Booklet published in 1995 by:
Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda, CA 92350 USA
CONTENTS
Introduction
Personal Philosophy
Origins
Evolutionary Processes
Fossils and the Flood
Time Considerations
Nature of Science
Endnotes
Creationism is one of the "hot topics" of the modern
world. It seems we are all interested in our origins, but we do not all agree on what our
origins are. This small booklet has been prepared to help clarify the most important
issues in the discussion of origins. The booklet was written by Dr. Clyde Webster, a
member of the Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda, California. Dr. Webster addresses
six topics, briefly outlining the major issues in each one from an informed creationist
viewpoint. The booklet is not intended to be a comprehensive discussion of each of the
issues, but rather to provide a summary of the issues that seem to be central to
understanding our origins.
A person's philosophical outlook has a powerful influence on the way he
interprets his observations and experiences. This fact is widely known, but frequently
ignored. Dr. Webster reminds us of this fact right at the beginning of his booklet. What
is the relationship of God to nature? Is there evidence of a Designer? The answers to
these questions set the tone for the rest of the discussion.
Dr. Webster discusses four lines of evidence relating to the history of
life. True to his premise that interpretations of nature are strongly influenced by
philosophical considerations, each of the four sections has an essential philosophical
component. For example, should attempts to explain nature be done from a naturalistic or
supernaturalistic approach? Are the Scriptures a reliable record of past events? What
assumptions do creationists make when they interpret nature? What assumptions do
evolutionists make when they interpret nature?
Dr. Webster touches briefly on some of the lines of evidence that
support creationism, and also some of the evidence that seems problematic. Several models
of origins are described and their implications outlined. The processes claimed
responsible for biological evolution are described, and reasons given for accepting a
creationist position. Both the origin of life and the origin of diversity seem best
explained as a result of intelligent planning. Geological evidence is described that seems
consistent with the effects of a worldwide flood. Although the creationist viewpoint
provides a satisfactory explanation for many observations and patterns in nature, Dr.
Webster does not hesitate to admit that there are still areas for which our understanding
is limited. The problematic area of radiometric dating is described, with the assumptions
involved in its application. There is much that we do not understand.
In his final section, Dr. Webster explains why our understanding can be
incomplete. The very nature of science itself is a limited method of obtaining knowledge.
Revelation supplies information that we could never obtain through our own efforts. Our
understanding of our place in nature must not be limited to scientific interpretations. In
fact, at the most critical points, science fails. To truly understand ourselves, we must
be open to the voice of our Creator.
It is our hope that this booklet will broaden your understanding of the
issues involved in the history of this world, and stimulate you to be more open to hear
the voice of your Creator.
L. James Gibson, Director, Geoscience Research Institute
Careful evaluation of the evidence for and against evolution and for
and against creation indicates that there are only two major issues of strong
disagreement, namely, time and origin.
Time is an issue because of our concept of the nature of God. As
Seventh-day Adventists we believe that God is consistent in what He says and does. The
time line as presented in the standard geologic time scale, the first appearance of life
and later diversification of species is not consistent with God's Word as given in Genesis
1. The appearance of evil before sin presents another time-related inconsistency.
Violent death, mass extinction and fierce competition, as inferred from
the fossils within the geologic column, would not only come before man and sin, but are
contradictory to the nature of a God who is concerned with the birds of the air and the
beasts of the field.
Time issues that challenge the consistency of the nature of God and His
written Word are encountered repeatedly. As we currently understand the issues facing us,
we can either choose the various prevailing time concepts and question the nature and
consistency of God, or we can accept the consistency of God and question the prevailing
time concepts. There seems to be no middle ground.
The second and more important issue of disagreement is the question of
origin. As Seventh-day Adventists, the answer to the question "Where did life
originate?" has a tremendous influence upon our beliefs concerning the nature of man,
salvation, and the nature and character of God Himself.
If man did originate from macro-evolutionary processes over a long
period of time, how then do we relate to the multiple references in Scripture which state
that man was created in the "image of God" from the beginning? How
then do we relate to the fact that we must be recreated in the image of God through
Jesus Christ if we are to attain eternal life? If we were not created originally and we
have evolved through vast periods of time to man's current mental and physical status, why
must we worry about a process called salvation? Does not salvation become only a higher
level on the evolutionary plane?
