'Molecules to man'
evolution is not a fact.
It is a working hypothesis. (That is, a supposition, or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation)
Working in reverse order - from mankind backwards - evolution's best known champion Richard Dawkins explained the working hypothesis well when he wrote,
There we have it. Life developing upwards from bananas to basketball players. From turnips to telephonists. Undesigned, unplanned and undirected.
Evolutionists speak with confidence about the theory. However, the theory has problems even getting started.
The very word 'evolution' can be confusing since there is micro-evolution fact and macro-evolution theory.
'Micro evolution', perhaps better called 'speciation' (meaning development within a kind) is a fact, clearly verifiable by observation, but macro evolution, (development upwards and upwards in genetic complexity from one kind into another kind ) is not.
This simply means that fish, dogs, cats, birds, moths etc may change in colour, size, shape and behaviour as breeding, feeding and circumstances shape them, but never has it been proved that they have evolved upwards through added genetic information into another 'kind'. (Such as the claimed development of single cell to fish, fish to reptile, reptile to bird etc.)
Natural selection, or survival of the fittest, is, and always has been a daily fact of nature, but weeding out the weakest at any time or place does not cause them to develop into a different kind of life form. It causes them to develop within their kind.
Thus birds, despite their multiple variations and the effects of natural selection, remain as birds. Thus dogs despite their multiple variations and the effects of natural selection, remain as dogs. Etc.
For example, Darwin's finches - which have become an icon of the molecules to man evolution that Darwin espoused in his theory - have had many variations in beak shapes, colours and sizes, and sometimes over a short time span, but they are still finches. Note: Still finches. No upward development. Just sideward development.
For example, the much debated British Peppered moths - held up as the perfect demonstration of Darwin's theory of evolution' - are taught as being originally pale in colour in order to camouflage them against the pale speckled bark on trees, and which then gradually developed into black moths in certain areas during the days of the industrial revolution when many trees were blackened by soot from the factories, and which are now slowly returning more and more to the original pale speckled moths. Sadly one man falsified photos of black moths on blackened trees and visa versa to show 'evolution in action' but even if this is a fact it again shows moths simply adapting to changing conditions, but note: They are still moths. Sideward development, not upward.
In the 1997 debate 'The Firing Line' between evolutionists and intelligent design advocates, Kenneth Miller boldly proclaimed that the Hawaiian Hedylepta, the banana-feeding moth (which he incorrectly called a butterfly) is the "best example of evolution." stating that in the past 1500 years it had evolved to being able to eat bananas rather than leaves. However, it turns out that Miller had the wrong genus name, the wrong number of species, and the moth in question had not evolved specialized mouth parts. In addition, molecular phylogeny of the Hawaiian moths shows that food source is not related to evolution and these species can jump from one food source to another without any need for evolution at all. It is also now extinct! Yet this 'best example' features in many current books on evolution.
Many octopus can change colours instantly as their sea floor background makes new demands for camouflage. Other insects (such as moths) or animals do it more slowly. They display the amazing levels of the genetic information coded within them.
God designed life to be capable of adapting and developing to changing circumstances. It is already built into our gene pool. I am a 'city boy' born and bred, and have smallish hands, whereas several friends of mine are 'farm boys' born and bred, and have huge hands. This is not 'molecules to man' evolution in action.
Most macro evolutionists (with some dissenters) claim that all birds evolved from reptiles, particularly dinosaurs. That's quite a claim, and for evolutionists it is an essential claim in order to make sense of their faith in the idea of upward development of one 'kind' into another. That heavy ground based animals, slowly, gradually, through thousands of increasingly complex changes, were able to become airborn.
Such a massive and complete transformation would require immeasurable amounts of additional genetic code to be continually added step by step. The mind boggles at the quantity that would be needed.
Also one wonders what natural advantage such a developing dinosaur would have over other dinosaurs as it's bones got gradually lighter and its armour plated scales began to develop into flimsy feathers etc. And how these undirected developments produced a complex flying machine called a bird when no such things existed.
Such details can be swept aside with one evolutionary stroke of the pen. Oxford evolutionist Andrew Parker writes in his book 'The Genesis Enigma' ..'Consider if feathers helped a lizard to catch flying insects. then a population of a lizard species that included feathers in some individuals would, over generations, become a population of exclusively feathered individuals. The feathered lizards would no longer mate with non feathered varieties in other areas, since they appear so different, and a new species would be born'.
As already mentioned, there is no living example of even one scale on even one reptile that has turned, or is turning into even one feather.
However new information -long known by evolutionists-has come to light, which solidly knocks this idea on the head. Modern birds including parrots, penguins, owls, sandpipers, albatross, flamingos, loons, ducks, cormorants and avocets have been found alongside dinosaur bones in many parts of the world. Out of sixty museums checked, only one displayed a modern bird along with a dinosaur, and that in an out of the way corner. Interestingly when a new fossil is found that is out of order such as feathered ducks with dinosaurs the dating is simply changed to make it all work again. hence their claim that all fossils are found in the right order!
No evolutionist - not even evolutionist champion Richard Dawkins - can give even one example of an observed mutation which causes an increase in genetic information. (examples of fish in caves with no eyes or beetles without wings are examples of mutations loosing genetic information)
Pity the poor fruit fly! Since it is genetically simple, easy to 'mutate' and can reproduce approximately every 11 days it has been used in science labs and students biology classes for more than a century in an attempt to observe, and thus finally scientifically prove, evolution. Since 1910 over 3000 mutations have been recorded. In no case was there a hint of the fly evolving upwards into another creature. In no case was there a mutation which improved the original.
There is far more complexity in the genetic code of the simplest organism than in a thousand galaxies. [staggering DNA information statistics]
When Darwin wrote his book in 1859 there was no understanding of DNA or the complexity of a single cell.
At that time a cell was seen as something like a blob of protoplasm, whereas in fact a single cell can be likened to a city such as Los Angeles in complexity. Evolution cannot explain how such a complex cell could appear out of a proposed slime, then mutate gradually upwards into all the varied and stunning life forms that exist all around us. And including us of course.
Genetic mutations (as a result of the fall) are very common. The majority of genetic mutations are 'neutral' making no difference, but others bring disease, death and deformity. It is a fact that mutations are bringing life downwards, not upwards. Two studies in 2007 showed that all biological life is effected by this genetic decay. (Nature Review Genetics and Nature Review Biology) It is estimated that it will be somewhere between two thousand years to a hundred thousand years before all life forms would be extinct. (the most popular estimate is around 30,000 years) This is the opposite to the theory of upwards evolution. Thus it would be easier for a man to de-volve down to an ape than visa-versa.
Interestingly, and in contrast to the impression given by evolutionists, there are hundreds of millions of information-packed DNA differences that exist - including genetic and genomic differences- between humans and chimpanzees. ("In view of the random character of the sampling strategy, our results indicate that roughly one-quarter of our genome shares no immediate ancestry with chimpanzees." Ebersberger, I. et al. 2007. Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 24 (10): 2266-2276. One quarter (25 percent) of 3.2 billion bases in the human genome is over 700 million DNA bases)
A major argument for Chimpanzee to human evolution is a hypothesis based on ape and human Chromosomes. Humans have 23 chromosone pairs and apes have 24. It is believed that away back in time two chimpanzee chromosomes fused into one and this resulted in the ape to human evolution. However, the evidence for this is weakened greatly by the following facts.
Interestingly, while a human has 46 chromosomes (2 pairs of 23) a chimpanzee has 48, a hare has 48, a potato has 48, as has tobacco, a deer mouse, and a beaver.
Very very occasional mutations have been known to produce a benefit (such as the CCR5 gene that can render an individual virtually immune to HIV though the down side is that this may put them at a greater risk of Hepatitis C or West Nile Virus illness) but these very occasional beneficial mutations do not add new genetic information needed for the vertical development of one kind into another.
