Theistic Evolution

We will look at Theistic Evolution here Scientifically and Theologically, making every effort to be neutral in our analysis, putting all preconceived ideas aside. Our sole purpose should be to seek the truth, and not tell God how to create.

Evolution or Genesis Creation - what really happened? Educated Christians can agonise over this dilema, believing that there is a conflict that seems insurmountable. This can be a real headache because, according to science, the observed facts obviously contradict the biblical version of creation. So how do we get around this? One way is to recognise that God is quite capable of using any mechanism He wants in order to create us, and the entire universe for that matter. So, the logic goes, if we in practice observe that Darwinian evolution operates in nature, then that's obviously what God used. The process is known as Theistic Evolution - end of story; or is it?

We will look at Theistic Evolution in reasonable detail here. The topic is surprisingly long and will therefore need to be developed in stages.

Theistic evolutionists essentially agree with Darwinian evolutionists about the evolutionary process - the mechanism – that took place during creation. According to Theistic evolutionists the fundamental difference between them is that the evolutionary process was set in motion by God, and then nature took its course (according to laws of nature that God created). In principle this logic is sound. Some Theistic evolutionists consider that the entire process, from the first cell to man, was also guided by God. Needless to say, Darwinian evolutionists totally dispute this understanding. We will endeavour to explore all avenues here.

Our primary aim here is to investigate the feasibility, validity and credibility of theistic evolution, and not to mount an all out attack on Darwinian evolution. A deeper analysis of Darwinian evolution can be undertaken separately if need be. However, some discussion about Darwinian evolution is still warranted here, if only to show that things are not quite as clear cut and scientifically sound, as evolutionists of both persuasions would have us believe.

In general Darwinian evolutionists tend to feel rather secure, at least in their own minds, about their version of evolution – according to them it is established scientific fact. And Theistic evolutionists, as a rule, have no qualms with this assessment. So before proceeding with our analysis of theistic evolution per se, it may be useful at this early stage to test the water concerning evolution’s factual status.

With very few exceptions, discussions about evolution focus on the process itself, once it is underway – the evolutionary tree. Things get a bit uncomfortable when it comes to describing the beginning of the process – the transition from inert molecules to self replicating molecules and the beginning of primitive life. Most descriptions of that phase of evolution are, to put it bluntly, not the least bit scientific – at best they can be described as philosophy masquerading as science. If it can be shown that the roots of that evolutionary tree have no foundation, the theory is in trouble. Let’s have a look.

According to the theory of evolution the prebiotic molecules assembled themselves in some kind of primordial broth of chemicals purely by chance. At a certain level of complexity the molecules developed the ability to makes identical copies of themselves – to self replicate. The first point that needs to be addressed here is that this very statement (or versions of it), as it stands, could only have any semblance of scientific status if self replicating molecules could be either created in a laboratory (and even that would not be sufficient because that would not be a chance event), or observed in nature. But neither has occurred, and so by definition, this part of the theory is not scientific, meaning that it is philosophy or fantasy, depending on one’s inclination. And that being the case, science has no greater claim to credibility in this department, than competing theories of creation, and that includes Genesis.

The issue at stake is the ability of complex molecules to form in nature by chance. In an attempt to demonstrate the validity of evolution, experiments were conducted by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1953 at the University of Chicago, which produced amino acids under conditions thought to have been present in the atmosphere and oceans of primitive earth. Amino acids are referred to as the building block of life. Proteins are formed when amino acids are linked together to produce chains of long molecules. All life forms depend on proteins for their very existence – structurally and functionally. So the aim of the Miller/Urey experiments was to show that amino acids can occur naturally, without divine intervention, and if that occurs, then with sufficient time and random chemical interactions (chance) these amino acids will link up and eventually produce protein molecules. Although the results of these experiments have now been discredited by scientists, they nevertheless continue to be printed regularly in evolutionary literature as if their aim has been proved. One of the major stumbling blocks is that these (and similar) experiments effectively have a fatal flaw.

As mentioned proteins are long molecules of amino acids joined together. Amino acids come in two ‘flavours,’ both of which are CHEMICALLY identical. Where they differ is that physically (in appearance) the two flavours are mirror images of one another, but this does not affect the way they interact chemically with other molecules. One version (flavour) is referred to as left-handed (L) amino acids and the other is right-handed (R) – this is known as chirality. However, as far as chemical reactions are concerned, there is no difference between them; either version is interchangeable without upsetting the chemical reaction. This means that using standard chemistry you can’t tell which version of amino acid is involved in a chemical reaction.

