he Bible's approach to the subject of creation starts with the reasonable assumption that a creator, an intelligent First Cause, already existed-"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Gen. 1:1) While many scientists lack faith in the existence of a personal Creator, attributing all the creative works of the operation of natural law, there are many others who admit their inability to explain the operation of natural law except from the stand point that back of it there is an intelligent Lawgiver . And many scientists today are freely admitting that the Darwinian theory of evolution has not been proven, hence should not be accepted as the answer to the problem of creation.
Prof Beale, of King's College, London, a distinguished physiologist, said:
"There is no evidence that man has descended from, or is or was, in any way specially related to any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not , at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."
Prof. Virchow, a naturalist of worldwide fame, said:
"The attempt to find the transition from the animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It cannot be proved by science that man has descended from the ape or from any other animal."
Sir William Dawson, an eminent geologist of Canada, said:
"The record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types and without apparent predecessors..... Paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what is told in the Bible."
A moment's reflection upon the immensity and grandeur of the universe should suffice to convince us that behind all this display of intelligence and power must be the design of a great Being who is not only Creator but One who is worthy of reverence and worship as God. Well did the prophet write that only the foolish say in their hearts, "There is no God." (Psalms 14:1; 53:1) David wrote: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firnament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge." (Psalms 19:1,2) Surely no truer statement of fact than this has ever been written!
An appreciation of the infinite power of the Creator and of our littleness should make us teachable. And how marvelously is the power of God manifested in his creative works! Think for a moment of our solar system, which is but an infinitely small part of the universe. We would stand appalled at the great power of the Creator did not the scriptures assure us that he is as loving and kind as he is wise and powerful.
Evolutionists claim that man has been on earth for hundreds of thousands of years, the Bible's chronology says he was created as he is now around six thousand years ago (NOTE: man was created around six thousand years ago, NOT the universe and the Earth, Genesis says man was the last created. The term 'day' used in the account does not have to refer to a 24-hour period; it can mean a 24-hour period; it can mean a 24-hour day or other defined or undefined period. Genesis 4:3,15 The Hebrew words for 'evening' and 'morning' can also mean 'ending of the day' and 'beginning of the day' respectively, however 'day' is defined. The term 'day' can therefore refer to an undefined long period of time. Day is known not to refer to a single day, eg. we can know start to say Michael Jordans' day is over). One of the problems which evolutionists have never been able to explain away is this: If man has been on earth for hundreds of thousands of years, or even for twenty thousand years, multiplying as usual during all that time, why is the planet today so sparsely populated? At the present rate of increase it would not have taken long to amass a population of six billion-even after making allowances for destructive wars, famines, and pestilences. Why, then, do we not have far more than six billion people now on earth if humanity has been multiplying here for as long a period of time as evolutionists claim?
The average rate of increase of various nations and races during a given period of time is not difficult to compute. Some peoples, of course, have had more hardships than others, which has limited their increase; but it should be possible to strike a fair average and thereby approximate what the increase of the entire human family should be during sixty centuries. Dr. Williams in his Evolution Disproved mentions the example of the Jewish people. Perhaps no race has experienced greater hardships throughout the centuries than they have suffered. Hence circumstances , should furnish a conservative clue as to what the average rate of increase of the world at large should have been the 6000 years since the actual dawn of human history.
If Jacob had lived 60 instead of 38 centuries ago, could he within that time have propagated a race which now would number 6,000,000,000 souls-approximately the world's present population? If so, then why could not Adam have done precisely the same thing? If, starting with one human pair, it would be possible in 60 centuries to produce a generation of six billion people-such as exists on this earth today-that would dispose of the necessity of insisting upon an extreme age of the human race, at least on that score. Let us now see what Israel's average rate of increase has been since Jacob's day.
Jacob, the grandson of Abraham, was the father of the Jewish nation; his twelve sons were the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel. Jacob was born about 1900 B.C., or a little over 38 centuries ago. The 1935 Jewish Yearbook estimated the number of Jews throughout the world at the time to be about seventeen millions. It is a simple problem in mathematical progression to determine at what rate the house of Jacob had increased to produce that number.
