would have been equivalent to a magnetic star only 10,000 years ago. Obviously no life could possibly exist under these conditions" (Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean, p. 27). Secondly the cosmic dust on the moon supports a young earth:

With the use of satellite technology, scientists are capable of
measuring the amount of cosmic dust filtering into the earth's
atmosphere each year. Scientists have speculated that over the
estimated billions of years of earth history, fifty or more feet of
cosmic dust may have fallen... Because of erosion created by the
earth's environmental conditions, an accumulation of this depth could
not possibly be found in any one location.

The factor of acclimating cosmic dust caused a great deal of concern
for the initial explorations that took place to the moon. Unlike the
earth, the moon is not subject to erosional processes created by wind
and water. Because most evolutionary scientists believe the earth and
the moon are of similar age, it was expected lunar landing modules
would encounter a problem trying to land in over fifty feet of cosmic
dust. As a result of this projection, based upon the assumed millions
of years of age for the earth and moon, engineers in charge of design
of the lunar landing modules constructed large pads so the space
probes would not sink deep into the dust.

When the first landing on the moon was accomplished, scientists were
shocked to find the expected accumulation of dust was not present. In
fact, the dust was only a few inches thick indicating a period of
accumulation less than 10,000 years" (Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean,
p. 26-27).

Other evidences include; the shrinking of the sun, comets, continent erosion and oil and gas deposits (see Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean p. 24-34 for further information).


HOMOLOGOUS STRUCTURES

  Evolutionists point to the similarities in the bone structure of the limbs of various animals to show that those animals must have developed from a common ancestor. This similarity can be explained equally as well by creationists who state that it is simply creation according to a common design. The old adage "if it works why change it?" applies here. It makes sense that a designer would use a good design for several different items if they were to be used for similar functions. Homologous structures do not necessarily mean "common ancestry" they could  alternatively mean "common designer".


VESTIGIAL ORGANS

  Another evidence put forward for evolution is the belief that during human embryonic development certain "extras" or "vestiges" appear for a time that are reminders of where humans evolved from. There is no doubt that to look at the human embryo one can identify the structures evolutionists refer to. There are small wrinkles in the skin near the neck, a balloon like appendage near the stomach and a tail like appendage at the base. Evolutionists identify them respectively as "gill slits", a "yolk sac" and a "tail" detailing our fish and reptilian ancestry.  The evolutionist argues "Look, if you're talking about creation, then surely the creator must not be all that good at it, or else there wouldn't be all these mistakes in human embryonic development" (Morris and Parker, p.61). This is not the case, none of these organs are what they are referred to as above nor are they mistakes or useless leftovers, they are all quite vital to human development. Firstly, the "gill slits" have been discovered to actually be where the throat pouches grow out. "The middle ear canals come from the second pouches, and the parathyroid and thymus glands come from the third and fourth" (Morris and Parker, p. 64). The "yolk sac" does not provide food as it would for a chicken, it is actually where the baby makes its first blood cells, not having any bone marrow yet to make it there. The "tail" is the development of the coccyx at the base of the spine. It is quite a necessary bone and it sticks out because it has to form first as muscles and limbs don't develop until stimulated by the spine, as these develop they enclose the "tail". Not only have evolutionists deemed vital areas of embryonic development "useless leftovers" they have also impacted the adult world:

The concept of vestigial organs even resulted in cases of
"evolutionary medical malpractice." Young children once had their
healthy (and helpful, disease-fighting) tonsils removed because of the
widespread belief that they were only useless vestiges. That idea
actually slowed down scientific research for many years. If you
believe something is a useless, nonfunctional leftover of evolution,
then you don't bother to find out what it does.

Fortunately, other scientists didn't take that view. Sure enough,
studies have shown that essentially all 180 organs once listed as
evolutionary vestiges have quite important functions in human beings
(Morris and Parker, p. 62-63).


