Geoscience Reports
Spring 1986 No.7
Some Thoughts on Why Evolution Replaced Creation as an
Explanation for Earth History
L.J. Gibson
Geoscience Research Institute
A few hundred years ago, the testimonies of the Bible and the
natural world concerning earth history were assumed to be in harmony. The study of nature
was conducted primarily by pious Christians who saw God's handiwork in nature. Today the
situation is radically different. Scientists now see nature as governed by natural law,
without any need to invoke the action of a creator. How did this change come about? This
paper will explore three of the issues involved in the conflict of interpretations
concerning the natural world.
Before the theory of evolution could be accepted, several concepts
based on religious beliefs had to be disposed of. Three concepts stand out as being
especially important: (1) Perfection of nature; (2) Ark dispersal, and (3) Young earth. I
will attempt to show that insistence by churchmen on the validity of an unscriptural view
of perfection in nature eventually led to the rejection of scriptural ideas of the Flood
and the age of the earth, and their replacement by the theory of evolution.
The concept of "perfection of nature" was supposedly based on
scripture, but its roots can be traced back to the Greek philosophers (see Mayr, 1980:89).
The presumed scriptural basis for this belief is found in the creation story of Genesis 1,
in which it is stated that God saw everything He had made was "very good", and
in the biblical statements which describe God's care for and interest in His creatures
(e.g., Ps. 104; Mt. 5:26).
Rigid insistence on natural perfection was one of the most important
factors which led to the abandonment of the biblical story of earth history. It led first
to the rejection of the Flood story, and then to acceptance of the theory of
uniformitarianism, which requires long ages of time. Finally the principle of natural
perfection became the victim of its own internal inconsistency, and was itself discarded
in the Darwinian revolution. The inability of the church to separate human speculation
from scripture resulted in the rejection of both the scripture and the speculations. But
the story really begins with Copernicus.
Science vs Religion
During the Middle Ages science as it is thought of today was not
practiced in Europe. The teachings of the Church, which included a generous portion of
Greek philosophy, dominated men's minds. Consequently there was little effort to
investigate the world of nature until after the twelfth century, and no real conflict
between science and religion developed until several hundred years later. The story of the
development of this conflict can begin in the 16th century.
Religious teachings of the importance of man to God and the apparent
motion of the sun around the earth led to the logical conclusion that the earth was the
center of the universe. This geocentric view of the universe had been refined by Ptolemy
in the second century A.D. and was incorporated into church dogma, despite inadequate
support from scripture. Copernicus challenged the geocentric view, suggesting that the
earth and the planets rotated around the sun, His theory was roundly condemned both by
leaders of the Catholic Church and by Martin Luther. Copernicus escaped persecution for
his ideas because publication of his theory was postponed until after his death in 1543.
In the early 1600s, Galileo could see the reasonableness of Copernicus'
ideas, but his acknowledgment of their validity led to persecution in which he was forced
to recant publicly (and insincerely) his beliefs. Despite the church's effort to erase the
new heresy, the heliocentric solar system replaced the old geocentric view. Thus a
precedent was set. Truth was not always what the church said it was. Science could also
contribute to an understanding of truth. This discovery set the stage for other conflicts
between science and ecclesiastical authority, conflicts in which science became the winner
with increasing frequency.
A Static World
The belief that a perfect God created nature to be perfect was central to the teachings
of the school of natural theology, which was the dominant force in both science and
religion in the 17th and 18th centuries. Nature was seen as
expressing the will of God and revealing His character. John Ray's The wisdom of God
manifested in the works of the creation, first published in 1690, advocated the view that
species had not changed since they were created by God. Natural theology: Or, evidences of
the existence and attributes of the Deity, collected from the appearances of nature,
published by William Paley in 1802, ascribed every detail of nature to the direct
providence of God. These books had great influence and helped establish the intellectual
climate of their times. They also led to the inevitable conclusion that God was
responsible for death and disease, which did not make God attractive to many thoughtful
people, including Charles Darwin (see Wheeler, 1975:80).