Some questions do not have answers from the biblical point of view.
However, one does not have to stand on blind faith alone! When we are confronted
with these questions, a good quotation to keep in mind is found in Patriarchs and
Prophets, p. 432.1 While the original context of this quotation is in the
spiritual realm, it can have meaningful significance in the scientific realm as well. It
reads as follows:
Many wander in the mazes of Philosophy, in search of reasons and evidence which they will never find, while they reject the evidence which God has been pleased to give. They refuse to walk in the Sun of Righteousness, until the reason of its shining shall be explained. All who persist in this course will fail to come to a knowledge of truth. God will never remove every occasion to doubt. He gives sufficient evidence on which to base faith, and if this is not accepted, the mind is left in darkness.
What are some of the evidences that we can rely upon?
One of the most outstanding features of the world in which we live is
the evidence of design and order. Whether one uses the telescope, microscope or the naked
eye, intricate design and order are obvious even to the untrained observer. From the
electron's path about the nucleus of the atom to the sun's path through the galaxy, all
follow a given order. The eye by which one beholds or the hand by which one touches gives
strong testimony to a design for life!
Is it possible to comprehend the design of a living organism and deny
the existence of a master designer?! Is it possible to believe that life just happened?!
Is it possible to believe that life, as we know it, will continue indefinitely, placing
our only hope for perfection on a random genetic mutation?!
These questions could go on for pages; however, such a list would not
change the bottom line, which is best described in Joshua 24:15 (NIV):
But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.
We are not asked to make this choice without evidence that God is a real and personal God. God has given us great minds with which to weigh all the evidence, be it Scriptural, scientific or experiential. God has also promised to direct us in truth through His Holy Spirit. This choice cannot be the choice of parent, friend or teacher. IT MUST BE OUR OWN.
One of the most intriguing and emotionally charged topics is the beginning
of life. With the questions of How? and Where? did life begin come concerns as to How?
Why? and Where? will life end. Often one's choice of belief concerning beginnings can
influence one's perspective on endings.
In general, the theories pertaining to the beginning of life can be
categorized under one of two major headings: natural or supernatural. The theories are
then further catalogued according to their relative methods of development.
When an individual strives to use only the laws and processes currently
known to govern the universe and this world in particular, without calling upon some known
or unknown higher power or source, the only theory that appears workable is the theory of
naturalistic evolution.
Many believe evolution to be the product of scientific thought over the
past two centuries. However, much of evolutionary thought is readily traceable to the
ancient Greek philosophers and writers. For example, Anaximander (ca 611-547 BC) imagined
modern man as being derived from fish-like mermen. He perceived that these creatures
eventually emerged from the water and adapted to dry land.2 Empedocles (ca
490-430 BC) not only believed in spontaneous generation of life forms but also suggested
that the processes of "natural selection" (i.e., the survival of the fittest)
were in operation throughout all of nature.3 And Aristotle (ca 384-322 BC)
suggested that nature operated and continued to exist through its own set of laws, and
that these laws of operation were independent of supernatural forces.4 This
release of nature from the capricious control of higher powers was all that was needed for
the roots of modern science to develop. It was also Aristotle who proposed the concept of
fixity of species. This concept, incorporated into Christian thought by Augustine (ca AD
354-430), would later become a major factor in discrediting the Genesis account of the
origin of life.
Significant differences exist between the Greek and Roman theories and
those proposed by Darwin and other modern evolutionists. Whereas Darwin and others attempt
to explain the origin of life in terms of natural processes and long periods of time, the
ancients accepted some form of primitive creation of an unlimited number of body parts,
with the formation of new species resulting from various parts coming together either
randomly or at the whims of gods. Whereas Darwin and others attempt to show a progression
of life from one form to another, the ancients assumed that, once formed, a species
remained basically unchanged throughout time. Whereas Darwin and others see "natural
selection" as being a driving force for change, the ancients saw "natural
selection" as only a means of preserving the species. Despite these and other
differences, the basic concepts of evolution have existed within the higher levels of
thought and reason for a long time.
Opposite the theory of naturalistic evolution is the theory of special
creation. Special creation generally uses the Bible for its basic concepts. The differing
theories of special creation are derived from the various interpretations of the Bible.
However, nonbiblical theories of creation do exist.