EVOLUTION TODAY

  Sceptics of the evolution theory may well ask "If evolution is true, why can't we see it happening today?" At this point the well schooled evolutionist will reply "Evolution has been and can be observed today." He will then proceed to detail observations made on the peppered moth population, the finches of the Galapagos Islands and experiments with fruit flys. The peppered moth account goes like this there were a population of moths in a community that were observed undergoing natural selection. Natural selection is the name of a process where the organisms that are best suited to their environment are more likely to survive and hence reproduce. This process is also known as survival of the fittest. Evolutionists believe that natural selection is involved in the process of evolution. In the peppered moth population there were both dark and light moths. The light moths were more camouflaged as they blended with the lichen that covered the tree trunk. This made the dark moths easier for the birds to see and they were easier prey. The population was approximately 98% light moths. Over a period of time the population ratio was reversed and there were 98% dark moths. The industrial pollution nearby had caused the lichen to die exposing the dark coloured bark underneath. The dark moths were therefore more suited to the environment and hence they became the dominant colour as more light moths were eaten. This is clear evidence that natural selection is a true scientific fact. It does not, however, prove anything about evolution. Creation scientists believe in the process of natural selection:

As a matter of fact, 24 years before Darwin's publication, a scientist
named Edward Blyth published the concept of natural selection in the
context of creation. He saw it as a process that adapted varieties of
the created types to changing environments. A book reviewer once
asked, rather naively, if creationists could accept the concept of
natural selection. The answer is, "Of course. We thought of it first"
(See Leslie, 1984) (Morris and Parker, p. 82).

The creation model could be summarised as starting with a large gene pool which divides by migration and selection and allows change within types or kinds (ie. a bird will always be a bird and will not change into another kind of animal). This is exactly what we observe with the peppered moth:

What did we start with? Dark and light varieties of the peppered moth,
species Biston betularia. After 100 years of natural selection, what
did we end up with? Dark and light varieties of the peppered moth,
species Biston betularia. All that changed was the percentage of moths
in the two categories - that is, just variation within type. According
to creationists, natural selection is just one of the processes that
operate in our present world to insure that the created types can
indeed spread throughout the earth in all its ecological and
geographic variety (Morris and Parker, p. 82).

Evolution teaches that a small gene pool expanded by mutation and natural selection to allow change between types or kinds (ie. a reptile could become a bird over thousands or millions of years). So we see that the peppered moth illustration is evidence of natural selection only not evolution. The same can be said of the finches and fruit flys. In fact:

Darwin explained the location of finches with different beak types on
the Galapagos Islands the same way a creationist would - by starting
with a population of finches with variation in beak type (Morris and
Parker, p. 90).

Lewontin is an evolutionist and outspoken anti-creationist, but he
honestly recognises the same limitations of natural selection that
creation scientists do: . . . . natural selection operates essentially
to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather
than to improve it.

Natural selection does not lead to continual improvement (evolution);
it only maintains features organisms already have (creation). . . . It
seems to me that natural selection works only because each type was
created with sufficient variety to migrate over the earth in all its
ecological and geographic variety. Without realising it at the time,
Darwin actually discovered important evidence pointing to creation
(Morris and Parker, p. 91).


THE FOSSIL RECORD

  A belief and interest in fossils is often linked with as strong belief in evolution. The fossil record is, however, one of the strongest arguments against evolution. "Darwin thought that the fossil evidence was '...perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which could be urged against the theory [of evolution]'" (Morris and Parker p. 130). Even the father of the modern concept of evolution acknowledged the problem here. He had a reason though, to stay his judgement on this because paleontology (fossil study) was a relatively new area. Darwin blamed the conflict between fact and theory on, in his own words, "the imperfection of the geological record" (Morris and Parker, p. 130). Only time would reveal the true story and thus the search for fossil evidence began. Morris and Parker relate what exactly was sort after:

When the modern version of creation-evolution dialogue got started in
the middle of the last century, creationists and evolutionists had
radically different ideas of the types of life they expected to find
as fossils.

The evolutionist, of course, expected to find fossils that showed
stages through which one type of animal or plant changed into a
different type. According to evolution, the boundaries between types
should blur as we look back at their fossil history. It should get
more and more difficult, for example, to tell cats from dogs and then
mammals from reptiles, land animals from water animals, and finally
life from nonlife. They expected also that the criteria we use to
classify plants and animals today would be less and less useful as
older and older fossils show the in-between characteristics of
presumed common ancestors for different groups.