The figure 2, doubled successively for only twenty-four times, i.e., 2, 4, 8, 16, 32. etc., yields a sum of about seventeen million. Evidently, therefore, the Israelites had doubled their population about twenty-four times during the thirty-eight centuries since Jacob's day. This would be one doubling every 160 years, approximately. If Israel, throughout the centuries of repeated servitudes, dispersions, and pogroms, could double its population every century and a half, it would seem that all other people should have been able to do as well. Certainly the entire world must have been able to double its population at least once every two centuries, if Israel could do it every 160 years.
If Adam and Eve were created a little over 6000 years ago, according to Bible records, and the world's population has doubled once every two centuries [which is even slower than the persecuted Jews had multiplied], then there have been 31 doublings since Adam's day. And if we take the figure 2 and double it for 31 times it yields the number 2,147,483,808, which, in fact, was approximately the population of the world in the year 1930. By the year 1976 this figure had again doubled, to 4,000,000,000 people.
Now, if man has been multiplying on this earth for 50,000 years or longer, why does not the world have a greater population than six billion today? Even if we take the more conservative estimate of the earth's population doubling every two centuries, and then add 1,000 years to the length of time the Bible shows that man has been upon this planet, it would allow for five doublings of the 1976 population of approximately 4,000,000,000. This would mean that if man has been upon the earth 7,000 years instead of the 6,000 assigned by the scriptures of the Bible, there should have been in 1976 64,000,000,000 people living here, instead of a mere 4,000,000,000
Think, then, of the "living room" problems that would have to be faced if man had been multiplying on the earth for 50,000, or 1,000,000 years! It staggers our imagination even more when we think of the crowded conditions which would have developed long ago on every continent and island of the earth if mankind had been multiplying for 1,000,000,000 years, as some would have us believe. Truly, the Bible stands corroborated by plain statistics and common sense, while the wild guesses of evolutionists have neither science nor reason to support them.
All tangible evidence suggest that human civilizations like the Pheonician, Canaatite, Babylonian, Assyrian, Palestine, Hebrew, Greek, Roman have appeared within the last six thousand years. The civilizations of China and Egypt who are said to be prior six thousand years cannot be considered fact as unreliability is the case here. An abundance of material has been unearthed from the land of Egypt, but it is still not possible to find data sufficiently reliable to construct an accurate chronology of early man. A researcher, Margaret Murray in a book entitled"The Splendor that Was Egypt", offers some insight into the problems raised by ancient Egyptian records: "One of the chief difficulties in the dating is the fact that the Egyptians dated from the reigning year of each king, and not from a fresh starting point. [Each king's reign was considered a fresh starting point.] The dating by reigning years is too inexact to be of real use unless the record is complete, which is not the case in Egypt. Therefore any early dating can only be approximate." As for Chinese history early records of Far Eastern civilizations present a similar pattern of gross unreliability. Noted historian Henry Lucas in his book, "A short History of Civilization:",says "The study of early Chinese history is attended with almost insuperable difficulties. The numerous literary accounts of ancient Chinese writers cannot be trusted, and their statements that the Chinese culture dates from hundreds of thousands of years B.C. should be received with skepticism. The oldest historical classic is the 'Shu Ching', or Book of History, by Confucius. This purports to date from 22505 B.C., But is actually of late composition. That the 'Shu Ching' contains elements of truth is not to be denied, but it is difficult to separate the grains of historical fact from chaff of literary embellishment." Truly reliable evidence of man's activity on earth is given, not in millions of years but thousands. For example, in The fate of the Earth By Jonathan Schell, 1982,page 181, We read: "Only six or seven thousand years ago...civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world. The last two Million Years by The Reader's
Digest Association, 1974, pp 9,29 states: "In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000 BC." It also says: "Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records." The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bibles chronology for human life on earth.
Apart from the Bible, there are only fragmentary records of real consequence, and very few relate to time. Of these, mainly found on tablets and inscriptions buried in the earth, the greater part are so vague and uncertain that they are regarded as little more than legend or myth. As such, they are wholly untrustworthy for supplying the sound data needed for establishing a connected early history of human events. On the other hand, the Bible sets forth a record of man's earliest existence which is replete with specific events and genealogies listed in the greatest detail. It gives close attention to the matter of time, as well as furnishing specific names and places. And it does this in a way that appeals to the reader as being a reasonable and genuine account of events that actually occurred.