Babies turning into adults is a fact because we can observe the various stages all around us. The miraculous rapid metamorphosis of maggots into flies, caterpillars into butterflies, and tadpoles into frogs is a fact because we can see it happening all around us. It is both observable and repeatable.
But all around us we do not see tens of thousands of life forms in the various stages of upward evolution from one 'kind' into another. For instance we do not see scales on their way to becoming feathers. It is presumed by evolution. Why would the claimed upward process not be in continuous operation?
Evolutionists examples for observable evolution are..
Note that - as mentioned earlier - the moths are still moths, the insects are still insects, the malaria is still malaria and the flu virus is still a flu virus. These are simply examples of the adaptation built into existing gene pools, not the creation of new genetic information.
IT IS ALL ABOUT GENETIC 'INFORMATION'
For instance a tiny seed carries the vital INFORMATION needed to grow it to a certain size, to ensure that it reacts correctly to the seasons, to produce petals, and pollen, and the information needed, that when pollinated, it will produce the seeds needed to reproduce itself many times over, and the means by which those seeds can be successfully dispersed. Quite a task!
A caterpillar has the 'information' to develop into a chrysalis, and the information to develop within that chrysalis into a butterfly. Amazing transformation!
A worm does not have that information, and so remains a worm.
A dog has the information to develop into a great many shapes, sizes and colours, but it does not have the information to develop into a horse.
A lizard has the information to develop into many shapes, sizes and colours, but it does not have the information to develop into a bird.
So sideward evolution (speciation), yes, yes, yes. Upward evolution, no, no, no!
Evolutionists even agree that the genetic information required for the developing resistance to pesticides was already present in the genetic makeup. Francisco Ayala in The Mechanisms of Evolution, Scientific American, Sept. 1978, p. 65 wrote,
If all life evolved from molecule to mankind over billions and billions of years then there should be the billions, (or even the thousands, or even the hundreds) of fossil records displaying the thousands of very gradual intermediate stages.
But where is it? Evolution - if true - would still be in process, yet there has never been found even one scale on even one reptile that has even turned, or is turning into even one feather.
In 1978 the British Museum (Natural History) published a book on evolution by Dr Colin Patterson, their Senior Palaeontologist. Fossils are mentioned in a number of places in the book, yet nowhere does the author illustrate any of these missing links between major types of organisms, such as between fish and amphibians.
In 1979 American Luther Sunderland read Dr. Patterson's book and noticed that there was not even one photograph or drawing of a transitional fossil. He wrote to Patterson asking why this omission, and in a letter dated 10 April 1979 Patterson replied in these words:
In a later interview he stated..
Probably the most renowned evolutionist was Stephen J Gould, who died in 2002.
To date, despite many hasty shouts of triumph, there is still not even one watertight, unarguable, intermediate fossil. Of the millions and millions of intermediates that should exist, only a handful of questionable examples such as the mammal-like reptiles for the mammals, and Archaeopteryx for the birds, are held forth as possible proof.
As I write this first draft (in early 2006) the most recent shout of triumph is over a fossil called the 'Tiktaalik'   - a nine foot long fish with fins and gills, but also it is claimed, with characteristics which 'anticipate the emergence of land animals' (however fossil footprints found in Poland that pre-date the Tiktaalik in evolutionary dating appear to negate the claim that this was a possible intermediate)
Producing one, two or even three fossils of extinct animals with unusual characteristics which might 'anticipate the emergence of another species' would delight evolutionists, because they have longed for such, but against the bigger picture it means little. We have no way of knowing whether that animal was simply created that way.
For instance, evolutionists were confident that fossils found belonging to a fish known as the coelacanth (pronounced SEE-la-canth) - a primitive lobe fined fish - was strong evidence of the anticipation of the emergence of land animals.
These strange five foot long fish were supposed to have appeared some 380,000,000 - 4000,000,000 years ago, thus predating dinosaurs by some 150,000,000 years, becoming extinct 65,000,000 to 70,000,000 years ago.
Then in 1938 the first coelacanth was caught alive and well, and since then many others have been caught in various out of the way places. These coelacanth haven't changed one bit from their fossil records.
Then there was the 'living fossil' rodent recently discovered in Southeast Asia. It was identified as one of a group of mammals called Diatonyids which were thought to have gone extinct some eleven million years ago. This rodent has turned out to be the same as its fossil record. No evolving at all.
The oldest fossil bat (Palaeochiropterx tupaiodon) looks like and had the fully developed wings, inner ear structure and amazing sonar equipment that today's bats have. Bats have always been bats. No evolution.
Likewise turtles. Old and new are the same.
Triops known as Triops cancriformis have been described as the "oldest living animal species on earth". They make interesting 'pets' for children. Just add water to the grain of pepper size dry eggs and they come alive, grow rapidly and live for about 90 days. They are identical to the fossil records of when they lived alongside the dinosaurs.
What evolutionists need as unarguable evidence is not one unusual fossil but the long intermediate trail involved in even one life form developing in minute stages from kind A into kind B.
In the last 200 years there have been more than 100 billion fossils found, and Michael Denton (Evolution, a theory in crisis 1985) states that this covers 97.7 percent of living orders of land vertebrates. Yet even with such a vast sample to work with, not even one clear intermediate fossil trail has been found.
Biochemist D.B.Gower, writing an article in the Kentish Times, England, under the heading 'Scientist Rejects Evolution' (Dec 11th 1975) said,
Charles Darwin (Origin of the species p. 413) acknowledged this problem.
It might be helpful here to view two short videos entitled 'The Fossil Record' - parts 1 & 2
Also the videos 'The rocks cry out' parts 1-3
As a young school boy I initially believed the evolution teaching because I assumed that those impressive charts showing the lines from plankton to jellyfish to fish to lizards to birds to horses to monkeys to men was a proven observable fact.
Then I found out that it was a theory.
Someone, somewhere, then told me the following whimsical little story and it blew the theory straight out of my thinking for ever.
Evolutionists today believe that there was nothing and it exploded, and from that big bang everything that we are, everything that we see, all the natural laws (such as gravity) that make the universe work so perfectly, came into being. The theory was first floated by Belgian astronomer George Edward Lemaitre. According to Isaac Asimov, Lemaitre conceived the theory that there was an initial mass some 12 trillion miles wide, which exploded.
By 1965 this was recalculated to be 27.5 million miles wide.
By 1972 it was reduced to 7.1 million miles.
By 1974 to 54,000 miles.
By 1983 to a trillionth the diameter of a proton.
Today it has been reduced to 'nothing' - a 'singularity' (Quote:"Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we")
The theory began when Edwin Hubble first discovered that the universe was expanding, so by reversing the expansion process by billions of years using immense gravitational pull, the deduction is that all matter in today's universe was originally sucked so densely together that it was sucked into an intense 'nothing'
The General Science Book (1989) page 362 states 'nothing really means nothing and from this state of nothingness the universe began in an explosion about 16.5 billion years ago'.
Professor Richard Dawkins said,
I strongly recommend listening to Dr. David Berlinski, arguably one of the world's leading intellectuals, talking about Darwinian evolution.
The traditional theory goes that following the big bang, instead of the absolute chaos that explosions normally cause, everything dropped into place, and through time and random chance worked perfectly. Having lived in Northern Ireland throughout the thousands of bomb explosions -sometimes several per day - I never saw, nor heard of a single explosion that produced anything but absolute chaos.
Imagine an experiment with a great nuclear explosion. What are the odds on finding - purely as a random result of the chaos resulting from this explosion - several hundred perfectly shaped red rectangular bricks lying on the ground clearly spelling out the words 'BIG BANG' Pretty remote?
Imagine the experiment repeated one million times. Have you any more faith that you would someday find even one pattern achieving this.
Now try to imagine the great order that it is claimed randomly came out of one undirected big bang.
To grasp the reality of this claim - that a 'singularity' exploded and eventually resulted in the wonderful universe we live in - it might help to remind ourselves of the perfection of this little piece of the universe that we live in.