Now we can get to the crux of the matter; the issue is this. Whenever amino acids are synthesised in a laboratory they always occur in quantities that are 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed – this always happens. But every life-form in nature, from plants to humans, uses ONLY LEFT-HANDED amino acids to build living proteins. Even if just one right-handed amino acid is inserted in the protein chain, it will bring the metabolic process to a standstill, and can even be lethal. But according to statistics, there is equal probability that either a right-handed or left-handed amino acid will be inserted each time an amino acid is selected at random (by chance alone) during the building of the protein molecule under prebiotic conditions that existed on Earth (using the evolutionary hypothesis). This is not an issue now because proteins are assembled in accordance with existing DNA instructions in the cell nucleus (so the process is not random). Consequently the implication that living proteins used by all life-forms on the planet were built with only left-handed amino acids, by nothing other than chance chemical reactions, is not supported by science or mathematics.

Proteins typically have hundreds of amino acids in their chain, but can have up to 10,000 - depending on the particular protein. For each protein to be assembled with L-type amino acids only is the same as flipping a coin 10,000 times and getting 10,000 heads in a row - the probability of this happening borders on zero; to insist that this has happened for all living proteins found in protoplasm of all life-forms makes a mockery of objective science. So the scientific facts are these:

- Mathematically the ‘natural’ explanation proposed by evolutionists literally borders on the impossible
- All attempts to replicate amino acids synthetically by mimicking nature produce 50:50 proportions of L and R types; not 100:1 of one type
- All life-forms require 100 % L-amino acids assembled in the protein molecule

A key, non-negotiable, attribute of science is repeatability of observation. Any theory that cannot be repeated by scientists is rejected. This is a fundamental requirement demanded by scientists and is standard scientific procedure. With regards to protein synthesis, however, scientists haven’t reached the repeat phase in the laboratory because they have not yet been able to produce only L-amino acids, even once. So if no naturally occurring processes can be found to support a theoretical concept, and especially if that concept clashes with established chemistry, then, under normal circumstances, the theory is deemed to be falsified. This is how science functions across the board at all levels, except one – when it come to evolution. In this case atheistic dogma prevails: an unsubstantiated hypothesis is pronounced fact. Actually it’s worse than that; here we see clear violations of scientific practices, standards and observations, all of which point towards the impossibility of evolution getting off the ground, but these violations are conveniently ignored.

Amino acid chirality is not the only problem with evolution, but it is significant enough to put things into perspective.

Now that we have seen that Darwinian evolution, and consequently theistic evolution, cannot even get off first base, it would appear that, if nothing else, by default the only viable alternative is Genesis creation. Perhaps (even probably); but life experience teaches us that defaults also need scrutiny. The Genesis model clearly implies ‘young Earth’ creation; meaning thousands of years, not millions or even worse, billions of years. Is this a problem? Well, yes; certainly some things need explaining.

One does not need to dig too deeply to discover aspects of nature that appear to clash with the young earth model; we will look briefly at some examples. Before doing so however, we should note the implications of subscribing to either version: in the context of the creation/evolution debate, old earth means evolution (Darwinian style), and young earth means creation (Genesis style – no evolution). Having set some parameters, what are some of the difficulties with the Genesis model of creation?

- The evidence for ice age glaciation is overwhelming. The young earth model is forced to cram an ice age into a period of about 500 years after the flood, because prior to the Flood the climate was warm and uniform world wide (therefore no ice). What is problematic for young earth is the ample evidence of glaciations that are older than the Flood. These belong to a geological period known as Proterozoic, which according to conventional geology, occurred between about 1.6 million years ago to 11,000 years ago, whereas most Proterozoic strata are considered to be pre-Flood by young-earth creationists. Either way evidence points to glaciation occurring pre-Flood. What is this evidence?