A conservative Christian model would start "In the beginning
God...." God's infinite power would be the source of all matter and life. Through
His power, He chose to create the universe, the Earth, and all its inhabitants within six
literal, twenty-four hour days. At a later time He chose to destroy the surface of the
Earth and its inhabitants with a global flood. All these phenomena are assumed to have
occurred within the past few thousand years.
An alternative, yet still conservative, Christian model would divide
God's creative accomplishments into two separate events. First was the creation of the
primordial nonliving matter of the Earth and its solar system approximately 4.5 billion
years ago. Sometime later, after this primordial creation, God then chose to create all of
the living systems within six literal, twenty-four days. He also destroyed the surface of
the Earth and its inhabitants with a global flood (these last two events occurring within
the past few thousand years).
Unfortunately, Greek philosophy and modern science tend to disagree
with such interpretations of Scripture.
Both the macro-evolutionists and the special creationists could be
classified as literalists. In other words, these groups adhere to literal interpretations
of science or Scripture. A second group could be classified as reconciliationists. In
other words, members of this group attempt to reconcile (bring together peaceably) the
interpretations of science with those of Scripture. While the possibilities for variation
within this group are very large, attempts at reconciliation fall into two categories.
Either science is held as the dominant interpretation or Scripture is held as the dominant
interpretation. Two of the most popular theories within the first category are Theistic
Evolution and Progressive Creation.5
Theistic evolution is basically macro-evolution with the addition of
God. God initially creates the simplest life form and then directs the progress of
evolution from simple to complex. In this theory science is the dominant interpreter.
Progressive creation is also known as the "Day-Age Theory."
In this theory God performs multiple creations over long periods of time. Each creation
event produced more complex life forms, with present life forms coming into existence
within the last million years or so. While Scripture appears to be the dominant factor in
this concept, science still determines how Scripture is to be understood.
Attempts at reconciliation between the areas of science and Scripture
are not new. The Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria (ca 20 BC - AD 45) was one of the
first to attempt to reconcile the Greek philosophies with the Hebrew Old Testament. In his
attempt Philo treated the Old Testament writings as religious allegory.6 One of
the most influential ancient scholars of Scriptural allegory was Origen (ca AD 185 - 254).
His methods directed Western Christian thought for over a thousand years. Under Origen's
influence Christian scholars began to interpret symbolically the numbers, animals, plants,
and other objects and events in Scripture. The historical, literal search for truth was
almost forgotten as scholar after scholar sought for new symbolic meaning within
Scripture. According to one writer:
To help in the interpretation of Biblical allegory, Christians employed the science and philosophy of the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Mesopotamians. It brought much new knowledge to the Western world, but it also put into wider circulation many concepts antithetical to Christian doctrines and beliefs. Some of the pagan concepts would help to lay the intellectual foundation for the theory of evolution even though they themselves may not have been basically evolutionary in intent.7
Throughout history, including the present, as mankind's data base
for intellectual reasoning has increased, the perceived need for revelation has decreased.
With today's technology and human reasoning at an all-time high, the most appealing theory
to many concerning the origin of life is some form of evolution. The successes of science
(regardless of the area) tend to strengthen the belief that evolution is the correct
theory of origins. The serious problems with evolutionary theories are minimized by or are
unknown to the general populace. Even those individuals who are aware of the problems
believe that in time all questions will be answered. However, does this remove the
possibilities of God using "natural" laws?!
One of the most serious problems with evolution is its inability to
account for the spontaneous generation of even the simplest form of life. From a
biochemical point of view the odds against the spontaneous generation of a simple protein
are so immense that spontaneous generation of more complex material is virtually
impossible. Science is also unable to account for the spontaneous generation of the
complex interrelated systems necessary for life.
Other important unanswered questions arising from evolution pertain to
the origin of man's higher characteristics such as consciousness, free will, aesthetic
taste, morality and love. Not only can science not account for the origin of these
characteristics, it cannot give reasons why they should even exist.
The most serious problem with any Scripture-based Creation theory is
the disagreement with the long ages proposed by scientific interpretations, especially
radiometric dating. Scripturally, there is no direct method by which the large radiometric
ages found in the geologic column in association with fossils can be accounted for. This
is a dilemma with which the creationist, by faith, must live.