The idea of a scala naturae (scale of nature), first described
by Aristotle, was widely promoted by Leibniz in the early18th century (Mayr,
1982:19). According to this idea, everything in nature can be arranged in order of
increasing perfection, from the simplest atom to man. Another concept stressed by Leibniz
was the "principle of plenitude", according to which God has created everything
possible, so that the scala naturae is complete, with no missing gaps to fill in.
Implicit in this principle is the belief that nothing new could be produced. The scala
naturae met its end at the hands of Cuvier, an eminent 19th century paleontologist,
who asserted that there are four distinct groups of animals, with no connections between
them (Mayr, 1982:201). Nevertheless, it had considerable impact in the history of biology.
In a perfect world, change would be undesirable. Nothing that has been
perfect from the beginning can improve. According to the natural theologians, God's
foreknowledge would enable Him to create organisms which could cope with any circumstance.
There would be no need of change, and no possibility of extinction. Unfortunately, the
natural theologians were influenced more by the Greek philosophers, with their emphasis on
unchanging "types", than by the biblical record of the fall of Adam and the
curses brought on by sin as recorded in Genesis 3.
If a species should change, it would become less perfect, and would
therefore be eliminated. The natural theologians thought that extinction of a species
would represent a failure of God to provide for His creatures. Since God cannot fail,
extinction was unthinkable. If no species could become extinct and no new species could be
produced, then the number of species must be fixed. According to John Ray, "The
number of true species in nature is fixed ... and unchangeable ..." (quoted in
Wheeler, 1975:88).
Leibniz recognized from fossil evidence that some species had become
extinct. He tried to explain this by suggesting that nature was created with an inherent
tendency to move toward perfection, with extinct forms being merely earlier stages of
organisms not living. According to this view, extinction only appeared to have happened
because God had designed species to develop over time.
Despite the general acceptance of natural theology, doubts began to
creep in about the lack of change in nature. Fossils had been known for many years,
although at first attributed to the activities of the devil. However, their true nature as
previously living organisms was soon recognized. The obvious explanation for fossils was
that they were deposited by the Flood. But many fossils were of species which were unknown
and had apparently become extinct, in contradiction to the statements of Leibniz and John
Ray, The evidence that God had allowed some species to go extinct was a major blow to the
views of the natural theologians.
The teachings of natural the were also undermined by the increasing
ability of men to explain natural phenomena in terms of natural laws. Laws of physics and
chemistry explained many things which were previously attributed to the working of
supernatural forces. The structure of the earth seemed to be explainable as the result of
natural events, operating over increasingly longer periods of time. The activities of the
human body were increasingly explainable without invoking divine intervention. The areas
in which God was acknowledged to operate became smaller and smaller, until men began to
wonder whether God was necessary at all.
Belief in a static earth is incompatible with the theory of evolution
so familiar today. Ironically, it was this very belief in a static world which forced a
change in world view that resulted in the rejection of the static earth belief itself. It
is tempting to speculate what direction science would have taken if scientists had
accepted the possibility of change in species before the ark story had been rejected.
The Sinking of the Ark
One of the most important controversies leading to the rejection of
the biblical record of earth history focused on Noah's Flood. The Flood theory is based on
Genesis 7 and 8 and states that all land animals, except those in the ark, were killed by
the Flood. Therefore, all living land animals are descendants of those saved in the ark
and have dispersed from Mt. Ararat to their present habitats after the Flood. "Ark
dispersal" was the first point in the biblical story of earth history to be rejected
(Browne, 1983:19).
In 1675, a German Jesuit named Kircher carefully studied the
description of Noah's Ark and drew a marvelous diagram showing how it could have been
designed to hold all the known species of land animals (130 mammals, 150 birds, and 30
snakes) with their provisions for a year. Kircher's Ark was shaped like a house on top and
a boat below, with three decks (Browne, 1983:5; see Browne, 1983 or Diamond, 1985 for
diagrams). Although this exercise helped make the ark more real in people's minds, it also
may have hastened its demise by showing its apparent limitations.
When men began to explore the world, the number of known species
increased dramatically. By the end of the 1600s, Britain's foremost naturalist, John Ray,
knew of over 500 species of birds and over 150 species of mammals. With the continuing
exploration of the New World, Australia, and Southeast Asia, many more new species were
discovered. It soon became clear that the ark could not possibly hold all these animals.