Ice cores taken by scientists drilling in the Antarctic show ages in excess of 100,000 years. Ice cores can be dated using up to ten independent methods. One of these methods involves counting ice core bands which essentially equate with years, similar to tree rings; more specifically, each band, or ring, equates with one summer and winter. So even if the other dating methods were in dispute, the band numbers are based on solid evidence, and using this technique, that is, literally counting the number of bands, Antarctic ice cores have been found with at least 30,000 summer and winter bands. Using the other methods of dating ice cores, the Antarctic Vostok ice core was calculated to be 160,000 +/- 15,000 years. Interesting dilemma, is it not?

- Young earth creationists argue that the topographical features existing worldwide were largely formed by catastrophic processes that occurred during, and as a consequence of, Noah’s Flood. The logic here is that for a uniform temperate climate to have existed globally (as was the case during the period Adam to Noah), the Earth’s surface must have been relatively smooth, and uniform, otherwise if there were large variations in topography (tall mountains, rugged terrain, deep gorges and valleys) strong winds would be unavoidable, thereby disrupting the climate.

In support of this line of reasoning, examples are routinely provided by young earth creationists of vast fossil graveyards which must have undergone rapid burial (as would occur during the catastrophic conditions at the time of the Flood). A typical example is fossils of sabre toothed tigers have been found frozen in Siberia with non-decomposed tropical grasses in their stomachs. Try to find a conventional scientific explanation of such finds that sound plausible – as the saying goes: don’t hold your breath. This aspect of young earth creation is sound, but as we will see, there are turbulent waters ahead.

With the conditions during the Flood being as described, one would NOT expect to find ordered fossil layers in various geological formations: everything should be churned up more than is actually observed. Whereas we do find geological layers with clean sharp lines at their boundaries and with the upward facing layers often having barnacles attached to them. This means that enough time must have passed to allow the layers to harden into rock and for rock-clinging shellfish to be attached to the rock face before the next stratum was laid. This observation is not consistent with the turbulent Flood model.

History also appears to clash with Noah’s Flood. Egyptian history dates back to around 3100 BC (well before the Flood) and continues through the pyramid building era (2770-2200 BC), which includes the time of the Flood, and ends with the New Kingdom in 1087 BC. Egyptian architecture, art and documents exist with no discontinuity throughout these ages.

So was Noah’s Flood real? Young earth creationists appear to be facing an uphill battle by relying heavily on the Flood; certainly evidence such as discussed above cannot be dismissed lightly. But this is not the end of the Genesis story – we will continue the Genesis argument later.

What is the fundamental difference between Darwinian evolution and Theistic evolution? Technically there is none – the mechanism in both cases is the same; the difference between the two being philosophical. Although Darwinian evolution makes no pronouncement about God, it claims that all processes involved are entirely natural, and so by default there is no room for an intelligent agent. Theistic evolution accepts the Darwinian mechanism but maintains that God Himself is responsible for implementing (and according to some, guiding the process). Hence what is true for Darwinian evolution is true for theistic evolution; but the converse does not apply – Darwinian evolution does not recognise theistic evolution, although officially it does not preclude a divine initiation of the process.

This means that if deficiencies can be identified in the Darwinian process, the same deficiencies apply to the theistic version, as was demonstrated with amino acid chirality. However, as we will see, fundamental aspects of the evolutionary process that are not problems for Darwinian evolution (in fact they form the backbone of Darwinian evolution) do pose problems for theistic evolution. In addition, significant theological obstacles must be also addressed by the theistic model – issues that do not apply to its Darwinian counterpart.

According to Darwinian theory, evolution is absolutely blind; there is no plan anywhere for an organism to evolve to a higher state; indeed there can be no plan because that would presuppose intelligence directing operations, but if we are to assume that Darwinian evolution is a totally natural process, then at the beginning of the cycle there could be no intelligence involved because it (the intelligence) has not yet evolved. So by definition, the only possible intelligent source that could enter the equation is something that is outside nature (meaning God), and since God cannot be proved, He could not be included as an explanation of a scientific process (because science deals with observable, or verifiable phenomena). This is why Darwinian evolution cannot accommodate theistic evolution. (Whether or not Darwinian evolution itself is verifiable scientifically is another question – this is outside the scope of our discussion, apart from what has been said already).