The dilemma of the time problems for Scripture-based Creation theories
is offset by the number of areas concerning origins that find excellent correlation with
Scripture. Some of these areas include evidence for design at all levels of life, origin
of life and the basic plant and animal types, and the origin of consciousness, free will,
aesthetic taste in music and art, morality and love.
For many centuries most Christians believed in fixity of species.
Fixity means that species cannot change. As one looks at the large number of species, it
seems reasonable to doubt the "fixity of species" theory. However, two questions
immediately come to mind: "If the number of species is not fixed, how much change has
occurred; and how much time have these changes required?"
Modern secular science suggests that the extent of change has been from
one-celled organisms to man and the amount of time required for these changes has been on
the order of three billion years! Scripturally based science suggests that the extent of
change has been limited and the amount of time available for these changes to occur has
been on the order of thousands, not millions or billions of years.
Evolutionary theory requires almost limitless change and variation.
Does the scientific evidence support this position? Two questions that need to be answered
are: 1) how much change is possible? and 2) by what mechanisms do these changes occur?
Picture in your mind two individuals taking their pets out for a walk.
The first individual has a very small tea-cup toy poodle. The second individual is walking
a large Irish wolf-hound. Both of these pets are dogs and belong to the family Canidae.
Excluding the wild members of the family Canidae, there are over 400 breeds of dogs! And
yet they are still recognizable as dogs. Regardless of the amount of cross-breeding and
selection applied to this species, a dog is still a dog. Not once has a dog breeder been
able to produce a pig or a cat or any animal that even closely resembles anything other
than a dog. The same statements can be made for the cat family Felidae. In fact these
statements are true for any kind of animal!
One of the most studied and manipulated forms of life is the fruit fly Drosophila.
Over the past several decades this species has been the workhorse of the geneticist. Fruit
flies have been exposed to essentially every known mutagen in existence, be it
radiological, chemical or biological. And yet this species still looks like a fruit fly!
In addition, thousands of generations of fruit flies have been bred and examined for new
gene combinations. Speaking of the efforts to change the fruit fly's genes, Lester and
Bohlin8 make the following statement:
But this sort of reshuffling is not likely to result in major evolutionary change. It simply recognizes what already exists. Even with new mutations, it will not likely lead to new original metabolic functions and new protein molecules.
"It simply recognizes what already exists." This is
a very powerful statement! These authors are saying that the wide variety of change noted
in the fruit fly may be simply an expression of a genetic diversity that is already
present. Nothing new has been created; only new genetic combinations have been expressed!
Some mutations can be said to be new, but they are merely modifications of structures
already present and do not represent new structures or functions.
There are four explanations commonly offered for the genetic variation
observed within a species and between species: environmental influences, recombination,
mutation, and natural selection.9
Responses to different environmental factors may produce differences
among individuals, but these are not new genes; they are simply the expression of genes
already present!
Recombination is the shuffling of genes that occurs during meiosis (the
formation of an egg or sperm).10 This reshuffling is responsible for much of
the uniqueness of individuals of the same species. The odds that offspring resulting from
the fusion of two gametes will be exactly the same are practically zero. The effects of
recombination are illustrated through artificial selection.
The process of producing a new variety of plant or animal through the
humanly directed selection of the breeding stock is known as artificial selection. Many
species have been subjected to artificial selection such as: cats, dogs, cattle, horses,
sheep, corn, roses, grasses and numerous others.
The results of artificial selection suggest that changes in species
could not result in evolutionary progress. This evidence is consistent with the creation
account, which states that many different kinds of animals were created at the beginning.
Mutation can best be described as genetic noise. Mutations are actually
changes in genetic information caused by chemicals, radiation, errors in duplication, et
cetera. It seems impossible for mutations to add new genetic information, as they only
alter existing material. At best mutations are neutral. In other words neutral mutations
do not decrease the survivability of the species. The odds that mutations will be lethal
are quite high. It is highly improbable that a mutation could be constructive. Random
changes in any complex integrated system will usually upset the system. For example,
random changes in the genes of a fruit fly could cause loss or reduction of wings, changes
of eye color, et cetera. This can be further illustrated by observing that random changes
in the controls of a TV set will usually make it impossible to view a televised program.
The fact that mutations are usually either neutral or harmful is a strong argument for a
more perfect original species, and contradicts the view that mutation is a mechanism for
the advancement of a species!