By 1691, John Ray declared Kircher's ark to be "trifling and superficial"
(Browne, 1983:16). As the overloaded ark began to sink, creationists jumped overboard in
search of land.
The Swede Carl Linnaeus offered land in place of the Ark: Mt. Ararat to
be specific. He proposed in 1744 that the animals were preserved on Mt. Ararat during the
Flood, rather than in the Ark, and that they dispersed from there to all regions of the
globe. This solved the problem of space, but still left the question of why different
regions of the world had different kinds of animals.
Biblical Lands Flood
A temporary answer was discovered in the writings of the Frenchman
La Peyrere who had proposed in 1655 that the biblical Flood involved only the biblical
lands and that the areas far away had separate histories. The distinctiveness of the fauna
of each region was emphasized in 1753 by Buffon, who also suggested that the earth may be
much older than believed at the time. This faunal distinctiveness was discussed further by
Zimmerman in 1777, leading to the idea of multiple centers of creation. The exact number
of centers of creation was specified by Sclater in 1858 (cited in Darlington, 1957:21). He
described six biogeographical regions, each characterized by its peculiar fauna. These six
presumed centers of creation are still recognized as six biogeographical realms, although
they are now interpreted quite differently.
Notice the change from single creation, world-wide flood and world-wide
dispersal to multiple creation, local flood, and local dispersal. The result of all this
was that the ark was abandoned, and the story of Noah's Flood was no longer taken
seriously, except as possibly an exaggerated account of a local event in Mesopotamia. As
the Flood story was gradually discarded, the presence of fossil layers and evidences of
geologic upheavals came to be explained as having taken place by normal processes over
long ages of time, rather than as evidences of a world-wide Flood.
Aging of the Earth
The next point in the controversy over earth history was the age of the earth. The "young earth" concept was based on the chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, in which the number of years between generations from Adam to Abraham are given. The figures given in the Masoretic text total 1656 years. When combined with chronological data from other portions of scripture and from secular historical sources, the earth's age appears to be around 6000 years. For those who wanted to be more specific, John Lightfoot calculated that Adam was created at 9 a.m., Friday, Sept. 17, 4004 B.C. (Diamond, 1985). Unfortunately, the exaggerated claims of precision weakened the credibility of the entire concept, making it easier to discard when some details were found to be incorrect.
Rejection of Ark
The failure of natural theologians to examine the basis for their
belief regarding perfection in nature, special design, and related concepts led to a loss
of confidence in the Bible that resulted in rejection of the historicity of Noah's ark.
Without a universal Flood to produce geologic changes quickly, long ages of time were
needed to explain the existence of sedimentary layers, the formation of mountains, and
other geological phenomena.
In addition, observations from astronomy showed that the universe was
not as unchanging as had been thought. Stars exploded, clouds of dust and gas existed in
space, the moon and planets had scars from collisions with meteors. It appeared that
natural processes were acting and causing changes in the universe, so why not on earth?
Immanuel Kant, in 1775, suggested a kind of theistic evolution of the universe, requiring
millions of years to bring it into the order desired by God (quoted in Wheeler, 1975:102).
This logically led to the idea that the earth itself was very old. Georges Buffon was one
of the first in modern times to estimate, in 1779, an age for the old earth. His published
estimate was about 168,000 years, but he privately suggested it could be half a million
years old (cited in Mayr, 1982:316).
The most important factor leading to belief in an old earth was
development of the science of geology based upon the principle of uniformitarianism.
Inferences about the history of the earth can be drawn from the arrangement and
composition of the rocks themselves and also from the fossils that are often found
contained within the rock layers. Both of these areas of evidence were interpreted in ways
that challenged belief in a young (less than ten thousand years old) earth.
The presence of faults, folded strata, and multiple layers of
sedimentary rocks shows that the earth has undergone great changes during its history.
Based upon observed rates of geologic change, it appears that these changes would take a
very long time. In the late 18th century, James Hutton was promoting the
principle of uniformitarianism: the present is the key to the past. This can be restated
to mean that the structure of the earth can be explained on the basis of processes acting
today. This statement was popularized by Charles Lyell in Principles of Geology
in 1830 and has had a great influence on the course of geological thought since that time.