Consequently, purely from the (observable/verifiable) scientific perspective, there is no option other than to conclude that every step of the evolutionary process occurs by chance. Molecules bump into molecules – if the resultant reaction is beneficial to the organism (in terms of survivability) that evolutionary step is retained and passed on to subsequent generations. If on the other hand, it was detrimental, then that particular organism will not succeed in the reproduction stakes; its competitors will have the upper hand and will win and proliferate. The same logic applies to mutations – beneficial ones give the organism an advantage and it therefore continues to thrive; detrimental mutations, as the name implies, are harmful, placing offspring at a disadvantage, leading that particular evolutionary branch to die out.

Now we come to the crux of the matter concerning the mechanics of evolution. Because there cannot, by definition, be a natural (as opposed to supernatural) plan operating within evolution, and because the outcome is determined by chance events, then there can never be an attainable goal or desired end result. The renowned, recently departed, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould made the famous comment that if the tape of life was rewound, there would be no possibility of life on earth recreating itself in its current form. If we accept that evolution is correct, then that statement must be correct, and indeed it is accepted as dogma within evolutionary circles. It must be correct because evolution is a chance event, and by definition, chance events cannot produce a certain repeatable outcome, otherwise it would not be a chance event. The logic is simple and straight forward.

Returning to our earlier comment that theistic evolution is not in dispute with the mechanism of Darwinian evolution, we see here that there is an immense clash between theories. God’s sole purpose in creating the observable universe is the creation of man. This means that man had to be a definite end-product of His creation. The problem is that it is not possible to use an uncertain process to produce a certain outcome! This is so fundamentally important that if it is not clearly understood there is no point in continuing this discussion.

The number of atomic and sub-atomic particles in the universe is so large that, practically speaking, it may as well be infinite. That number however is dwarfed by the number of possible combinations and permutations of interactions that could occur between those particles, and it is this number that equates with the number of possible outcomes that an evolutionary process can generate as a result of purely random interactions. Put in simple English, God wants a definite outcome – man, but if He chose evolution as the means of creating man, the likelihood of this happening naturally through evolution is nil.

Where does this leave us? There is no option but for theistic evolutionists to insist on the process being guided evolution (and in practice many do just that). But what does this mean? Before analysing the significance and consequences of that evolutionary path, it should be noted that already there is a fundamental break between the mechanisms employed by theistic evolution and Darwinian evolution. So the earlier presupposition that there is close compatibility between both theories is false.

When a person is guided in a particular activity there is still ample room for that person to make decisions in their own right; in fact guidance plays a secondary role. On the other hand, when someone is directed to perform a function in a specific way, there is little or no room for interpretation. According to The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, the definition of ‘guidance’ is: “advice or information aimed at resolving a problem.” The operative word is advice. When we receive advice, there is freedom to accept that advice or to reject it; there is no mandatory requirement or obligation to use that advice, otherwise it would cease to be advice and become a command that must be complied with.

When used in the context of Guided Theistic Evolution, the idea is that the evolutionary process is encouraged, but not forced, to go down a particular path. Once again the question needs to be asked: what does this mean? As we have seen, in standard Darwinian terms the probabilities of a desired outcome occurring naturally are unimaginably infinitesimal. So let’s improve the odds a zillion-fold, to use the vernacular. Say God prodded the process in such a way that the odds of something happening were now 50:50 – one chance in two, not one chance in a zillion. However, even here this not good enough, because if God wanted man to be a definite outcome (using natural processes in accordance with the laws of nature), there would still be a 50 percent chance that it would not happen. Thus even with the best odds there could be no certainty of outcome.

This leaves one remaining alternative: God FORCES every single chemical reaction, in every life-form, to occur. That is the only way that a certain outcome can eventuate. This however has certain undesirable consequences.

To start with, the laws of nature are bypassed, yet according to God Himself, He had finished His creative work on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh; from which point God’s creation proceeds according to the natural laws the He created.

The next major obstacle for theistic evolutionists is that with God’s direct intervention the very process of evolution is destroyed. In such circumstances, evolution is replaced with PRODUCTION, in principle no different to components manufactured on an assembly line. Only in this case God is doing the manufacturing by physically assembling every single molecule individually.

Unlike Darwinian evolution, theistic evolution needs to address non-scientific issues as well. For some strange reason proponents of theistic evolution never extend their arguments to include Christ. Once it has been conceded that theistic evolution is reality, then this means that Jesus Himself also evolved. This must be so because being the Son of Man, He inherited His humanity through His mother, the Most Holy Theotokos, and she in turn derives her existence through evolution. Now here comes the interesting bit: humanity evolved by chance; therefore the Mother of God evolved by chance and consequently Christ’s own incarnation is a chance event. But Christ is God. Therefore God evolved, so God is the product of evolution.