For a species to become more complex requires more than simply a
mutation in a gene; it requires new genes. But simply adding a new gene would not work.
Genes do not work in isolation. Rather, an organism's set of genes work together to
produce the organism. A new gene must work properly with all the other genes in order for
the organism to survive. Furthermore, several new genes would be required in order to
produce a new structure and a more complex organism. Each new gene would require a control
(regulatory) gene. In addition, each new gene would have to operate at the right time in
development for the new structure to develop correctly. It does not seem reasonable to
expect even one new gene to appear by chance, much less several highly coordinated genes
working together to produce a new structure.11
Conversely, mutations could account for non-lethal loss of genetic
information. Such genetic loss would result in the modification and/or loss of structure
or function and still allow the species to survive. Examples of such losses are common and
include sightless fish in caves and flightless birds on islands. Some scientists believe
that the metabolic energy saved because of the loss of these structures is channelled into
other functions, such as reproduction, needed to keep the species viable.
From the evidences of genetic loss, the loss of non-utilized
structures, and an understanding of the complex relationships of genetic material, it
would seem that unless a new structure or function appears suddenly, it is highly unlikely
that the structure will gradually evolve over time. However, the arguments of genetic
loss, functional loss, and complex genetic interrelationships are not inconsistent with
the Genesis creation account and the consequences of sin.
Rather than argue for natural selection as producing unlimited genetic
change, observations of natural selection reveal its limits for potential for change!
Darwin's famous finches, located on the Galapagos Islands, of which there are thirteen
species in three genera, are often used as examples of natural selection and adaptive
radiation. These finches, instead of presenting strong arguments in favor of a mechanism
for wide changes, are an illustration of limited change. Although the finches differ in
their beaks and plumage, they are very similar internally, and are really not very
different from each other. The various species of finches were able to become established
because of their ability to find and fill an open niche. Regardless of how strong natural
selection was in the development of these finches, the changes produced were minor!
If the four explanations regularly offered as the origin for genetic
variation only produce limited changes, how can the wide variety of organisms be best
accounted for? According to Scripturally based science, God created many
"kinds" of organisms within which the sources of variation mentioned above
have operated.
Once created, the "kind" would be subject to the recognized
sources of genetic variation. However, before the entrance of sin into this World, all
variation within the "kind" was useful and non-degenerative. After the entrance
of sin regardless of the extent of genetic variation, the result would only be
modification and/or elimination of function or structure, rather than generation of new
structure or new function. Modification and/or elimination of structure and/or function
seems possible and is supported by scientific data. On the other hand, generation of new
structure and/or function does not seem possible and is not directly supported by the
data.
The original created kinds apparently had a large potential for genetic
variability. The diverse members of the group resulted from the manifestation of the
potential for genetic variation that existed within the created "kind." No new
material would be generated, only new combinations expressed. Those combinations that were
not functional did not survive, while those combinations that were functional did survive
and occupied an appropriate environmental niche. The surviving members of the group could
also exhibit additional variation! Such a model is consistent with the scientific data and
is also consistent with the Genesis creation account.
The fossil record supports the model of initially created-kinds subject
to variation as well as, or better than, it supports evolutionary models. The lowest
multicellular fossils appearing in the geologic sequence are complex species! There is a
conspicuous lack of genuine transitional fossils (missing links). The argued progression
of simple to complex fossils in the geologic column can possibly be attributed to order of
burial rather than to order of evolution. This interpretation is strengthened when
observation of the limited change and lack of new structures arising from genetic
variation is taken into consideration!
How would this perspective of "kind" influence one's
viewpoint on human evolution? From the Scriptural perspective of "kind," Homo
sapiens would be the original group representative. All other man-like species could
be the result of variation or degeneration rather than steps of advancement! This would
place the Neanderthal (a somewhat degenerate type) and the Cro-Magnon (a
fully "modern" type) man in the category of varieties of Homo sapiens. On
the other hand, such fossil finds as Australopithecus robustus, A. africanus,
and A. boisei would be classified as variations of the ape family rather than the
human family.
Change within species throughout time is undeniable. Evidence for the
amount of change, irrespective of time, has been shown to be limited. It is therefore
logical to accept the Scriptural concept of created "kinds" into one's
perspective concerning the origin of the great variety of life about us, with allowance
for a limited amount of variation.