It seems significant that one piece of archaeological evidence from ancient Egypt, known as "Abydos Tablet," actually corroborates the Genesis genealogy of earliest man, though little has been heard of this find in recent years. Uncovered in the tomb of Pharaoh Seti I, and now preserved in the British Museum, it appears to be an accurate record of human rulers back to the first man, Adam. The list of Pharaohs is shorter than on other tablets, evidently because it omits the names of gods and demigods about the period of the Deluge. This is the feature that singles it out as of special value, in that it records only the purely human line back to Adam. The Abydos Tablet fully agrees with Genesis it shows Adam [Mena] as the first Pharaoh, and Noah the twentieth, while the intermediate eighteen correspond with Genesis with remarkable accuracy. Menas wife was Shesh-Hebrew, Isha-'woman.' Her first son II-Greek, 'eta-khent'-'guilty one,' Hebrew, Kanighi; Latin, Athos; English, Cain. The table for Abel represents him as 'the non-resistant one.'
The Abydos Tablet shows the same order as Moses (Gen. 4-6), giving first the line of Cain down to Jabal, who was [named] kakan. At that time, evidently, the gods and demigods began to fill theEarth with violence. Seti's list omits the names of these. All demigods were destroyed in the Deluge. Noah is next in order with the regal title. But since he was not of Cain's family, the Abydos Tablet there goes back, mentions Abel and Seth, and Seth's line just as given in Genesis (untitled), down to Noah. These all, as Pharaohs, have their royal ovals, but no supertitle. After Noah (Norfu), Phaoraoh XX, the line runs through his son Ham (Chamu Chufu). Appropriately, Noah's other sons are ignored; for Shem and Japheth went to Asia and Europe, while only Ham went to Egypt.
Evolution theory is under attack
Evolution is under attack on several fronts:
1.The continuing lack of evidence for macro-evolution - the gradual changing of species into other species over a very long period of time (typically millions of years).
2.Recent discoveries that species in the same evolutionary 'pathways' may have completely different gene sequences.
3.The realization that micro-evolution, i.e. mutations within organisms, usually do not produce positive 'evolutionary' progress, but rather tend towards degeneration of a species (one of the reasons that many species become extinct). Even positive mutations of this type have been shown not to lead to macro-evolution.
4.The realisation that there has been inadequate time for complex evolution, leading to life we see on Earth, to occur within the accepted current life-time of the Universe.
5.Continuing lack of evidence that 'chemical' evolution of life has occurred.
6.Growing evidence that, when properly interpreted, the Bible does not contradict a scientific interpretation of the natural world.
7.The continuing inability of evolution to explain human thought and self-awareness/consciousness.
8.The limits of Science to explain the unexplained.
Let's look some of these problems in more detail.
The lack of evidence for Macro-evolution
Macro-evolution describes the process by which one species changes into another, e.g. 'ape-man' to 'man'. However evolutionists are divided on how such changes come about, but they agree that this must be what happens. Traditionally, evolutionists assume that random mutations in organisms take place over a very long period of time (typically millions of years) gradually producing new and different types of organism. Logically, this would also produce many transitional forms - in fact, we would expect to find far more intermediate or transitional forms in the fossil record than the 'final' forms. However, there are virtually no transitional forms to be found at all. Some argue that this is because the fossil record is incomplete and that only a small percentage of fossil remains have been found. If that is the case, then it is strange that transitional species, of which there should be far more, are generally completely missing.
In the early 1980s evolutionists such as Hutchings advanced the view that evolution of species comes about through 'large' or 'macro' steps directly from one organism to another.
That does get around the problem of transitional forms in the fossil record, but many evolutionary scientists, including Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins, received such views skeptically. His book, The Blind Watchmaker, is a rebuttal of this approach and a strong defence of Darwinism. However, the evidence for 'transitional' forms, as required by Darwinism, is still severely lacking-at best-in the fossil record, and the evidence for the mechanism for macro-evolution is still not evident.