Let's start with the miracle of the sun. Although this ball of hydrogen and helium gas 'burns' through continual nuclear reactions at its core, its energy light and heat output never goes out. Sometimes it even flares up.
Planet earth journeys around the sun once a year at an average distance of 93,000,000 miles and at a speed of some 66,000 mph.
If we were just 5% closer to the sun the oceans would boil and the waters evaporate. If we were just 5% further away the oceans would freeze.
Then there's the miracle of these vast and mighty oceans. If the oceans were half their size we would only get 25% of our present rainfall. If the oceans were only one eighth larger, then annual rainfall would increase by 400% turning this planet of ours into a uninhabitable swamp.
Water solidifies at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, but if earth's oceans were subject to that law, the amount of thawing in the polar regions wouldn't balance out and everything would end up cased in ice. Amazingly the oceans have salt in them to prevent this catastrophe. Even the largest inland lakes on earth have no such salt levels.
So perfect is all this, that the most northerly and southerly parts of planet earth are too cold to sustain any reasonable level of existence, while by contrast, the most central part of earth is too hot to sustain any reasonable level of existence. Most of us live in the temperate regions situated between the two extremes.
At the equator, earth spins around at close to 1000 mph as it travels on its 365 day journey around the sun, giving us day and night. Otherwise one side would have permanent light and the other side permanent darkness, and nothing could grow. If the earth's rotation was much slower than it is our days would be unbearably hot and our nights freezing cold.
All the while this amazing planet we call earth is tilted at 23.5 degrees to give us seasons. And all the while it's north 'pole' is always pointed at the pole star (Polaris)
A smaller planet, the one we call the moon, revolves around our planet earth once a month, at a distance of some 240,000 miles, ensuring - with it's gravitational pull - that the vast oceans on this planet have twice daily tides replenishing them with oxygen, thus allowing fish to breathe. The moon's size and thus its gravitational pull, in tandem with its distance from the earth, slows the earth's spin down to the liveable speed that permits life to exist.
Interestingly the earth's distance from the sun is 400 times the earth's distance from the moon, and the sun is 400 times the diameter of the moon This means that the sun and moon appear to be about the same size when viewed from the earth. This remarkable coincidence enables us to occasionally view a total eclipse of the sun. That wouldn't be possible if the moon wasn't exactly the size it is.
The moon is gradually moving away from the earth at about 1.5 inches per year - so even if it had begun its life touching the earth it would have taken just under one and a half billion years to reach its present position, thus making a nonsense of the many many billions of years that evolutionists need to give the theory time to seem reasonable. Of course had it even come close to the earth the resulting chaos would have killed all life.
The very large planet called Jupiter is superbly positioned as a sort of meteorite vacuum cleaner. It has even been termed 'the great protector'. Its strong gravitational pull draws meteorites towards itself that would otherwise potentially damage or even destroy the earth.
Then there's earth's own gravitational pull. If this planet was significantly smaller the lessened gravity would not be capable of holding the atmosphere that is essential for breathing. A much thinner atmosphere would provide no protection from the 25,000 meteors that burn up in the atmosphere over this planet every day. If the planet was twice as large, the effect of increased gravity would make everything on earth's surface eight times what it weighs today.
Everything just perfect.
Truly 'the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands' (Psalm 19:1)
One evolutionist was quoted in Bill Bright's book as saying,
Sir, I believe it was.
Professor Robert Jastrow in his book 'The intellectuals speak out about God' says,
The theory of evolution proclaims that following this big bang, life on earth began to form from no life, with simple bacteria emerging in a hostile primordial soup. These minute bacteria eventually evolved - themselves - without the genetic coding to do so - upwards, over billions of years, into flowers and trees, birds and bees, horses and cows, lions and tigers, shrimps and sharks, mice and mammoths, weasels and worms, and of course into you and I. This is the theory, despite the fact that to date science is totally unable to offer any explanation as to how life may have started. In their own words 'origin of life research is at a standstill'
The faith needed - and that is what it is - to believe this theory is nothing less than awesome. To date even the simplest bacterium has yet to be produced in a laboratory despite the use of high tech equipment. Yet evolutionists still hold to the theory that simple life formed from no life after the big bang, and with no intelligence whatsoever applied to the process.
To put this theory into some kind of perspective, British cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle said that if you filled the solar system shoulder-to-shoulder with blind men shuffling Rubik's cubes randomly (this would mean 1050 blind men) the chances of getting one simple long chain molecule of the type on which life depends is the same as all of those blind men simultaneously achieving the solution by random shuffling! He further points out that we would then only have one single useless molecule compared to the intricate and interrelated machinery of a functioning, living cell.
Sir Isaac Newton was regarded by many as the greatest scientist who has ever lived. He was often mocked for his belief in God and that God had created the world in six days. He built an elaborate model of the solar system in the front room of his home and many of his contemporaries came to see it. "Where did you get it?" they asked. "I didn't get it" he replied. "Ah, you made it" they said. "No I didn't make it. No one put it there. It just happened" He had made his point.
That is most certainly not the case.
The fact is that both sides start with a strong bias of presumption.
Evolutionists presume there is no God and therefore no allowance can be made for any trace of divine creation. They see science through 'evolution only' glasses.
Contrary to fine words about 'going where the evidence leads them', evolutionists search for the evidence to confirm their presumption that there is no 'God involvement' therefore the only answer must be evolution. Professor D.M.S Watson, ("Adaptation", Nature 124:233) said
So strong is this presumption in their approach to scientific investigation that they are mystified when the fossil evidence will simply not present itself. Harvard Professor and outspoken evolutionist, Stephen J Gould (1941-2002) summed up this situation when he wrote..
Creationists on the other hand start with the presumption that there is God and that He did design and create. Thus they search to find evidence of the Creator in creation.
We have the interesting situation where evolutionists seek evidence of slow upward graduation in the fossil records and cannot find them, whereas creationists look for the sudden appearance of distinct animals in the fossil records and do find them. Each basic kind of plant and animal life appears in the fossil sequence complete, fully formed, and functional. Leading evolutionists Stephen J Gould and Niles Eldredge agree that fossilized life forms appear in the fossil sequence abruptly and distinctly as discrete kinds, then show relatively minor variation within kind, and finally abruptly disappear.
The same facts being looked at from an evolutionary viewpoint or a creationist viewpoint produce two different and opposite conclusions. People, especially students, are entitled to hear both viewpoints, weigh the evidence for themselves, and arrive at their own conclusions.
You are walking over a rock strewn mountainside. Suddenly you come to a beautifully built red brick wall stretching for mile after mile over the deserted countryside. What would you conclude?
Would you conclude that (A) intelligence and design was involved in the design and construction of that wall, or would you (B) conclude that great winds and floods and earthquakes over many millions of years had, by random chance, managed to shape every single brick into a perfect rectangle, had managed to set each brick neatly one on top of the other, equally spaced and cemented throughout, to the exact same height along the total length?
I suspect you would conclude option A.
Now imagine discovering the intricacies of DNA which pale those brick wall odds into insignificance.
Evolutionary scientists will not, cannot, allow for God, so they must theorise that time and chance built this awesome DNA structure that sits before them.
The creationist scientist, philosopher or theologian allows for God and clearly sees the evidence of Divine intelligent design at work.
Now imagine being told that the latter viewpoint is the enemy of science, and that only the former may be taught to students.
Leading evolutionist P.Z Myers' describes himself as a 'godless liberal' In his online blog (within the Richard Dawkins Foundation web site) and discussing his lecture on Design versus chance (2009) said this
To embrace randomness and chance as your motor for all the vast complexity of design that sits in front of us takes unimaginable levels of faith!
Wonderful nature programmes - such as those presented by the very popular atheist David Attenborough - relentlessly declare that the incredible beauty and intricate life forms portrayed is the sole result of mutation, time, chance and natural selection over billions of years.
No other viewpoint is even allowed to be considered. Yet to the Christian, God is evident in this amazing design and beauty.