Despite the opposition of such men as the famous French paleontologist
Cuvier uniformitarianism soon became the dominant theory for interpreting geologic
features. Most scientists accepted the words of James Hutton: "we see no vestige of a
beginning, no prospect of an end''. Efforts by the very influential German geologist
Abraham Werner to explain the rock layers as the result of deposition from a world-wide
ocean were unsuccessful, and the concept of a very old earth soon won nearly universal
acceptance among scientists (Ritland, 1981).
With the development of radiometric dating techniques, most scientists
are now convinced the actual age of the earth can be measured reliably. The age accepted
by the scientific community is about 4.6 billion years. Life supposedly originated
somewhat later, perhaps by about 3.5 billion years ago (see Nisbet and Pillinger, 1981).
The Fall of Perfection
The discovery and interpretation of distinctive fossil layers, which
contributed to the rejection of the young earth theory, also helped prepare the way for
acceptance of the theory of biological evolution. Different fossil layers were discovered
to contain distinctive kinds of fossil organisms. There was a general trend from
"simpler" organisms in the lower layers to "more complex" organisms in
the upper layers. Creationists such as Cuvier and Agassiz interpreted this as evidence of
multiple catastrophes, occurring at different times of earth's history, the most recent
one probably being recorded in Genesis. Agassiz believed that each catastrophe was
followed by a new creation. The "progression" seen in the fossil layers was due
to God's purpose and design and had climaxed in the most recent creation in which man was
made.
On the other hand, those who had rejected the reliability of the Bible
interpreted the fossil layers as requiring long periods of time for their deposition. If
the layers each represented vast periods of time, it was clear that different kinds of
organisms lived on earth at different times. This idea easily led to the theory that one
kind of animal could give rise to a different kind. The young earth theory probably had
been the most important concept holding back the development and acceptance of the theory
of evolution (see Mayr, 1982, chapter 7). The belief that the earth was very old prepared
the way for Darwin's theory of evolution, for it seemed to provide enough time so that
nearly any kind of change could be proposed.
When Darwin demonstrated, in The Origin of Species, that
species are not fixed, but do in fact change, the idea quickly swept through scientific
circles. Darwin's success was in great measure due to the fact that he could propose a
mechanism for change (natural selection), as well as to the thoroughness with which he
presented the evidence supporting his theory. Darwin's work was done carefully and was
well-documented, in contrast to the work of many of his opponents. The situation was made
worse for his opponents by the fact that they had abandoned concepts which were truly
scriptural, such as the Flood, but had refused to give up their unscriptural views on
fixity of species. Unwilling to distinguish between those beliefs taught by scripture and
those interpretations given by man, they were unable to harmonize their beliefs with what
they could see. Acceptance of the theory of evolution became nearly universal among those
who studied the natural world.
Evolution and Christianity
Christians have responded in various ways to the challenge of
evolution. Some have discarded the Bible story altogether, regarding it as merely a fable.
Many in this group regard nature as controlled by its own inherent properties. Other
Christians have rejected any claim of authority for evolutionary science, regarding it as
mere speculation. Many other Christians have attempted to combine science and religion in
a way to minimize the tension between them.
The response of many "main-line"churches to the problems in
earth history has been to attempt to integrate long ages of time into the creation
account. The biblical record of creation is seen as symbolic. God is portrayed as the
great Director of Evolution. He acts through nature so as to bring order out of chaos and
guides the course of evolution from the simple to the complex, using the physical
properties of the materials involved. The process has supposedly taken billions of years,
but has proceeded in a somewhat orderly fashion, culminating in the "creation"
of mankind by placing a "soul" in a primitive humanoid. This belief is often
called "Theistic Evolution". Many thoughtful scientists have doubted that the
complexity of nature could be accounted for by random natural events and see a need for a
directing force. Theistic evolution has the attraction of providing God's will as an
explanation for non-random development in nature.
Objections to Theistic Evolution are primarily theological. The theory
holds God responsible for death, disease and the struggle for existence. God's power is
portrayed as limited by natural law, and He appears as a weakling, unable to create what
He really wanted without waiting for its development by natural forces. It also undermines
the reliability of the Bible, which clearly teaches that life had a miraculous beginning
and that a world-wide Flood occurred. If one accepts the existence of God and His activity
in nature, why not accept the description of His activity given in His word?