It is easy to see why many individuals reject the concept of a
world-wide flood, since visualizing any destructive event large enough to encompass the
entire world at the same time is difficult. Even the most violent storms encountered by
modern man affect only a small part of the Earth's surface at any one time.
Another difficulty encountered in the Genesis Flood Story involves the
animals. How did "all of the species" survive? Or did they? How did the animals
get to the various continents from the Ark? These and other questions dealing with the
diverse life forms lead many scientists to first question and eventually reject all
concepts of a world-wide flood and an Ark of refuge.
If a world-wide Flood took place, what was it like? Are there data to
support such a claim? Is a Flood story found only in the Hebrew Scriptures? Do other
records of ancient history contain a Flood story?
In reviewing the records of other cultures, one finds reference to
Flood stories on every continent and in almost every society of the world.12,13
Almost every extra-biblical account specifies universal flooding, some means of escape,
and violent associated forces. While these facts lend credibility to the Genesis Flood
account, one must not rely on them alone for support.
If the biblical record of the Flood is accurate, and if it was as
violent as depicted, physical evidence that would support such a claim must exist
world-wide. Such evidence does exist. It includes widespread sedimentary deposits,
large-scale geological changes, and massive burial and preservation of plants and animals.
Nearly three quarters of the Earth's exposed surface is covered with
sedimentary rock deposits.14 The search for oil has produced extensive
underground mapping that reveals the massive size of some of these sedimentary deposits.
As more and more oil exploration takes place around the world, a picture of the Earth's
rock layers becomes clearer.
The most unique feature of these stratified sediments is not their
thickness but their similarities and their wide range of distribution. Many strata can be
traced over thousands of square miles and from continent to continent. Some extend over
much of the world!
Strata identical to the English "White Cliffs of Dover" can
be found in France, Germany, Scandinavia, Poland, Bulgaria, and Russia. Similar chalk
deposits of the same geologic age and characteristics can also be found in Texas,
Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama in North America. And, last but not least, similar chalk
deposits can be found also in Western Australia! All of these deposits are resting on the
same type of glauconitic sandstone!15 These chalk deposits are not the only
deposits that are widespread. Other widespread deposits include various types of
sandstone, limestone, and shale. Surely very similar conditions had to exist at nearly
the same time in all of these places for these similar deposits to form!
The formation of the Grand Canyon, the formation of the mighty mountain
ranges, the separation and movement of continents and the opening of oceans which occurred
in the past history of planet Earth have no geological counterpart today. These massive
Earth movements might be the results of forces that do not operate today, forces that no
individual can successfully describe or explain. Could these movements be evidences of a
world-wide flood?
In the search for evidences of the Flood one must not overlook the
fossil fish and huge coal deposits. Where did they come from? What past conditions
produced these deposits?
The present-day process most similar to coal formation is the formation
of peat. Peat is the dark-brown to black residual material produced by the partial decay
of mosses, trees and other plants that grow in wet marshes and bogs. Scientists estimate
that it would require from 0.6-6.1 meters of peat to form 0.3 meters of coal, depending
upon the coal type. If we take an average of 3 m of peat to produce 0.3 m of coal, 91 m of
peat would be required to produce a coal seam with a thickness of 9.1 m. There are few
peat bogs, marshes, or swamps anywhere in the world that reach a depth of 30 m, let alone
91 m. The average depth of most marshes and bogs is 15 m or less. How could peat bogs
account for a 91-m coal seam?!
The origin of such vast coal beds has been an area of major study for
many geologists. Any uniformitarian model developed by geologists cannot accommodate the
immense size or depth of the majority of the coal beds. However, the concept of a global
flood that eroded out the forests and plant cover of the pre-flood world, collected it in
great floating mats of debris, and then deposited it in sinking basins seems to be a
reasonable model which can account for the great extent and thickness of the coal beds.
If we examine carefully the many sedimentary rock strata that cover the
Earth, we will soon find that we are actually living on an enormous graveyard. Graveyard?!
Yes, graveyard! Almost every sedimentary deposit contains fossilized remains of past life,
both plant and animal. Some of the more famous strata contain dinosaurs, while others
contain substantial fish remains or petrified wood.