(I recommend 'Case for a creator' by Illustra Media, featuring Lee Strobel's Well Researched documentary on Creationism. This is a 'must watch' documentary)
Many pro-evolution advocates will taunt biblical creationists (and Intelligent Design theorists) with the following challenge:
There is a very good reason for this. No other viewpoint is tolerated and those scientists who even hint at a creator are instantly bullied and villified into retraction.
It could be argued that Richard Dawkins is 'the new kid on the block'. Until recently (early 2000's) British philosopher Antony Flew was probably the world's most influential philosophical atheist. He wrote many books on atheism, and would debate with theists at anytime and anywhere. Then, in his 80's, he 'crossed the floor' and accepted intelligent design rather than evolution as the only explanation for earth's origins. The main reason he gave is the advanced understanding of DNA. Though at pains to point out that he was not a Christian he said he "was mistaken to be a very positive opponent of the Christian religion." In his last book 'There is a God: How the world's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (HarperOne 2007 p.155) he said,
In an interview with Benjamin Wiker, Professor Flew said,
Interestingly, despite 40 years of court cases that prohibit classrooms from teaching creationism or intelligent design, Penn State University, in a study from a sample of 926 high school biology teachers, found that sixty percent were uncomfortable teaching evolution, only twenty seven percent were comfortable and thirteen percent "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light."
The media regularly write strong evolutionary headlines over initial claims for new fossil finds which later turn out to be much less than originally claimed. Yet there is rarely of ever a retraction. And certainly never a headline retraction.
One example is 'Lucy' who was described in many headlines as an evolutionary link between man and apes. This claim has now been discredited, yet is still used by the media as an evolutionary proof today.
In recent years an increasing number of dinosaur and other fossils with not yet fully mineralized bones, DNA and radiocarbon, undecayed flesh, muscle and blood, have been found, all of which would have decayed after a relatively short period of time. Scientists with an evolutionary framework of billions of years have no model to put this 'young earth - recent catastrophe' evidence against. Yet despite its dramatic implications, it receives no media spotlight.
Fossils can only occur if an animal is very rapidly buried and sealed as the covering material solidifies. This requires 'an event' to occur. For instance millions of Bison (American buffaloes) were killed on the American plains in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries yet they did not become fossils. Their flesh and bones did what all flesh and bones normally do. They gradually rotted away and disappeared. There was no 'event' to rapidly kill and seal the animals, thus preserving them.
When massive graveyards of dinosaur bones are discovered in various parts of the world some evolutionists theorise that perhaps a river once existed there which washed these huge carcasses down to a bend in the river where they all piled up and were then quickly covered by mud, which hardened and sealed them in. Tour guides at some Dinosaur parks suggest that perhaps local floods or flash floods or seasonal floods were responsible for such sudden destruction and rapid sealing.
We see such events as these occurring around the world each year. From local floods to flash floods to tsunamis, yet none of these are powerful enough to even remotely produce these colossal fossilised dinosaur graveyards, sometimes involving thousands of dinosaurs..
To give an idea of the size of these fossilised graveyards, the largest bone-bed in the world is located in north-central Montana, USA. where there an estimated 10,000 duckbill dinosaurs are entombed.
An article by Michael Oard entitled 'The extinction of the dinosaurs' staes .
Where did all the water go after the flood? If the mountains and oceans were levelled off there would be enough water on the earth right now to cover it to a depth of about two miles. The Bible appears to state that after the flood the mountains rose up.
There are sea shells on the top of Mount Everest. At some time past it was completely under water.
Evolution teaches that the well defined layers in the earth demonstrate an age of billions of years, as these layers must have formed slowly, one layer on top of the other, and that the fossils can be dated according to the layers they are found in. And interestingly that the layers can be dated by the fossils that can be found in them. Circular reasoning. This slow layering is vital to the theory of evolution. However recent experiments, observable and repeatable, have shown this to be a very flawed premise. These sedimentary experiments, repeated on small and large scale, clearly show that the layers were almost certainly laid down simultaneously by great amount of water, and at an age substantially less than originally presumed. You can check out these finding at http://www.sedimentology.fr or listen to this extract from a podcast taken from http://evidence4faith.com on April 3rd 2011.
We can all do a very basic observational study where we sit right now.
Look around you. Look at your computer, the mouse, the speakers, the printer, the keyboard, the internet link. Look at the seat you sit on. And the cup sitting nearby.
Keep observing as you move out to your car, as you drive along tarmac roads, see houses and shops, pull up at traffic lights, pull in at petrol stations, draw money from the cash dispenser, use the telephone, flush the toilet. What observable repeatable conclusion can you safely deduce?
You can deduce that each item that functions from the simple to the complex was designed and then created. No one will laugh at you for figuring this out.
Now think for a moment about the sheer complexity of your own life as you read this paper. Your eyes for instance as you read this sentence.
The human eye is but one small part of us yet its design and construction is eons beyond our capability to reproduce. Not only that, but we have two of them that work together incredibly well.
Evolutionary scientists see the eyes in all creatures purely as the results of endless mutations, light sensitive skin, time and chance, whereas creationist scientists see evidence pointing to intelligent design and manufacture. See videos 'The Seeing Eye' - parts 1 & 2
The explanations of how eyes were formed from light sensitive skin are hard to take seriously. What is light sensitive skin? And how could such light sensitive skin randomly evolve into the vast vast complexity of the pair of eyes and with all the 'rods' that communicate information to the brain through two eyehole sockets in the skull?
Ponder on the working wonders of your eyelids, eyelashes, ears, mouth, teeth and tongue. Ponder on the wonders of your digestive tract running from your mouth down through your stomach and then out via your rectum. Ponder on the complexity of your heart, arteries, veins, blood, bones, brain, skin, feet etc.
Ponder on your ability to taste, touch and smell. Ponder on your thoughts, imaginations and memories.
And ponder on the sheer complexity of it all working together as one unit. Truly we are indeed fearfully and wonderfully made.
If you dare to suggest that any of this was designed and then created you will be laughed at.
Ponder for a moment about the basic fact that life needs a male and female to reproduce. With all the appropriate and very complex working parts that fit together.
Did male and female - and their complex working parts - both 'evolve' at exactly the same time and place so that seed and sperm could be brought together to reproduce?
Which came first, the male or the female?
Evolutionists admit that they have no answers to these questions.
Creationists believe that the book of Genesis has the answer.
Man was created first, then soon after, the woman.
Think of the wonders of nature. Wonders that science is trying to learn from and replicate. Random, undirected, lucky chance? Hardly!
Jumping spiders for instance,
Evolutionists would have no difficulty in agreeing with the organisation called S E T I (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) when they say that if even a small number of sounds emanating from outer space appear to be set in a recognisable orderly form - rather than clearly random - it would be taken as reasonable evidence pointing to the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. (The film 'Close encounters of the third kind' was based on scientists hearing 5 sounds being repeated that were clearly ordered rather than random)
Yet when confronted with the enormous, staggering, monumental, levels of intricate order 'sounding' all around them, even within their own bodies, they cannot see the clear evidence of intelligence at work.
This claim has NO foundation whatsoever. None. I know of no invention that required a belief in evolution. Not only that, but, as with 'junk DNA' it actually hindered progress.
Evolutionary thinking taught that 'junk DNA' in our bodies was just a useless left over from our evolutionary past, and was thus ignored, and so for many years this notion that non-coding DNA was not functional actually inhibited science.
John Mattick, Professor of Molecular Biology at the University of Queensland said,
Darwin inspired evolutionary thinking of its day positioned the Australian Aboriginal as an intermediate example beween ape and man. Thus hunters were sent from England. Germany and other countries to shoot (murder) aboriginals to exhibit them in Museums as living examples of evolution. The usual bounty was around £100.
Some 10,000 bodies were sent to British Museums. The Smithsonian holds some 15,000 individuals of various races.
Darwin wrote asking for Tasmanian skulls when only four full-blooded Tasmanian Aborigines were left alive, provided his request would not 'upset' their feelings.