But if the different types of life we see today are the descendants
of types created, as the creationist says, then all we ought to find
as fossils are just variations of these types, with extinction evident
among prehistoric life as it is among historic forms. The same kind of
criteria we use to classify plants and animals today ought to work
just as well with fossils (Morris and Parker, p. 125-126).

Fossils of organisms undergoing transition from one type to another are known as transitional forms or "missing links". If a great number of these were found it would prove evolutionary theory. Only a few fossils that have been found can even be considered as "missing links" . The prize fossil for evolutionists is the Archaeopteryx. This animal is supposed to show the transition between reptiles and birds. It possessed teeth, claws and a tail as well as wings, feathers and a wishbone. Let's take a closer look:

What's a creationist going to say to a "perfect example of evolution"
like Archaeopteryx?

Well, first of all, the reptile-like features are not really so
reptile-like as you might suppose. The familiar ostrich, for example,
has claws on its wings that are even more "reptile-like than those of
Archaeopteryx. Several birds, such as the hoatzin, don't have much of
a keel. No living birds have socketed teeth, but some fossil birds
did. Besides, some reptiles have teeth and some don't, so presence or
absence of teeth is not particularly important in distinguishing the
two groups.

More importantly, take a look at the individual features of
Archaeopteryx. Is there any clue as to how legs evolved into wings?
No, none at all. When we find wings as fossils, we find completely
developed, fully functional wings. That's true of Archaeopteryx, and
it's also true of the flying insects and the flying mammals (bats).

Is there any clue in Archaeopteryx as to how the reptilian scales
evolved into feathers? No, none at all. When we find feathers as
fossils, we find fully developed and functional feathers. Feathers are
quite complex structures, with little hooks and eyelets for zippering
and unzippering them. Archaeopteryx not only had complete and complex
feathers, but feathers of several different types. As a matter of
fact, it had the asymmetric feather characteristic of strong flyers.

What about a lack of a keel? Actually, muscles for the power stroke in
flight attach to the wishbone or furcula, and Archaeopteryx had "an
extremely robust furcula." As a matter of fact, a growing number of
evolutionists, perhaps a consensus, now believe that Archaeopteryx was
a strong flyer. Many now consider Archaeopteryx the first bird, and
not a missing link between reptiles and birds (See Denton, 1985).

Actually the final piece in the Archaeopteryx puzzle (for the time
being, anyway) has been put into place with the discovery in Texas of
a quarry full of bird bones ("poroto-avis"), entombed in rock layers
"deeper" than those which contain Archaeopteryx remains (Beardsley,
1986). What does that mean? It simply means that the Archaeopteryx
specimens we have cannot have been the ancestors of birds, because
birds always existed (Morris and Parker, p. 135, 137).

  So the result of the search for fossil evidence to support evolution has actually supported creation by what was not found. "It used to be claimed that the best evidence for evolution was the fossil record, but the fact is that the billions of fossils have not yet yielded a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving" (Morris and Parker, p. 3). David Raup curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago and evolutionist states:

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the
fossil record has been greatly expanded. . . ironically, we have even
fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's
time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian
change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in
North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of
more detailed information. (Morris and Parker, p. 131-132).


MUTATIONS

  How do evolutionists explain the transition from one kind of organism to another? It has been observed that genes are subject to mutations. For example, exposure to radiation can cause mutation (or change) in the genes that may result in a physical change in the organism. Mutations have never been observed changing an organism from on kind into another. Evolutionists teach that organisms undergo mutations and this coupled with natural selection over millions of years results in new kinds of organisms. For example, a reptile through a series of mutations and natural selection over a long period of time can become a bird. This is how evolutionists believe all different kinds of organisms evolved. If this were the case millions of fossils would be found in the transitional phases but as we have seen there are no clear evidences of this, however, for the moment we will leave this aside and look at mutations themselves - "the raw material for evolution".

  Creationists believe that mutations take place but they do not believe that they result in true evolution. Morris and Parker explain why:

In the last analysis, mutations really don't help evolutionary theory
at all, for three major reasons.