As the paleontologist travels from location to location across the
continent and around the world, he begins to notice that the fossil assemblages occur in a
rather regular sequence. In other words, if you find a particular fossil in a given strata
of rock, you can, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, predict what kind of fossil you
should find in the strata above and below. Some of the sequences are so predictable that
the fossil itself is used to identify the strata. Those fossils used for strata
identification are called index fossils.
There is some inherent danger in using fossils to identify strata when
in the beginning it was the strata that was used to identify the fossil! This type of
reasoning is circular and can lead one into incorrect conclusions if not recognized.
Circular reasoning is somewhat like a dog chasing its tail!
The ages of fossils are assigned after radiometric dating of the
surrounding rock strata. With this information at hand, the geologists have assigned a
time sequence to the crust of the Earth known as the "Geologic Column." The
largest unit in the geologic column is the era. Eras are subdivided into Periods and
Periods are divided into Epochs. The three Eras from bottom to top are:
All of the rocks below the Paleozoic Era are lumped together into
the Precambrian, which is not an Era.
The Precambrian plant kingdom is represented by some blue-green algae
and some primitive fungi. The Precambrian animal kingdom is represented by impressions
resembling primitive jellyfish and segmented worms. These primitive animals were first
found in the Ediacara Hill sandstone in South Australia.16
The Paleozoic Era is known for its abundant marine and aquatic animals.
Amphibians and small reptiles also abound. The animal life ranges from brachiopods and
calcite-eyed trilobites in the Cambrian to sharks and bony fishes in the Devonian. The
first fossils of egg-bearing reptiles are found in the Carboniferous.
Some of the most important plant remains are found in the Paleozoic Era
and more specifically in the Carboniferous period. Here we find extensive coal beds
composed of the remains of extinct plants such as giant horsetails (Calamites), giant tree
ferns (Sphenopsida), primitive seedless plants (Psilophytes), and club mosses (Lycopsida).
Other major coal deposits exist in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras; however, they are
composed mainly of coniferous trees.
The most fascinating Era for fossils has to be the Mesozoic! The reason
for this distinction is Dino the enchanting dinosaur. The word Dinosaur is derived from
the Greek words "deinos" and "sauros" and means terrible reptile.
The Mesozoic Era consists of three periods. Directly above the Paleozoic Era we find in
ascending order the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods. Lest one confuse the
Cretaceous period with Creation events, the Cretaceous period derives its name from the
Latin word "Creta" meaning chalk. The great chalk cliffs around the world are
found in the Cretaceous period.
The plant kingdom of the Mesozoic Era is represented by ferns, the
"living fossil plants" (cycads), and seed plants including conifers, and
deciduous trees. Many plant species found in the Mesozoic Era are common today!
The close of the Cretaceous Period and the Mesozoic Era is marked by
the extinction of many species, both plant and animal and is hailed by some as "The
time of great dying." The most widely publicized extinction is that of the dinosaurs.
Many plants and animals that had been common during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras did
not continue into the Cenozoic.
Mammals are the most common fossils in the Cenozoic layers. Fossils
similar to our modern animals can be found throughout the upper part of the Cenozoic.
Probably the most famous, and extinct, mammal of the Cenozoic is the Saber-tooth Tiger (Smilodon).
Smilodon skeletons are found in the Pleistocene tar pits of Rancho La Brea in
southern California. Other interesting extinct Cenozoic mammals include the giant sloth
and the woolly mammoth.
Cenozoic plants are essentially the same as those that exist today!
As one thinks about all of these layers and fossil sequences of the
geologic column, one wonders how to interpret all these data. Basically there are two
explanations, each with many variations. The geologic column can be interpreted from
either a naturalistic viewpoint or from a Scriptural viewpoint.
The naturalistic viewpoint, like any other, begins with some
assumptions. One assumption is that nature is explainable by natural laws which we can
discover and study. Another assumption is that God does not interfere in nature. From
these assumptions, models are developed that explain the fossil layers without any
supernatural event such as the biblical flood.
Using the naturalistic viewpoint the age of a fossilized species is
determined from the radiometric age of the layer in which the species was found. Such a
direct method yields a seeming relationship between biological complexity and geologic
time.