Christians saw them as created in God's image and sent missionaries. (some say that the missions were wrong in that they were seeking to make them 'english' but these men and women went not to murder them as evolutionary examples, but to help them prosper in spirit, soul and body)
Many of the great foundational laws of science were discovered by believers in creation. They expected design and order and they found it.
C.S. Lewis said this:
He also said,
Not only is history awash with creation scientists, but such scientists are alive and well today. Here is but a sample.
Dr Russell Humphries, a nuclear physicist working with Sandai National Laboratories has had more than 20 articles published in physics journals. Dr John Baumgardner's catastrophic plate techtonics theory was reported in Nature. Dr Edward Boudreaux of the University of New Orleans has published 26 articles and four books in physical chemistry. Dr Maciej Giertych, head of the dept of genetics at the instititure of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences has published 90 papers in scientific journal. Dr Raymond Damadian invented the MRI scan (which has been used on me) The man behind the Appolo moon mission was the creationist rocket scientist Wernher von Braun.
In my recently delivered 'Answers' magazine - from the Answers in Genesis ministry - I note that there are contributions from Michael Todhunter Ph.D (forest genetic research) Michael Oard, (meteorologist National Weather Service USA) John Whitmore Ph.D (Biology with a palaeontology emphasis) Monty White Ph.D Paul Taylor B.Sc (Chemistry) Tommy Mitchell Dr. (Member of American College of Physicians) Larry Pierce (Translator of The Annals of the World from Latin into English and creator of the sophisticated Bible programme The Online Bible) Georgia Purdom Dr (Doctorate in Molecular genetics and professor of Biology. Member of the American Society for Microbiology and American Society for Cell Biology) Jason Lisle Dr (Ph.D in astrophysics) Andrew Snelling Dr. (Geologist)
One would think that people would not normally care what other people believed about the creation of the universe. Yet because it is in reality a spiritual issue (contesting the authority of scripture) creationist speakers are subjected to regular hostility.
Today, as never before, those who believe the Biblical account of creation are not only branded as illogical fools, but dangerous fools at that. So much so that there is a growing campaign to remove all traces of creation teaching from schools.
One leading evolutionist Eugenie Scott, leader of the National Centre for Science Education said
Channel 4 aired a well advertised documentary (March 2006) entitled 'The New Fundamentalists' where the presenter mocked and protested against British State schools where evolution was taught but as a faith option alongside creationism, in order that students were free to choose. The interviewer arrogantly believed that science has left mankind with no teaching option other than Darwinian evolution.
Shortly after that the Archbishop of Canterbury declared that he was unhappy with creationism being taught in schools. The media made much of this comment.
The Pope said that both creationism and evolution are compatible in the Christian faith. Father George Coyne - Director of the Vatican Observatory outside Rome - declared at a recent American Association for the Advancement of Science convention "If God is a scientist He is a poor one...God is not an engineer or a designer of the universe", and if He were "that would belittle God"
In the United Kingdom, a BBC survey found that 44 per cent said creationism should be on the schools agenda, 41 per cent voted for intelligent design, while 69 per cent backed evolution.
In the USA there is also much debate as to whether creationist teaching should even be taught as an option along with the standard teaching on evolution. President Bush said: "Both sides ought to be properly taught...so people can understand what the debate is about."
Creation magazine (spring 2006) stated that fifty studies that surveyed opinions on teaching origins in public schools were reviewed. The vast majority of these surveys revealed that about 90 % of the public desired that both creation and evolution, or else creation only, be taught in the public schools. About 90 % of Americans consider themselves creationists of some form, and about half believe that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years. In America, about 15 % of high school teachers teach both evolution and creation, and close to 20 % of high school science teachers and about 10,000 scientists (including more than 4,000 life scientists) reject both macroevolution and theistic evolution. Although the vast majority of Americans desire both creation and evolution taught in school, the evolutionary naturalism worldview dominates, revealing a major disparity between the population and the ruling elite.
This issue is important since 75% of children raised in Christian homes reject their Christian faith by the first year at college. (Video, 'Let my children go' Jeremiah Films)
Make no mistake. Evolutionists in their desire to prove their theory are fully aware that they are in fact endeavouring to prove that their is no God.
Atheist Frank Zindler said,
Atheist Richard Bozarth
Thus the battle between creationists and evolutionists is much more than a clash of natural worldviews, it is a clash of spiritual worldviews. If God exists He clearly gets the glory for His creation. If the universe and all life form in it created itself without intelligent design, then God does not exist.
It has taken me awhile to realise the terrible damage that this 'theory' of evolution is doing in society. And sadly, in many a church.
First of all, it is interesting to judge the spiritual value of something by the amount of effort devoted by the god of this world to attacking it.
Nowhere do we see similar efforts being put into attacking budha, or allah, or joseph smith, but we do see a relentless attack on the Person of Jesus Christ. We hear His Name being abused in various forms on a daily basis.
Nowhere do we see similar efforts being put into discrediting the koran, or the vedas, or the pearl of great price, but we see relentless effort being put into discrediting the Bible.
Genesis is scripture's foundational book, so weakening, or damaging this foundational book weakens the whole structure that sits upon it.
Although the theory of evolution had been floating around for many a year it was on November 22nd 1859 that Charles Darwin published his first edition of Origin of the species and the most relentless attack on the book of Genesis began.
Well first the very obvious.
If the opening words of the bible - 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' - can not be trusted, then how can the rest be trusted?
It is understood that Moses wrote Genesis. God spoke to Moses 'face to face' as a friend, and He spoke to him plainly, not in riddles.
Again and again and again the Bible states that God 'created' the heavens and the earth. That such things were the work of His hands.
If such verses are untrue, then the various verses which declare that God's words are pure, and that all scripture is God inspired, must also then be untrue.
Then the less obvious. Dismiss the early chapters of Genesis and you dismiss much of the Christian framework.
If God did not create the earth and all that is in it then the Deity of Jesus Christ must also be removed, because scripture states clearly that Jesus, the Messiah, was intimately involved in the creation of all things.
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. John.1:10Jesus Himself quoted many times from Genesis.
I can think of a many rational objections to the flood described in Genesis but I cannot get past the fact that Jesus Himself spoke of Noah's ark and the flood as historical events. If Jesus, the Word who became flesh, got it wrong even once, then He is not who He claimed to be and we are all lost. Creationists and evolutionists together.
The Apostle Peter warned of the coming worldwide judgement of fire by comparing it with the worldwide Genesis flood.
If Noah's flood was merely a local flood of judgement on an evil world, rather than all encompassing one, then so would the coming fire be localised.
Genesis makes it clear that it was not a local flood. 'It is written' in Genesis 7:19-23 (emphasis added)
The first, and possibly the most quoted Messianic prophecy comes from the book of Genesis
Paul referred to Genesis creation as real history.
The writer of Hebrews chapter 11 lists Abel, Enoch and Noah from Genesis as real heroes of faith.
The Apostle John speaks of Cain in Genesis as a real historical figure (1 John 3:12)
If Adam - through whom death came - was not the first man, then of course Jesus would not be the 'Last Adam', through whom life came. (Note that Jesus is called the Last Adam, not the second Adam which would imply that their could be a third)
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 1st Cor.15:22.
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. 1st Cor.15: 45-49.
Many church leaders seeking to keep face with public opinion and interpreting scripture through current scientific declarations - have opted for theistic evolution whereby we are asked to accept the current theory of evolution but accept that it was God’s plan for creation.
I believe that many who hold to theistic evolution have not thoroughly thought through where this road leads to. Here's a sample of the end product.
Two church of England scientist/priests, the Rev Dr Arthur Peacocke and the Rev Dr Sir John Polkinghorne KBE, FRS, have both urged the church to replace Genesis creation with big bang theory and cosmic evolution.
According to Peacocke, the Creator is the author of processes whereby things made themselves.