We saw that guided theistic evolution does not stand up to scrutiny. Let’s then go one step further and allow DIRECTED evolution, to ensure certainty. What are the consequences of this? In the gospel we read the Lord saying: “If I had not done among them the works which none other did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.” [Jn 15:24] Here Jesus clearly shows how important it is for us to see evidence of Christ’s divinity: as one would expect, this directly impinges on salvation. But what happens with directed evolution? The exact opposite! By giving the impression that all life came into existence without the need for God, then God is deceiving mankind; He is hiding Himself from us by giving the impression that nature can do its own creating. And that being the case, who can be condemned for interpreting nature wrongly? This is even obvious to the high priest of atheism and evolution, Richard Dawkins, who, when commenting on theistic evolution, stated:

“If I were God I wouldn’t do it by evolution! I would do it directly [Genesis style]. By invoking the idea of evolution by natural selection as God’s way of doing it, you are in effect invoking the one way which makes it look as though God isn’t there. So if God chose that way of doing it, then he deliberately chose a way which totally covered his tracks.”

So directed theistic evolution would result in people being led astray, to their damnation; hardly an action of a loving God Who was prepared to suffer crucifixion for our salvation.

Our brief sojourn into the creation-by-evolution arena has exposed weaknesses in theories that on the surface appear to explain scientifically either evolution by natural selection or the apparent dichotomy between field observations and theology. Much more can be explored: without great exertion, the unbiased observer can readily discover that, to use a cliché, Darwinian evolution has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Theistic evolution is even in a deeper quagmire – it is worth looking at just one more example that this time involves Adam; was he an actual person, created Genesis style, or was he generic, a symbolic representation of hominids that had reached a certain level of sophistication in their evolutionary development ready for transformation into humans?

Recently departed in the Lord, bishop and former NASA scientist, Alexander Mileant, was an advocate of theistic evolution. In his view, God selected Adam and Eve from a population of highly evolved hominids and made them human, in His image. To assist us with our analysis let us at this point consider what happens to a primitive pagan who gets baptised. According to Church rubrics, the ‘old man’ is buried in the baptismal water and the new man emerges, putting on Christ. This is a spiritual transformation, not a biological one. Likewise, when the evolved Adam was transformed into God’s image and made man, his biological features would have remained unchanged. To claim otherwise has no basis in theology nor is there physical evidence in the fossil records of a sudden transition from Homo erectus to archaic Homo sapiens to Modern humans.

Further, if there was a sudden biological change, then that could not have occurred through evolution (because of its suddenness), meaning that God would have intervened suddenly, thereby disrupting the laws of nature. Yet the very purpose of pursuing the evolutionary path is precisely to remain faithful to those laws. And if God found it necessary to make such a disruption in Adam’s creation, then there would be no reason for using an evolutionary process at the beginning of the cycle; in other words, using part evolution and part instant creation is absolutely nonsensical, and warrants no further comment.

So going back to Adam’s spiritual transformation from prehuman to human, we find that planet Earth now has two identical looking groups of hominids: Adam and Eve, and their biological ancestors – fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters and cousins, and so on. Now the crucial point is this: Adam and Eve are fully human (in God’s image), but their biological relatives are, by definition, animals – highly advanced and sophisticated, but nevertheless, animals.

What happens next? Adam and Eve disobey God and get turfed out of Paradise. So they procreate. As their descendants subsequently multiply and spread out in search of greener pastures and new homes, they stumble upon their non-human relatives. Problem is, they can’t tell whether they are human or not – no ID cards, or even baptismal certificates yet. The next bit is not hard to guess – they intermarry. Is this really a big problem? It sure is because this results in humans having sex with animals, and that is known as sodomy. And what did God do with Sodom and Gomorrah? If you don’t know, read about it in the Old Testament.

Now we see the consequences of theistic evolution. If God chose to create humans through this particular evolutionary process, then He would be condemning His creation to hell by fooling them into performing sodomy, something that He abhors. Other evolutionary variants produce equally interesting results, but this example will suffice to show that when it comes to theistic evolution (and the same applies to Darwinian evolution) things do not look good ‘on the Western Front.’