Some other groups have opted for a theory called "Progressive
Creation". This is similar to Theistic Evolution in its acceptance of long ages of
time for the history of life on earth, and can be traced back to Cuvier and Agassiz. The
most important difference is the way in which God has acted. In progressive creation, God
created in stages, perhaps six stages, each of which could have been one literal day in
length, as represented in the Genesis story. After each creation event, long periods of
time passed while the processes of geology affected the surface of the earth. Then,
possibly after some catastrophe, a new creation occurred, in which more complex organisms
were created. Finally, in the most recent creation event, man and other present species
were created.
Severe Weakness
The theory of progressive creationism was popular for a while with
the students of Cuvier and Agassiz, but had several rather severe weaknesses. From a
scientific viewpoint, the theory of progressive creationism remains unsatisfactory because
the sequence of fossils is inconsistent with the sequence of creative activity described
in Genesis. Another problem is that plants, which require sunlight for survival, were
created on day three, which would be millions of years before the sun appeared on day
four. Theologically, the theory suffers from the same faults as does Theistic Evolution.
It holds God responsible for death before the fall of Adam and Eve. It portrays God as a
bumbling giant who couldn't do things right the first time and had to try again to finally
get what He wanted (assuming man is what He wanted). It accepts the concept of God's
activity in nature, but rejects the biblical revelation of His method.
More conservative churches have held to a literal interpretation of
Genesis. Ussher's chronology is given nearly equal authority with scripture itself by
some. The earth-centered universe concept reappears in a different form in the belief that
the entire universe, including the stars in space, was created on the fourth day of
creation. This raises the question of how one could measure the f first three days of
creation week before the existence of the universe. Even beliefs which sound much like the
fixity of species are sometimes advocated.
Adventism and Evolution
Seventh-day Adventists have taken the position that the Bible record
is reliable and literal. The very name of Seventh-day Adventists indicates a belief in God
as Omnipotent Creator. It is this belief which justifies our observance of the seventh-day
Sabbath as a memorial of original creation, and our confidence in the Advent and the
expectation of a new creation. We see these issues as a focus of attention in the closing
events of earth's history as outlined in the Revelation. We feel called to proclaim that
God is the Creator (Rev. 14:7). As we celebrate the Sabbath, we express our faith in God
the Re-creator, who will raise us from the dead and give us immortality (1 Cor. 15:51-54),
and who will make all things new (Rev. 21:5).
The story of Genesis is an integral part of the entire biblical theme.
The historicity of Adam is attested by Christ himself (Mt. 19:4-6). Paul refers to the
creation of woman from man (1 Cor. 11:8) and the temptation of Eve by the serpent (2 Cor.
11:3) as real events, and affirms that Adam was a real character (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:13-14).
Similarly, the story of Noah's flood is accepted as true by Christ (Mt. 24:37-38) and
Peter (2 Peter 2:5). If these particular statements stand to be corrected by the opinions
of men, then the same process must be applied to all the statements of Christ and the
apostles. The authority of God's word will be usurped by the opinions of men, with the
inevitable result of loss of faith in the Bible.
An attack on the validity of Genesis is an attack on the very
foundations of our church. If God did not create in six days, then why keep the Sabbath?
Why not keep any day, or no day at all? If God did not create "by the word of the
Lord" (Ps. 33:6), but had to use long periods of time, do we have reason for
confidence that He is able to raise us instantly from death, or to re-create a new and
better order in a new earth? If God created in stages, then is He responsible for the
presence of death in the world before the fall of Adam and Eve? If so, do we want to spend
eternity with Him? If He has not told us the truth about our origin, can we trust Him to
tell us the truth about our destiny? These questions underscore the importance of our
understanding of the history of life on earth and justify a serious attempt to find
satisfactory answers.
Lessons Extracted
Several lessons can be extracted from reviewing the history of the
conflict between science and religion. One fact that stands out rather quickly is that the
arguments which one hears today are not new. The same points have been debated for more
than a hundred years. Progressive creationism dates back more than a hundred years, at
least to the students of Louis Agassiz in the mid 19th century (Mayr,
1982:374). Theistic evolution has roots in the Vestiges, written by Robert
Chambers in 1844 (Mayr, 1982:382).