Dawkins argues that the lack of transitional forms can be explained by geographical and 'fossil gap' means; the main difficulty here is that the gaps seem to appear wherever there should be transitional forms! To get round this, Dawkins claims that an 'extra rich' fossil record would be required to find transitional forms. But surely such forms should be more numerous than any other kind of fossil, and therefore easier to find?
We should not erudite arguments cloud the fact that evolutionists believe that since evolution must be true, there must be an explanation for these anomalies. But surely that is faith, not science-isn't it? Very recently, Neil Broom, an Associate Professor at the University of Auckland, published a book in response to Dawkins' work entitled How Blind Is The Watchmaker Broom strongly rebuts the thesis that life is the product of blind chance.
Darwinian evolution suggests that visual similarities in life forms are evidence that species which look alike have developed from each other along the same evolutionary pathways. That seems logical, but recent work on gene structures is showing that similar-looking species may have completely different gene structures.
An example is the cichild (fish) species found in lakes in East Africa. Cichilds from one lake have completely different mitochondrial DNA sequences from those in another and cannot therefore have evolved along the same pathway. Further, some cichlid species in the same lake are genetically different from each other.
Evolutionists explain this by saying that these cichild species must have evolved independently several times. But such 'repeated' evolution is not consistent with natural selection, which Dawkins discusses other examples of 'repeated' evolution and concludes that although the chance of such 'repeats' is virtually nil, it 'must' have happened.
For another example consider 'Neanderthal Man'. Geneticists have found mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal remains has not made any genetic contribution to modern humans; humans and neanderthals are therefore not related life forms, and humans cannot have evolved from neanderthals.
Ongoing genetic research continues to discover evidence that is throwing some serious spanners in the evolutionary works. This evidence must be seriously considered.
This describes the process by which variations can occur in species. I t does happen, and is in fact the basis by which selective breeding is possible. But although micro-evolution can produce variations within a species (poodles, alsatians and dalmatians in the dog species for example), for it to be the engine for the development of life, there would need to be evidence that it can produce new species. There isn't. On the contrary, it is being conclusively proved that most mutations within a life form are harmful and do not lead to 'further' evolution but rather towards extinction of species.
Further a, number of ancient life forms present on the Earth today have clearly not evolved any further for millions of years; the best example of this is blue-green algae. It is the most ancient of fossils, and yet is still around. It does not seem to have changed for at least 3 billion years! If micro-evolution does produce new species it has had more than enough time in the case of blue-green algae, but there appears to be no evidence for anything of the sort.
Several other examples could be cited, including the coelecanth-a fish still found in the sea and in the fossil record, which has clearly not evolved over millions of years and is regarded by scientists as a 'living fossil'. The lungfish is another.
The universe life-time and chemical evolution
Evolutionists assume that life began with a single, simple cell. It has been calculated that if the simplest living cell was assembled from its constituent atoms under completely ideal conditions the odds that the cell would assemble would be one chance in 10 with one hundred billion noughts after it!
The age of the universe is around 17 billion years or 5X10, with 'just' seventeen noughts after it, seconds.
In perfect conditions-and assuming that attempts were made to assemble the cell once every microsecond for the entire age of the Universe-the number of chances to form the cell would be ten with 84 noughts after it. Compared with the chance of cell assembly given above, this number is almost infinitely too small to give any chance of success at cell assembly. The realistic odds are much worse.
It is therefore simply impossible to conceive of spontaneous cell formation by any natural process. Despite much research chemical evolution does not provide any realistic answers to the origin of life.
Evolution and the human mind
Perhaps the biggest challenge for evolution concerns the origin of the human mind. It has absolutely no conceivable explanation for the self-conscious human mind. No animals have the self-awareness of human beings the ability to 'know that they know'; the ability to seek truth for its own sake; moral sense and the appreciation of beauty. These things show the enormous gap between human minds and those of animals-a gap that evolution cannot explain. This topic has recently been discussed at length by philosopher Anthony O'Hear, who concludes that evolutionary theory will never be able to explain these things.