Where then do we stand now? All three variants of creation – Genesis, Darwinian evolution and theistic evolution appear to have major problems. Yet here we are! So some aspect of creation has slipped through the problematic net. Even though we have only touched the tip of the iceberg in our discussion, enough has been revealed to show that both Darwinian evolution and theistic evolution are dead ends. This leaves Genesis as the only remaining candidate, albeit an unsatisfactory one, in view of the contradictory evidence. Naturally this state of affairs is not good.

Before endeavouring to untangle the web of confusion, one thing must be pointed out. There are two aspects to biblical evidence – there is an interpretative element and there is a non-negotiable component. Much of the Old Testament will continue to be debated until the Second Coming of the Lord; here we are obviously talking about interpretation of events – were they literal or allegorical? Genesis creation falls into this category. However, no matter what evidence or proof exists within nature, or elsewhere, if Christ specifically said that something happened, then it happened! No interpretation is involved. Earlier we discussed Noah’s Flood, and how the geological, fossil and historical evidence seemingly contradicted it. Irrespective of that evidence, Christ stated: “And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it shall be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.” [Luke 17:26-27]. With this statement by the Lord, there is no room for controversy about the authenticity of the Flood. It happened. How then do we explain these contradictions?

Young Earth Creationists argue that the events described in the Old Testament are historical, and that if we begin to pick and choose what is true and what is symbolic, and not accept what is written at face value, that means that we do not trust the bible, and if one part of the bible cannot be trusted then why should we trust any other part. They readily recognise that here we are not dealing with parables. It must be said at the outset that, purely from the spiritual perspective, this is a healthy attitude.

Nevertheless the bible was never meant to be an all-encompassing manual of healthy spiritual life, nor was its primary purpose to be a precise record of history. Although it encompasses these aspects, the purpose of the bible is far deeper; its essential focus is God (opening the way for us to become gods by grace), whereas history and manuals are worldly documents that are centred on God – how did God create us, when did this happen, how should we live to please God, and so on. And because the history of the Old Testament and descriptions of creation are not of primary significance, they have secondary significance, without emphasis on precision. Some examples would go a long way here to allay fears of potential heresy.

In the Ten Commandments God categorically says: Thou shalt not kill! In the New Testament, Jesus tells His disciples to cast the nets over the side to catch fish; and the catch was so large that all were amazed that the nets did not break. And obviously catching the fish resulted in the fish dying. A typical response here would be that in the Old Testament God was actually referring to people. True, but this shows that already there is an interpretation of God’s commandment, be it a little one.

Presumably everyone does agree that God did in fact mean: “Thou shalt not kill people” - a straight forward statement that needs no clarification or interpretation; or does it? Let’s read the following verses from Numbers [33:48-53].

48 And they journeyed from the mountains of Abarim, and encamped in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.

49 And they encamped by the Jordan, from Beth-jeshimoth even unto Abel-shittim in the plains of Moab.

50 And Jehovah spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying,

51 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan,

52 then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their figured (stones), and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places:

53 and ye shall take possession of the land, and dwell therein; for unto you have I given the land to possess it.

Then two more verses from Joshua concerning the battle of Jericho [6:20-21].

20 So the people shouted, and (the priests) blew the trumpets; and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, that the people shouted with a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.

21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

From this we see that if we take everything literally at face value, using our own logic, we come up with a major contradiction: on the one hand, God tells mankind not to kill, then the same God instructs Joshua and his armies to go to war and destroy “both man and woman, both young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” This clearly demonstrates that there indeed is room to manoeuvre within the Old Testament; something that is best achieved within the context of Church tradition and understanding.

Another example needs to be briefly raised concerning time-frames. Using a literal interpretation of the bible (Old and New Testaments) results in the age of the world being somewhere in the range 6,000 years and 10,000 years; this is based on genealogies from Adam to Christ. Matthew begins: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham.” Yet Jesus was not the actual son of David, who in turn was not the actual son of Abraham, as show immediately in the second verse: “To Abraham was born Isaac; and to Isaac, Jacob; and to Jacob, Judah and his brothers.” This suggests that the genealogies listed refer to the key figures in the Lord’s lineage, and not necessarily to an unbroken lineage per se.