A second lesson is that the tendency has been for churches to move
toward acceptance of the theory of evolution, abandoning a literal interpretation of
Genesis. Once one point is abandoned, other points are left exposed. One's view of earth's
history must form a unified whole, bound together by internal consistency. Those who adopt
a symbolic interpretation of some aspect of Genesis soon find that consistency demands
that they adopt the same view of other aspects of the Bible, until they end up believing
quite the opposite of their original position. Before adopting a new viewpoint, it is
important to understand its implications thoroughly. If one rejects the reliability of the
Bible, there remains no higher authority than one's own opinion.
A final point is that failure to distinguish between speculation and
scriptural teaching will inevitably lead to confusion. Basing one's beliefs on hearsay is
not safe. Each position must be examined to determine whether it be of human or divine
origin. Rejection of the Genesis story of Creation and the Flood was in large measure a
result of insistence upon perfection in nature. Failure to recognize the effects of sin on
nature led to a belief in fixity of species. As the number of known species became too
great for the ark, the Flood and ark story was discarded. Without the Flood, long ages of
time were required to account for geologic phenomena to occur by ordinary processes. Long
ages of time, when applied to the fossil layers, conflict with the Genesis story of
creation. Acceptance of long ages resulted in the rejection of Genesis as historically
accurate for the origin of the earth, sin, and man. The alternative was, and continues to
be, evolution, and the only future it promises is extinction.
An Adventist's View
In a world of skepticism and uncertainty, what can a Christian believe regarding the history of the earth? It seems to me that any doctrine concerning the history of the earth must address two points: what does it say about God? and what does it say about nature? No belief can long stand against challenge if it forms part of a world view which is not internally consistent. Three related points which are woven throughout the Bible are that God is the omnipotent Creator (Ps. 8; Mt. 19:4; Col. 1:16), God is love (Jer. 31:3; John 15:9; Rom. 5:8), and that nature is suffering the effects of sin (Gen. 3:14-19; Luke 13:16; Rom. 8:21,22). Any Christian theory of earth history must be consistent with these points. I will use these points as a basis for addressing the three issues of earth history discussed at the beginning of this paper.
1. Perfection in nature
Undoubtedly the earth as God created it was perfect. In describing the
original creation, God called it "very good" (Gen.1:31). The Bible clearly
states that God is the Creator (Ps.8) and that He is perfect (Mt. 5:48). But the Bible
also records a conflict with evil, which resulted in the spoiling of nature by Satan (Rom.
8:21,22). Man had been given dominion over nature by God (Gen. 1:28). Instead of
cooperating with God in his power over nature, sinful man perverted nature (Gen. 6:5-7).
As a result, even the plants and animals showed the effects of man's sin (Gen. 3:14, 18).
In order to understand nature properly, one must allow for the effects of sin and the
Flood.
Fixity of Species
We do not know whether God created many different varieties of each
kind of animal, or whether He created a smaller number of kinds of animals and gave them
the capacity to change and adapt to various environments, producing new varieties as they
did. However, the Bible does clearly teach that when God created, He created a diversity
of living things (Gen. 1). He did not start with amoebas and direct their evolution for
millions of years until He finally got human beings. Neither did God create death, disease
or decay, although He did foresee them (Gen. 3). These are the work of Satan (Luke 13:16;
Heb. 2:14).
The phrase "after his kind" or its equivalent has been used
to support the concept of limited change in species. In general, the idea is that changes
may occur in organisms with the result that many varieties of a "kind" may be
produced, but that no new "kinds" are ever produced. A more careful examination
of the words of scripture shows that this is not what the Bible says.
The Bible states clearly that God made various kinds of plants and
animals and gave them the capacity to reproduce. But it does not say anywhere that animals
would reproduce after their kinds, or that change was limited. It does say that plants
would produce their own kinds of seeds (Gen. 1:11, 12), but it is obvious that this cannot
mean that plants could not change. Plants are well-known for their ability to hybridize
and even to form new species in one generation (by polyploidy). God predicted that major
morphological change would occur in plants (Gen. 3:18) and in snakes (Gen. 3:14).