In the USA, Katharine Schori was elected Presiding Bishop in the Anglican communion worldwide. At the church's 75th annual convention the church passed a formal resolution to affirm evolution. In a press release she said that evolution is a well tested premise that fits all the data. She stated that she believes the creeds which say that God created the world but now how. She didn't say she believed the Bible but rather that she believed the creeds which are simply précised down doctrinal statements designed to refute the heresies of their day.
Despite attempts to put God's Name somewhere into evolutionary theory, the end result is that intelligent design (God) in any shape or form is driven out by submission to current scientific understanding..
An ordained minister, from Lancaster, England, writing to the Times said,
(Note that this minister does not say that creationism is Biblical nonsense, but that it is scientific nonsense. Science therefore, not the Word of God, has become his primary source of truth, not the Bible. Such a minister is declaring that man’s word on creation is infallible, but God’s Word on the subject is fallible)
In September 2008 the Anglican church apologised to Charles Darwin and affirmed evolution but tried to tie God into the package.
My father - to whom I owe so much - was a Christian since his early teens and in his twenties was a Sunday school teacher. However as time went on he allowed his traditional views on scripture to be altered by 'the current thinking of the day' The world wide flood was simply a local flood, the crossing of the Red Sea was only a wading through shallow water and the feeding of the five thousand was not really the fact that everyone had food hidden upon their person and were emboldened to produce their food when the five loaves and two fish were produced and given to Jesus.
Sadly, the result was that all his teachings (of which I have many tapes) were lifeless and utterly without any trace of anointing.
I confess that, some years ago, as a young Christian, I did try wearing the 'theistic evolution' cap (God has used evolution as his means of creation), and then various forms of the 'gap theory' cap, but it always cost me the peace within my spirit. I knew in my heart that I was compromising God's Word purely because of the relentless pressure from the media to submit to their Godless evolutionary world view.
Eventually I chose to simply believe God's Word as I found it and I got my peace back again.
It is well said that 'God will not speak His peace over that which offends Him'. As I have discovered, mental comfort through conformity with secular pressure is not the same as a deep peace in one's spirit.
As the little motto goes, 'God said it, I believe it and that settles it'
As God said to Job,
On a secondary but associated issue, there is much genuine debate (using scripture to interpret scripture) amongst Bible believing Christians who do defend creationism, as to how the word 'day' should be interpreted in Genesis, and this debate will probably continue until Jesus returns. Examples: Day means 24 hours  Day means 'Ages' 
The largest Christian 'old earth interpretation' creationist web site introduces Christians to big bang theology where life began 10,000,000,000 years after a big bang, with Jesus conquering sin 13,700,000,000 years after a big bang. Much as I admire the author I am personally very uncomfortable with that! (Note: the site carries one of my teaching papers in its theology section, but this does not mean that I am in agreement with the creation theology on the site)
There is debate over the meaning of the word day 'Yom' used in the opening chapter of Genesis. However no where else in the Bible is there debate over the meaning of the word day despite the fact it us used nearly 1400 times in scripture. Any true study of this leaves one in no doubt that day means exactly what it appears to say. Where there is evening + morning + a number it refers to a 24 hour day.
There is no question that the first few chapters of Genesis need to be carefully considered. It has been said that chapters one and two are poetic in style, but almost all serious Hebrew scholars would deny this. The creation account in Psalm 104 is apparently poetic in style, but not Genesis.
Certain parts of Genesis are clearly figurative within the literal account. The' Tree of Life' refers to eternal life (Gen 3:22) and the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil' that Adam and Eve were not to eat from was a command couched in visual terminology stating that God, not they, would decide what was good and what was evil. They ate of 'that tree' choosing to be their own gods and decide for themselves what was good and what was evil.
The world of course has continued to disobey that command and are still deciding for themselves what is 'good' and what is 'evil' and the content of these categories changes from generation to generation.
One thing is for certain. The opening chapters of Genesis have the clear imprint of God upon them.
The first Adam, the son of God (Luke 3:38) was the type for the Last Adam, the Son of God.(1 Cor 15:45)
The first Adam broke the relationship with God while the Last Adam made the way back to relationship with God.
Where disobedience began under 'a tree' so it was dealt with by Jesus 'on a tree' (Gal 3:13)
The first Adam was put into a deep sleep and his bride was taken from his side. (Gen 2:21) The Last Adam was put into a deep sleep on the cross and when the Roman spear pierced His side, releasing the birthing fluids of blood and water, the church, His bride, was born.
We see the Tree of Life closed off to man (Gen 3:24) and at the very end of the Bible we see the Tree of Life restored (Rev 2:7).
We see the cunning character of satan at the beginning saying to the first Adam "has God indeed said?" (Gen 3:1) and continuing to the Last Adam with "if you are the Son of God" (Matt 4:3) and to this very day ( 2 Cor 11:3)
We see that the seed of the woman - a man - would one day crush the serpent's head. Jesus did that at the cross (Phl 2:8) and through us continues to do so. (Rom 16:20)
We see super natural light before the physical sun (Gen 1:3) and at the end of the Bible we see super natural Light without the need for a sun. (Rev 22:5)
In Jon Courson's New Testament commentary he shows the link between the garden of Eden and the garden of Gethsemane.
Thus you see the integrity of the early Genesis chapters and their integral part in the scheme of scripture. It is inspired.
Many theologians have decided that there never was a real Adam and Eve. They were mythical or at best, symbolic.
Yet no less than six of the New Testament books refer to Adam, or to Adam and Eve, as real people.
Luke's gospel chapter 3 from verse 23 takes the genealogy of Jesus Christ from his step father Joseph all the way back to 'Adam, the son of God' At what point in the genealogy did the people mentioned become mythical?
All the major Christian doctrines are firmly rooted in the early chapters of Genesis, so when you declare those chapters to be steeped in unreality, then you abandon the source of essential Biblical doctrine.
For instance, why did Jesus have to die on the cross? Because of Adam's sin.
Thus if you deny the reality of the first Adam you can longer claim that the Jesus you worship and follow is the Last Adam. Scripture will simply not permit them be separated.
In an attempt to make evolution fit Genesis, Oxford University Professor Andrew Parker, in his book 'The Genesis Enigma' takes the theme that the first chapter of Genesis is 'strangely ordered in that it precisely reflects the order of events as we now understand them..by comparing the data of science with the words and phrases og genesis 1-11 remarkable parallels become clear' He lays out his reasoning as follows..
Many other web sites hold to the same view. That scripture is accurate but that it must be continually re-interpreted through the most widely accepted scientific understanding of the day.
However, if scripture states that God created the earth and everything in it in six days, but it really means six 'ages' of many millions of years (as even great speakers such as R.A.Torrey held to) then when we read the fourth commandment - written by the direct finger of God Himself - we have a problem, because here God directly links creation week to a normal week when He spoke to Moses about the Sabbath.
If you do not believe that in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day, then you must reach one of two conclusions.
Either Moses made it up, or God got it wrong.
I see no theological escape route from this. The direct link has complete clarity.
There is no argument over the fact that Adam lived thousands, not tens of thousands of years ago.
Dr John Morris Ph.D states..
Quoting from Genesis 1:27, Jesus referred to this time of Adam as 'the beginning'
Dr Monty White Ph.D, writing in 'Answers' magazine December 2006 states that if we started at the beginning with one male and one female and assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we would find after only 32 doubling, which is only 4,800 years the world population would reach 8.6 billion people. That is 2 billion more than in the world today. In reality, even with diseases famines and natural disasters the world population doubles every 40 years or so. He goes on to say..
Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. Regarding the age of the earth, RATE member and former evolutionist Dr Russell Humphries Ph.D Physics (who worked on nuclear and atomic weapons) states in the video series COSMOS, that there are between one and two hundred indicators for the age of the earth and that only about ten percent point to an old earth. Among the long list of examples he gives of a young earth are,
Carbon 14 (C-14) shows that the earth is thousands not billions of years old. All fossils have young carbon 14 content. Carbon 14 decays fast and has a half-life of thousands of years (maximum possible life is 57,000 years) and thus the fossils cannot be the much needed millions or billions of years old. Diamonds predicted to be billions of years old, are non-contaminated by outside forces and they contain carbon 14 which means that they inarguably can only be thousands of years old, and not the claimed millions and billions of years old.