The attitude of evolutionists is-and has always been-'Evolution must be true and therefore scientific facts must be interpreted in the light of evolution.' This sounds very much like a religious statement of faith! It is certainly not the scientific method. As we have seen, a number of vital scientific facts cannot be interpreted this way. Further the Biblical account of creation, does, when interpreted in the light of scientific facts, give a credible alternative explanation of the natural universe and of earth's natural history. A cause for concern is that while evolutionists follow their faith in evolution, some are often very intolerant of those who hold, by faith, a belief in the biblical account (Romans 1:18-23 - a description of evolution?). As we have seen, given ongoing scientific research and current facts, the biblical account should, at the very least, be given equal status with evolution. Heartening recent developments suggest that a number of people in the scientific community are starting to realise this. Further, Christians have no reason to apologise for the 'non-scientific' nature of Genesis 1 account. When properly interpreted it is consonant with scientific facts and provides further proof of the existence of God.
Australopithecus skull -
Biblical/scientific harmonisation of the origin of the universe and the geological record.
(Accepting that 'day' means an undefined period of time. With this point in mind the interpretation of the Genesis account becomes incredibly straightforward to harmonise the geological record with the account.
Genesis 1 only gives an outline of the order in which God created the physical universe and life on Earth; this order is the same as that determined independently by science. So how did the writer of Genesis know that this was the right order?
Big Bang formation of the universe.
Subsequent evolution of the physical universe over billions of years. For its first era the universe was in darkness.
Formation of galaxies solar system. Ignition of our sun. Earth starts to rotate.
Verse 1:'In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.'
Verse 2: '...the Earth was formless and empty and darkness was over the surface of the deep.'
Verse 3-4: 'And God said "let there be light"... and he separated the light from the darkness..."
Presence of water on the earth, including seas, water vapor, Initial atmosphere formed.
Verse 3-4: ' And God said: "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water..."
Development of the earth's crust.Beginning of the crystal cycle. Appearance of 'blue-green' algae
Algae start to put oxygen into the air.
Beginning of photosynthesis.
Appearance of plants.
Verse 9-10: 'Let the water be
gathered to one place and let dry
ground appear...(Also Psalm 104:6-9.)
Verse 11: 'Let the Earth bring forth green
matter...' (literal Hebrew translation).
Verse 11-13:'...plants and trees...'
Atmospheric vapors start to clear;
nature of atmosphere slowly
Verse 14-19: '...let there be lights in
the expanse of the sky...'
Verse 16-18: 'God (had) made two
great lights...' (These verses in the
historic tense - sun and moon already formed earlier. Clearing of atmosphere
allowed them to be seen clearly).
A multitude of marine and freshwater
life (Cambian 'explosion' of life).
First flying creatures above the
Verse 20:'...let the water teem with
living creatures...' (Hebrew means 'water' not just seas.)
Verse 20: '...and let flying creatures
fly.' (Hebrew: 'flying creatures', not necessarily just birds.)
Appearance of three classes of creatures and mammals: wild animals (including apes); tameable animals (including livestock); short legged animals.
Appearance of human beings-creation completed (creatures with self consciousness).
Verse 24-25: '...let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals...'(Hebrew words refer to three classes of land mammals only - designed to co-exist with man.)
Verse 26-27: '...let us make man in our image...'
Verse 28-31: 'So God created man...male and female...'
No more newly created species found to date............................
GEN 2:1-3: 'God had finished the work...so he rested...'(God's work of physical creating had finished.)
The 'days' referred to are the general order of creation eras; these eras , of necessity overlap. Each era began with 'and God said', setting that creation era in motion.
Dinosaurs are included under the Reptile/Amphibian classification.
There are other creation summaries in the Bible (psalm 104; Genesis 2; Proverbs 8:22-31; John 1:1-5; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 11:3)
There is no indication of the mechanism by which God created, but the facts point to instantaneous creation not evolution.
The Genesis account is not intended to be a scientific treatise, but rather a summary.
God gave us minds and brains and expects us to use them to discover the details. (Proverbs 2:1-5, 25:2 and other scriptures).
Only the Biblical account gives the origin of the human mind.