Scientific evidence may suggest that change may be limited, but the Bible does not set
limits. If major changes can be shown to occur in organisms, this does not contradict the
biblical statement of "after his kind".
2. Ark dispersal and Noah's flood
Another question to consider is the extent of the Flood. The Bible
describes it as covering all the mountains (Gen. 7:19) and destroying all the land animals
(Gen. 7:21-23). The reason for the Flood was that man had rebelled against God to the
point where it appeared that mankind was in danger of losing any possibility of being
reconciled to God. Nature had been corrupted by the effects of man's rebellion. In order
to give men a better chance, a change was needed. God destroyed mankind as well as the
corruption he had caused.
One might ask whether the Flood could have been somewhat limited in
scope, not necessarily covering the entire earth. To answer this question, one can look at
the distribution of fossils. Every continent contains widespread layers of marine fossils,
indicating that each continent was once covered by water. This is evidence for the
world-wide extent of the Flood.
The problem of space on the ark becomes much less serious when we
understand that species are not fixed. Species can change, producing new species. The
large number of species and varieties of land mammals seen today may be descendants of
only a few hundred species saved on the ark. Yet there are still unresolved problems. Why,
for example, are the mammals in Australia so different from those in South America and
other places? How much have species changed since creation? There are enough unanswered
questions to require that creationists be humble, but a knowledge of God and His word
gives us confidence that both are worthy of our trust.
3. Age of the earth
The third important issue is the question of the age of the earth. The
Bible does not give the age of the earth. A study of biblical chronology suggests that the
history of life on this earth represents thousands, not tens of thousands, of years. It is
not possible to be exact, nor is it really necessary. It is quite possible that the
minerals of the earth have been in existence as part of an earth "without form and
void" for long ages of time. This might explain certain data from science, but it is
not important to an understanding of biblical history.
Although the Bible does not directly address the question of the age of
the earth, it does directly address the questions of the manner by which changes occurred
on the earth. God created by the power of His word (Col. 1:16), not by doing His best to
bring order from chaotic nature, while limited by natural laws. A variety of plants and
animals were created in less than one week. A world-wide Flood caused drastic changes in
the earth.
There is no need for long ages of time. Certainly, God could have
created in any way He chose. But what kind of God do we believe Him to be? Trying to
constrain God to long ages of time for creation of life on the earth slanders His
character by blaming Him for death and implies that He is misleading us by not telling us
the truth in the messages He has given to man. Such attributes properly belong to our
enemy, not to our savior. Let us affirm our trust in God and His word and join in the
heavenly chorus:
"Our Lord and God! You are worthy
to receive glory, honour, and power.
For you created all things,
and by your will they were given existence and life."
(Rev. 4:11, TEV)
Literature Cited
EDITORIAL
A POINT OF REFERENCE
Be it thought or action, everything we do is done with respect to
some past reference point. It would be an impossible task to review every point of
reference in our lives. However, from time to time we are obligated to review those points
of reference that have long-lasting effects upon our lives and others.
Within such a review process an historical perspective can often be of
great worth. For from history we can gain an insight as to consequence of choice or
direction that is not available in the present.
Joseph Anderson once stated, "There is nothing that strengthens a
nation like reading of a nation's own history, whether that history is recorded in books
or embodied in customs, institutions and monuments."
Because of the importance in better understanding the
Creation/Evolution conflict and its long-lasting effects on our personal point of
reference, Geoscience Reports is devoting a special issue to an historical perspective of
the Eris.
Geoscience Reports, Spring 1986 No. 7
Editor --- Clyde L. Webster
Associate Editor --- Katherine Ching
Subscription requests, correspondence, and notices of change of address should be sent to: Geoscience Reports, Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350.
Geoscience Reports is a newsletter published by the Geoscience Research Institute to present current happenings at the Institute as well as articles of general interest which deal with creation /evolution issues for primary and secondary school teachers. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Institute.
Staff of the Institute are Ariel A. Roth - Director, Robert H. Brown, Katherine Ching, Harold G. Coffin, L. Jim Gibson, and Clyde L. Webster.