This editorial is simply defending traditional orthodox Christian faith. That God is the creator of all things is the first article of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. Chapter four of the great 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith affirms God's creation of the earth in six days.
There is a difficulty in understanding exactly when satan arrived on earth after being evicted from God's Presence. He appears in scripture at Genesis 3:1 so we can ask the question, was he cast to earth between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 or between Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 3:1 ?
We do know from Ezekiel 28 that Lucifer was in the garden of Eden in his perfection before he was cast down to the earth so that would seem to place his fall after Genesis 1:2 and not before it since scripture tells us that God planted the garden of Eden in Genesis 2:8
It seems therefore that the fall of Lucifer occurred between Genesis 2:8 and Genesis 3:1.
Others may disagree.
The top line answer is that we do not know because God has not told us.
That's where I choose to leave it.
From scripture I am content to know what God needs me to know.
However many commentaries seek to speculate and the results are that each attempt to answer one such question simply raises another..
For instance Jon Courson's Application Bible commentary on Genesis seeks to address this question as follows.
This speculation (in an otherwise quite brilliant Biblical commentary series) raises the inevitable question 'was creation therefore a re-creation, and a re-creation which God called 'good' built upon a bedrock of massive death and destruction?
There are several versions of this Genesis 1:1 - 1:2 'gap theory' and several other Bible commentaries (e.g. Scofield, Newberry and Dakes) which in seeking to answer the question of satan's fall and trying to accommodate current age of the earth dating claims, have opted for the 'gap theory' in one version or another. One of the best known and probably most accepted gap theories (called progressive creationism) has been expounded by Dr Hugh Ross
Answers in Genesis explains and sums up the gap theories as follows..
If God tells us, in substantial detail, that He judged and destroyed the whole earth in Noah's day using a global flood, but makes no mention of a similar mega judgment before the creation of the heavens and the earth, why would I ever think of going there with a man made gap theory, thus risking the consequences of adding to scripture?
Scripture states clearly in verse two that there was deep water covering the earth (the dry land appears out of the waters in Genesis 1:9) and that the whole earth was in an unformed and unfilled (void) state with no mention of previous life and death.
Family Bible notes commentating on Genesis 1:2 says,
The verses that follow then tell us how God formed and filled the earth.
God said on the first day, 'Let there be light' and there was light. His Presence, brooding over the deep, was the Light moving upon the darkness of the deep. The natural sources for our light - the sun and moon - came into existence on the fourth day, thus the Light for the first three days was 'super - natural'.
Scripture draws to a close showing us that God's Presence will once again be the true 'super - natural' Light source.
So with no mention of a previous creation and no mention of previous life and death and no mention of a previous flood judgement I think it is safe to say that this is 'the beginning'
As already mentioned, Jesus confirmed this when referring to Genesis chapter 1:27 he said..
Scripture clearly tells me that one day there will be a new heaven and new earth, but does not tell me that there was a previous heaven and earth before this one. The same scripture tells me clearly that the this current heaven and earth is the first heaven and earth.
To go beyond that and state that the six days were really six 'ages' of millions or billions of years does not (I believe) stand up to the scrutiny of scripture. Scientific comments alone have caused many Christians to try and make Genesis fit into a long programme of natural causes rather than accepting immediate super - natural causes.
I remember watching Oral Roberts being interviewed on television. He was speaking as an old man looking back over his life time of experiences with God. He spoke of the day when a lady brought her physically handicapped son to the front of the hall asking him to pray for her son's healing. When told that her son had been born with no right hip joint he humbly told the woman that he did not have faith to believe for such a creative miracle but assured her that her son would be perfect in his future resurrected life. The woman gently rebuked him saying, "I have faith that God will heal him, your part is just to pray" He did pray and nothing happened. He said that her faith and his lack of it troubled him all that night. When he arrived at the same hall the following morning he was greeted with excitement by the elders. Inside the boy, now without walking aids, was running up and down the hall. His mother and the elders explained that during the night God had given him a fully formed new hip joint. They explained that his doctor had already checked and confirmed this fact earlier that morning. Still with some doubts Oral said that he ran his hand over the boys right hip and sure enough, where there had been a hollow the previous evening there was now a matching hip joint.
God spoke in the unseen Heavenlies and it came to be. Immediately, fully formed and fully functional.
Similar stories abound from many parts of the world.
John MacArthur, in his book, 'The Battle for the Beginning' said,
The battle within the church is once again over the authority of scripture. If a man sees the Bible as a book about God, then when pressure from society and science comes he feels at liberty to view it and review it at will. It's pages become little more than an a la carte menu to pick and choose his spiritual food from.
If however a man sees the Bible as God's Book, then he will either choose to submit to its authority as a whole, adding nothing and taking nothing away, or he will choose to reject it.
Ken Ham from 'Answers in Genesis' put it well when he said,
This paper was originally entitled 'The curse of evolution'. Why?
I believe that not giving glory to God for His creation unleashes God’s curse on to society. When mankind honours the creature but not the creator then Paul declares that there are consequences.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.How does such a curse manifest itself?
As society has aggressively increased its efforts to evict God from every aspect of public life and to separate His Name from the glory of His creation, then everything that Paul declared God would give men and women over to has greatly increased, with no sign of those graphs heading in any direction but up. One does not have to step far out of one's door to see the growth in the above attitudes and lifestyles. One only has to switch on the television now, compared to say twenty years ago.
If Sodom and Gomorrah was worse than today I cannot imagine what life in those cities was like. It is well said that if God does not judge the perversion that exists today then He must apologise to Sodom and Gomorrah.
The dramatic break down of marriage, family life and the upsurge of wanton destruction and violence in homes and streets has it's roots in the soil of evolutionary teaching.
Leading evolution and atheist spokesman Richard Dawkins in the documentary 'Root of all evil?' made the comment that we are animals (presumably meaning that if we have evolved from animals then we are simply the highest form of animal life yet evolved)
There is now much serious debate about apes getting 'human rights' because they are believed to be our ancestors.
When people believe this lie, that they have come from animals and indeed are animals, then they will live out of the lie. The Daily Express featured an article on Friday November 3rd 2006, written by Frederick Forsyth entitled 'Britain is great.. at everything appalling'
In the article he quotes the following facts..
Several days later (November 8th) the same newspaper carried a report by John Ingham, the Environment Editor revealing that abuse of animals dealt with by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty had increased by 60% to date in 2006
Clearly something has changed at the very heart of a nation which has the greatest Christian heritage in the world.
Man has four burning questions about his existence. These are..
1. Who am I ?
2. Where did I come from ?
3. Why am I here ?
4. Where will I go when I die ?Every man and women has a deep built in need to be loved, to be valued, and to belong.
Or put another way, mankind needs to have security, self worth and significance. It is well said that you cannot know who you are until you know whose you are.
Today the theology of evolution has told people who they are, where they came from, why they are here and where they will go when they die.
Where did I come from? Your ancestors emerged from a primordial soup and were once plankton, once fish, once land animal. Your most recent animal ancestor is the chimpanzee. The Sunday Times, on May 11th 2003, featured a two page article on the big bang theory entitled, 'Bill Bryson's Big Bang' Regarding man's ancestry Bill Bryson wrote,
Why am I here? No special reason. You just happened along. You have no pre-planned destiny. Mutations and random circumstances brought you into being and random circumstances will dictate your short time of existence.
Thus the theology of evolution tells people whose they are. Nobody’s.
Humanists try and make a decent fist from their atheism by trying to convince people to have mutual respect for each other, but these 'who am I?' issues are deep issues and this simple theology does not fill the terrible void within.