(1) Mathematical Challenges...Back in 1967, a prestigious group of
internationally known biologists and mathematicians gathered at the
Wistar Institute to consider Mathematical Challenges to the
Neo-Dawinian Interpretation of Evolution. (See Moorhead and Kaplan,
1967.) All present were evolutionists, and they agreed, as the preface
clearly states, that no one would be questioning evolution itself. The
only question was, could mutations serve as a basis- with natural
selection- as a mechanism for evolutionary change? The answer of the
mathematicians: No. Just plain no." ...

(2) Upward or downward? Even more serious is the fact that mutations
are "going the wrong way" as far as evolution is concerned. Almost
every mutation we know of is identified by the disease or abnormality
it causes. Creationists use mutations to explain the origin of
parasites and disease, the origin of hereditary defects, and the loss
of traits. In other words, time, chance, and random changes do just
what we normally expect: tear things up and make matters worse. Using
mutations to explain the breakdown of existing genetic order
(creation) is quite the opposite of using mutations to explain the
build up of genetic order (evolution). Clearly creation is the most
direct inference from the effects of mutations that scientists
actually observe" (Morris and Parker, p. 95,98,100).

  It is worthwhile expanding this point. Evolutionists are quick to point out what they believe to be a positive mutation. The one often used is the sickle-cell anemia example which is as follows. In certain parts of Africa malaria kills about 30% of the population. In that area a mutation of the red blood cells known as sickle-cell anemia has become a fairly common trait. When a person caries one normal red blood cell gene and one sickle-cell gene the person is resistant to malaria. However about 25% of all children where the parents carry the sickle-cell gene die from sickle-cell anemia. Many would agree that this is not really a positive upward movement.

  Mutations are " ...harmful at least 1,000 times more often than they are helpful" (Morris and Parker, p. 102). It is extremely hard to believe that mutations could result in simple organisms evolving into more complex organisms. To return to Morris and Parker's three reasons why mutations are not acceptable as a means for evolution:

(3) Mutations point back to creation...the biggest reason mutations
cannot lead to evolution is an extremely simple one. It's so simple,
I'm almost afraid to say it. But really, mutations presuppose
creation. After all, mutations are only changes in already existing
genes (Morris and Parker, p. 108).

  It does not appear that mutations provide the raw material for evolution after all. In fact many leading evolutionists also agree (see Morris and Parker, p. 109). One such evolutionist is Stephen Gould:

Gould (1980a) simply says, "The theory [orthodox neo-Dawinian
extrapolationalism], as a general proposition is effectively dead,
despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."

Gould believes our knowledge of genetics is now sufficient to
completely reject the explanation of evolution as the slow, gradual
selection of small mutational changes. He prefers to believe instead
that evolution occurs in giant steps, radical restructuring of whole
DNA sets producing what he himself calls "hopeful monsters." But he
admits that no such hopeful monster has ever been observed. His new
theory, then, is not any sort of logical inference from observations,
but a fantastic faith in the future of a theory that the facts have
failed" (Morris and Parker, p. 109).


THE CASE SUMMARISED

Morris and Parker summarise the case against evolution:

No evolution at present...
No new species...
No known mechanism of evolution...
No fossil evidence...
No evidence that evolution is possible...
No evidence from similarities...
No recaplutation or vestigial organs (Morris and Parker, p. 2-7).

As we have seen the evidence for evolution doesn't really stack up. In fact much of the "evidence" points more toward creation.

If one wishes to believe in evolution, it is a free country, but he
must believe it strictly as a matter of faith; there is no scientific
evidence for evolution that cannot be explained at least as well, and
usually better, by creation" (Morris and Parker, p. 1).


EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIANITY

  It was mentioned earlier in this paper that many Christians have tried to couple their believe in God with the theory of evolution. People do this in different ways. Some just believe that the Bible is merely a book written by men and so they take no notice of the account of creation (such people should consider what the foundations of their faith are and find some material on the proofs for the Bible being the word of God as well as seek God on the matter). Others believe the Bible is the word of God but have understood the Genesis account to be figurative or symbolic and not an actual literal account of creation. Many in this category, for example, take the six days to be symbolic of millions of years, this way they can allow the theory of evolution "somehow" fit with the Biblical account. There are a number of problems that are encountered when people try to do this. The first and most obvious question is "how far into the Bible does the symbolic interpretation go?" If chapter one is symbolic than chapter two must be also to fit with the method of interpretation and the theory of evolution. If chapter two is symbolic what about chapter three and so forth. Each chapter is really reliant on the previous chapter being true. God makes no clear break in the telling of early humanities history and there is nothing to indicate that the account is symbolic, in fact there is much evidence to the contrary. If we do take these verses in a symbolic manner we have created later problems in our reading of Scripture because other books in the Bible refer to the account in a way that indicates the truthfulness and reality of the account. Before looking at these Scriptures it should be noted that a. "...it is impossible for God to lie..." (Heb 6:18), b. There is no reason why God would not tell us about evolution had he used this means to create and c. Without the theory of evolution there are no reasons to doubt or interpret symbolically, the account given us by God.


THE TIME QUESTION

  The Bible says that "A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses" (Deut 19:15). How long did it take Almighty God to create the heavens and the earth and everything in them?

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was
evening and there was morning- the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the
earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God
had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he
rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it
holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he
had done (Gen 1:31-2:2).

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy... For in six days the
LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,
but he rested on the seventh day. (Ex 20:8,11).

The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the
generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between
me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the
heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work
and rested (Ex 31:16-17).

The word of God clearly states that it took God six days to create everything. This should definitely be taken literally. First of all both Scriptures from Exodus are the words spoken from the mouth of the Lord not just a written record as those that are in Genesis. The Scripture from Exodus chapter twenty is taken out of the ten commandments and the reason God gives to the Israelites for keeping the Sabbath is the fact that he created everything in six days and rested on the seventh, a fact that must be true. The Scripture from Exodus chapter thirty -one tells us that the Sabbath is a covenant and a sign to the Israelites for God made everything in six days and rested on the seventh. So we see God made a commandment and covenant sign on the basis of this truth.

  Some theistic evolutionists say that the six days were not days as we know them, they were days of indefinite length and others say that their were indefinite time periods between the days. Are these two interpretations valid? The word of God makes it clear that the creation day is analogous with the normal work day as we have seen from the above Scriptures. As we will see later, it is no real help to stretch the length of the day anyway because the theory of evolution does not fit the account of each day.

  The word of God is very repetitive in stressing the passing of time "And there was evening, and there was morning- the first day" (Gen 1:5), evening and morning the second day and so forth (Gen 1:8,13, 19, 23, 31). The day and nights had to be literal for several reasons. Firstly we have already seen that the days were real days so we can assume that the nights were real nights. Many have made the comment that Adam must have been very busy that day naming all the animals and they imply that the day had to be longer than 24 hours. Adam did not name each individual animal he only named each kind of animal. Humans can speak at a pretty fast rate and Adam was probably an intelligent fellow not to mention God was present with him. You do not have to stretch the day very far anyway because it only took Noah seven days to load all the kinds of animals onto the ark (Gen 7). Besides sitting around naming animals for days and days does not appeal to most people. Add to this the fact that Adam was only 130 years old when he had his third son, Seth, which he had after the fall and hence after the seventh day and that Adam only lived a total of 930 years (Gen 5:3), then we see it is impossible for that sixth day to be greater than the length of 130 years.

  Even if on insists that the days were longer Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean list several reasons why the Day- Age theory, as it is called, is incompatible with the theory of evolution anyway:

1. The Bible states all plant life came into existence on the third
   day of creation, but the fish and marine organisms were created on
   the fifth day. The geological theory for the origin and progression
   of life reverses this order.

2. The Bible states God made the sun, the moon, and the stars on the
   fourth day of creation. This is the day following the creation of
   the plant kingdom. Obviously, vegetation could not exist for long
   periods of time without sunlight, therefore the suggestion that a
   day of creation could be equivalent to millions of years would not
   be possible.

3. The Bible states the birds were created on the same day as the fish
   and other marine organisms [the day before land animals].
   Geological theory maintains that birds evolved from reptiles at a
   period of time millions of years after the time period when fish
   appeared.

4. The Bible indicates insects were among the last things created,
   coming on the scene at the same time as land animals and reptiles.
   According to evolutionary geology, insects appeared early in the
   geological record preceding the appearance of reptiles and land
   animals (Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean, p. 21-22).