The idea of long time spans (millions of years) has been intricately linked with evolution, and this, no doubt is a major reason for its non acceptability by young earth creationists. But this conclusion is entirely philosophical; there need not be a mandatory link between time and evolution from the Genesis perspective.

Another psychological and/or philosophical difficulty with long time spans is that this implies that death existed prior to Adam’s creation, even if that creation was not by evolution. And because the bible states that death is the product of sin, then there could not have been a long period prior to Adam where death prevailed within nature. It is argued death is linked with evil (ie sin) and God would not have created evil; His creation was good.

This may sound convincing but in fact it is not logically watertight. Death itself is the product of sin when applied to man – that is indisputable. But death per se is not evil; sin is evil, and sin leads to death in people, both biologically, and more significantly, spiritually. Lower life forms, from animals to insects and microbes, cannot do evil because they are incapable of disobeying God. So if death existed in the animal kingdom prior to Adam, that death would not be linked to sin, and therefore it would not be evil, meaning that in that context God would not have created evil.

To illustrate that point further, refer to the Book of Acts [10:9-16].

9 Now on the morrow, as they were on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour:

10 and he became hungry, and desired to eat: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance;

11 and he beholdeth the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth:

12 wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the heaven.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat.

14 But Peter said, not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean.

15 And a voice (came) unto him again the second time, what God hath cleansed, make not thou common.

16 And this was done thrice: and straightway the vessel was received up into heaven.

God here tells Peter to kill the four-footed beasts and creeping things of the earth, and birds, and to eat them. If killing (and therefore death) was evil then God would not have commanded Peter to do that. God would not tell Peter to perform evil. Consequently if that action is not evil in this case, then it would not have been evil prior to Adam. If God chose death to be part of the animal kingdom prior to Adam’s creation, then that form of existence would equate to ‘what God hath cleansed’ in the case of Peter.

We do not want to labour the point, but it is significant enough to cover in substantial detail, so we will consider another variant of death. Adam was permitted to eat the fruit in the Garden of Eden; as a result that fruit, which was alive, died upon being eaten. Therefore already we see that some version of death did in fact exist. And as a final example; when Adam walked outside the Garden of Eden, and an ant crossed his path such that it was about to be squashed, what would have happened? Would Adam have been prevented from stepping on the ant to avoid killing it by a supernatural force? If that was the case, then the laws of nature would have been violated by God, and that is unlikely since His supernatural creative action was complete on the sixth day.

From the Genesis point of view, why would we even contemplate long times involving millions of years rather than thousands?

For a start, as discussed earlier, historical and geological evidence points in this direction.

But there is also a theological pointer that suggests this could have been the case. God provided the raw materials for nature to function and He also created the laws of nature; this He did before Adam’s creation. So nature was already doing its thing within the six days of creation – see Genesis 1:11.

“Then God said: “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.”

This verse indicates that the earth did the producing, and that takes time. On the other hand, in the case of animals, and more specifically Adam, creation had to be at the fully mature adult level; a baby lying on the ground without parents would not survive.

When it comes to the cosmos, sure God could have created it as we see it, but that would mean that what we are seeing did not exist if the universe is only thousands of years old, because the distances are so vast that light indeed would need to travel for billions of years to reach earth. If galaxies are billions of light years away, but the light was travelling for thousands of years, then it must have been made already in transit, meaning that it could not have originated from those galaxies, and what we see is therefore an illusion. But God is truth, not an illusionist. So we see that for nature to fully function, long time spans are truly necessary. There is much more evidence that supports long time spans and which at the same time is fully consistent with biblical creation, but what we have said will suffice here.

Also with long time spans there is no difficulty in accommodating Noah’s Flood.

We will end this discourse with a brief comment on speciation. Within nature there is substantial evidence of saltation, whereby each species has its own unique origin, and there is no crossover or transition from a lower species to a higher species as advocated by evolutionists. The evidence for saltation is not based on religion, but it does support the Old Testament dogma that each life-form was made, and propagates, according to its kind.

To sum up, the Genesis creation model stands up to non-biased scientific scrutiny. The short time frame of thousands of years that is commonly attributed to the age of the world is most certainly not Christian dogma; the Church has not passed judgment on this aspect of creation. By applying long time spans without adopting evolution we have a complete, scientifically and theologically sound description of creation.

Science and Religion

Go to Previous Page