Witches proclaim a similar 'freedom' when they tell people to be their own god or goddess and 'do what thou wilt but harm none' in the vain hope that mankind - out of mutual respect - would never abuse such unhindered freedom of behaviour.When a person is deemed to be merely the result of time and chance, and their final destiny is nothing more than to be physically recycled and provide compost for the worms - or to be spiritually recycled, and have another, and indeed virtually endless runs through life, again and again until their soul 'evolves to perfection' - then inevitably certain behavioural patterns follow, since such a soul will deem itself to have little value.
God places such a high value on a woman's worth that she is born with a 'seal' across her vaginal entrance - called a hymen. So perfectly designed that it allows monthly periods to take place without damaging the 'seal' When the first man (intended to be her virgin husband) breaks that seal a little bit of blood comes upon him and they enter into a blood covenant - the marriage covenant.
Evolution does not place such high value on women.
On June 19th 2006 the Daily Express reported the following..
Scripture gives us the enormous worth of being created in the image of God and describes God's excitement at seeing us being knit together in our mother's womb.
Evolution places no such value on the unborn child. Some pro-abortionists even refer to the unborn child as a 'parasite'. It is easier to dispose of a parasite than a human being.
Evolutionist Carl Sagan (Parade Magazine, 22 April 1990, p. 6) said,
Abortion thus becomes a commonplace event in society. Millions and millions of babies are murdered in their mother's womb every year because they have little value and could be an inconvenience and a hindrance to one's preferred lifestyle.
Scripture promises that God loves us and has an eternal destiny for us. That the best is yet to come.
Evolution holds out nothing for a person's future. Thus without hope how do people cope?
Evolutionary 'champion' Richard Dawkins (God's Utility function, Scientific American 273(5) :62-67, November 1995) summed up this emptiness when he wrote that the universe that we live in has 'no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference'
He also said, "It is a plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips ˙ continue the list as long as desired." (Richard Dawkins. The only game in town)
Dr Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D. is a molecular biologist, and a man who calls himself an evolutionist wrote
Interestingly the cracks are slowly but surely appearing in the evolutionary camp.
Common sense questions, such as how could a microbe in a primordial soup develop DNA - the very building block of life - are very hard to answer.
So many leading scientists and philosophers are moving from evolution towards intelligent design that it is now being referred to as 'a movement'. The intelligent design movement.
Interestingly they are now demanding that intelligent design be taught in schools.
In the USA a substantial group of secular scientists and philosophers have 'crossed the floor' and now declare that only intelligent design can account for many of the wonders of nature. Leading figures such as,
If intelligent design, all agree, there must be an intelligent designer and they acknowledge the religious implications. [see tv interview]
Indeed the movement's t-shirt slogans could just as easily be used by Christians For example, 'Mind preceded Matter' or 'Are you really just a cosmic accident?'
Thus, although they declare an intelligent designer and leave it at that, by default they are declaring a designer outside of man’s mortal coil and time frame.
A designer with whom nothing is impossible.
Interestingly in Ben Stein's secular documentary 'Expelled - No intelligence allowed' he interviews Richard Dawkins and finds out that Dawkins believes that their may indeed by a design information built into creation but that it might have come from aliens. In other words he accepts the possibility of design but not the possibility of God being that designer.
Indeed more and more Christian scientists are rising to the challenge and I would commend the watching of these debates, many of which are available through the web sites promoted at the bottom of the page.
In 2009 Richard Dawkins brought out a book called 'The greatest show on earth' claiming to prove evolution was more than a theory, by presenting the best evidence available. It immediately became a best seller in many countries.
Scientist Dr Jonathan Sarfati promptly produced a book called 'The greatest hoax on earth' dealing with Dawkins proofs one by one. A must read. As one scientist said..
Much of scripture speaks of the 'super-natural', so the natural man cannot comprehend the things of God by natural means, that is, the intellect. These things of God are spiritually discerned.
The universe is full of 'laws' such as mathematical, gravitational, planetary motion, physics and chemistry, general relativity and biogenesis law. The latter confirms that life only comes from life. All around us we see this law in action.
For scientists to say that life came began from no life violates the natural observable law.
In other words it cannot happen naturally. If one day men do succeed in getting a life spark from non life material in a test tube it confirms that it took intelligence to do it. Despite decades of development, it has not happened yet. The one claim that it did (Miller) was later disproved.
Laws come from The Lawgiver and only He can overrule the laws He set in place to make the whole universe work so beautifully.
When He over rides these laws we rightly call them miracles. The Lawgiver reveals Himself as the Omnipotent One.
Making good wine takes a long time from a blank sheet. First prepare the ground. Then plant the vine. Then wait as it grows to maturity. gather the grapes. Crush them and let them ferment over time.
Yet a word from Jesus and water instantly becomes good wine.
The creative Word of God. He speaks and it comes into being, fully formed.
Can we scientifically explain how the waters of Red Sea parted and the children passed through? Despite theories about volcanoes and earth quakes the answer is that no we can't. Only The Lawgiver can override the laws that prevent this occurring 'naturally'.
Can we scientifically explain how the iron axe head floated? (2 Kings 6:5-6) No. Only The Lawgiver can.
Can we explain how the first life was released on earth. Only The Lawgiver can. The One from whom all Life comes.
Likewise the Virgin birth. Natural laws suspended. And the resurrection. The Lawgiver alone can do this.
We believe these super - natural events by faith because God's Word states these events as facts.
Likewise it is simply by faith that we as Christians understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.
Samson's strength remained when he did not have the seven locks of his hair cut. I believe that those seven locks (God's number for complete) represent the spiritual strength that comes with complete faith in, and submission to, the authority of God's written Word.
The declaration - 'It is written' - spoken with authority through faith, defeated satan when he sought to take control over Jesus in the wilderness. (Matthew 4:4)
Thus, when satan weakens our faith in the written Word of God he takes away our authority. We allow the locks of our hair to be cut, and we loose our great spiritual strength.
As one writer put it, "If we cannot trust all of God's Word, then how do we figure out what parts we can trust?"
I strongly recommend subscribing to 'Creation' magazine and 'Answers' magazine, both quarterlies. (details at end) In these magazines leading Christian creationist experts in their scientific fields give the most solid conclusions based on past and current scientific discoveries.
I also strongly recommend regularly looking in on the major Christian creation web sites (details at end) to get the counter view from leading Christian creationist experts in their field on the very latest evolutionary claims.
Creationist scientists do have a great many satisfying answers to a great many questions, but not to all of them. I don't believe we will, this side of Heaven, have all the answers to all the questions. If we had then we could all walk entirely by sight and not at all by faith.
I certainly cannot answer all the questions, nor does God ask me to. But He does ask me to believe His Word, and that I seek to do with His help.
The disciple Thomas had to see and touch the nail prints in Jesus' hands before he would believe. Jesus graciously granted this but then said,
On this issue here is the crunch for us as Christians. As disciplined followers (as disciples) of Jesus.
When Jesus physically walked this earth He spoke of Genesis events including Noah's Ark and the flood.
If Jesus was physically walking the earth TODAY He would STILL be saying the same things. And the wise of this world would be aggressively pointing out that He was a fool. A dangerous illogical fool.
Linking the beginning of creation with Adam and Eve (Mark 10:6) who walked this earth thousands and not tens of thousands of years ago would mark Him down as a despised 'young earth creationist'
Would we stand with Him or stand some distance away from Him in case we were labelled fools as well?
We are called to walk in agreement with Jesus, and thus as the wise of this age would brand Jesus a fool, so they will brand us as fools for following Him.
Paul understood this when he wrote
I believe that if every Christian living today decided to fast and pray for 40 days, pleading with God to tell us how the Universe came into being, He would say this..
I believe that God's Word was true, is true, and will always be true, and I believe that God watches over His Word.
With child-like trust we choose to believe in, submit to and follow the One who has all the answers. The Word who became flesh. The One who was, is, and always will be The Truth.
As Paul said, "Let God be true and every man a liar".