EVOLUTION OR SPECIAL CREATION

  The word of God makes it clear that each animal was made according to its kind (Gen 1:12, 21,24-25). Not only is this so but each kind was made from the dust of the earth "Now the LORD had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air" (Gen 2:19). The word of God shows that God created each kind of animal and plant separately. Each kind can only reproduce after its own kind. Evolution teaches that different kinds evolved from common ancestors. That is a reptile over a period of time evolved into a bird.

  God also reveals that man was made not by a process of evolution but by a special and deliberate creative act from the dust of the earth.

...the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a
living being (Gen 2:7).

The first man was of the dust of the earth...(1 Cor 15:47).

Notice the second Scripture is taken from the New Testament.


EVOLUTION AND DOCTRINE

  The most important reason evolution and Christianity can't mix is that to accept evolution is to accept huge changes in ones whole doctrinal system! McLean, Oakland and Mc Lean explain:

A further objection to the day-age theory and the idea of evolution
involves the problem of trying to explain the existence of death prior
to the curse or fall. Obviously, if millions of years of time were
involved in the development of life in an evolutionary process, death
would occur over and over again. The theory of evolution on which the
geological time scale is based suggests death is a natural phenomenon
which has occurred from the moment life began. The whole concept of
evolution is based on the suggestion that disease and death work in a
process of natural selection, which ultimately brings about the
existence of man. The Bible makes it clear that death entered this
world through Adam's sin. Romans 5:12 states:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and
death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all
sinned- NASB (Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean p.22-23)

If you really think about this you will realise what huge implications the theory of evolution has on the doctrines of the Bible. It is just impossible to hold on to both Creation by the hand of God and to the theory of evolution without making ridiculous adjustments to both of them.


SOLID GROUND OR SINKING SAND

  The word of God is truth! It has been proven archeologically, for example, many believed the Hittites mentioned in the Bible never existed but it has since been discovered that they not only existed but they were a very influential force in ancient times. It has been proven correct geographically. It has been proven correct historically. It is awesome in its prophetical accuracy, for example more than four hundred years before the birth of Jesus the Bible told the story of his life including the place where he would be born (Micah 5:2). Christians around the world can witness to the truthfulness and reliability of the word of God in their own lives. (See any number of books on the authority of Scripture). The theory of evolution has come and it will go but the word of the Lord abides forever!


CONCLUSION

To the intellectual giants who founded the experimental sciences in
the 17th and 18th centuries, the evidence of creation seemed clear
and convincing. But in 1859 came the publication of Charles Darwin's
Origin of Species. After biologist Michael Denton identified himself
on television (Kelly, 1981) as a sceptic regarding both creation and
evolution, the interviewer asked him what he thought the chief impact
of Darwin's book had been. After a pause, Denton replied that its
chief impact had been to make atheism possible, or at least
respectable (Morris and Parker, p 77).

  Many people believe the theory of evolution simply because it has been presented to them as the truth but on closer investigation the flaws in the theory are obvious. Hopefully this paper has made you think carefully about what you believe and why. Although a growing number of scientists now accept the creation model as being equally valid as the evolution model many others hold unswervingly to the theory of evolution unwilling even to investigate what creationists are saying. To many, evolution is the thing they are looking for to suppress their knowledge of God and to deny the truth of his word and this is one reason for its wide spread popularity and stickabiltity. Christians have often been accused of looking at origins unscientifically because they already hold to a belief in the Creator God. It can be said of evolutionists after examining the evidence that perhaps it is they who are looking at things unscientifically so as to avoid the demise of a theory that can leave only one alternative- the existence of God, the creator. God is not the one glorified in evolution but "mother nature" and man himself.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the
godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their
wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them,
because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the
world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature
have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so
that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor
gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their
foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they
became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images
made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles...

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served
created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
(Rom 1:18-23,25)

God knows that man asks "Where did I come from, why am I here and where am I going?" that is why he tells us the answer to these questions in his word - why not read it today?


WORKS CITED

NIV Study Bible

Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean, 1989, The evidence for creation-Examining the origin of the planet Earth, Whitikar House, Pennsylvania.

Morris and Parker, 1987, What is creation science?, Master Books, California.