It is not difficult to see why this apparent relationship between
biologic complexity and time in the geologic column must yield an evolutionary
based model. No other direct interpretation of the data can account for the millions of
years between supposedly the simplest and oldest life found in the Precambrian sediments
and the most complex and youngest life found in the upper Cenozoic sediments.
The Scriptural viewpoint also begins with assumptions. One of the
assumptions is that God is active in nature, and that He does intervene at times to change
the outcome of natural events. Another assumption is that the Bible is God's Word and that
it gives a reliable history of the Earth.
Our Scriptural position also includes a literal seven-day creation week
for all life and a subsequent destruction by a world-wide flood. From these assumptions we
can now address the geologic column. However, once we make the above assumptions we are at
odds with the naturalistic interpretation of the data. Let's look at the seven-day
creation assumption first.
Assuming a seven-day creation implies that the ages assigned to the
various sedimentary units are not absolute ages but relative ages. Relative ages imply
position or order of sequence only but do not address the time involved between events.
If we look more closely at the increasing "progressive"
nature of complexity of the flora and fauna found in the geologic column, we will see that
the fossils lowest in the geologic column may be simpler in function than those higher up
but they are still very complex! The structure of the cell, in the lower organisms, the
basic unit of life, is just as complex as that of the organisms found in the upper layers
of the column! We would predict a high level of complexity throughout the geologic column
if life were created, and this is what we find.
The assumption of a world-wide flood can fit within the framework of
the geologic column. The Flood could provide the mechanism for the widespread
stratigraphic deposits found throughout the crust of the Earth. The Flood could provide
the type of sorting and layering we find throughout the geologic column. The Flood could
also provide the mechanism for collecting and depositing the vast amounts of vegetation
needed to form the large coal deposits.
The Flood could also account for the fossil sequences we find in the
geologic column. The sequencing could be a result of the Flood waters progressively
destroying the various ecological zones. Also, the waters could cause different species to
bloat and float to different levels prior to burial. In short, a world-wide flood can
provide a possible model for the geologic column.
In summary we find that the data found in the stratified crust of the
Earth can be interpreted from several points of view. The interpretation of the data is
influenced by the assumptions of the investigator. And, the assumptions of the
investigator are influenced by the investigator's personal experiences and philosophy of
life. No model, however simple or complex, can yet answer all of the questions or explain
all of the data found in the Earth's crust. We must therefore choose carefully what we are
to believe, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of our model and the fact that the
processes that took place in the past have no counterpart in the processes that are taking
place on Earth's surface today.
History is a simple word with a lot of meaning. Tennyson once
described history as "the eternal landscape of the past." Through the various
aspects of history we can study the past events of a person, a family, a nation, or a
civilization. In researching the past events we rely heavily upon the written record. But
there is a limit as to how far back in time the written record extends.
The only records available which span the entire history of life on
this planet are the Holy Bible and some other religious writings. The first five books of
the Bible, written by Moses, were written sometime during the fifteenth century bc.
Because of our personal faith relationship with Jesus Christ, we accept the Scriptures as
written by "holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."17
Accepting Scripture as offering reliable information, we can use the
data given in Genesis 1-11 to calculate the chronology of life on planet Earth. The Bible
exists in slightly different versions, which give different ages for the patriarchs. The
total time since Creation varies among these versions from about 6,000 years to about
7,700 years. Since we are not certain of the exact number of years, we often use the
expression "less than ten thousand years." In order to standardize our
calculations we will use the chronological data from the Septuagint (LXX). The Septuagint
is a translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament) into
Greek, originally made in Alexandria, Egypt in the third century BC. Data from the
Septuagint may be used to place Creation Week at 5665 BC and the Flood at 3403 BC. From
this data we can conclude that life has been on this planet for approximately 7,700 years.
This time span is somewhat short of the billions of years proposed by standard science!
With such a large difference in ages — almost 10,000 versus
4,560,000,000 — the first question that pops into one's mind is "How does science
tell time?
Imagine yourself stranded on an island with no means of telling time.
You knew the date when you arrived but nothing more. How would you know how long you had
been on the island? "Simple," you say, "I would just start counting the
number of times the sun set and that would give me the total number of days that I have
been on the island." And you would be correct!
While walking around the island you happen upon an old empty treasure
chest half buried in the sand. With nothing else to do you begin to study the chest in
order to determine how long it has been buried on the island. Through long and careful
observation you notice that each day the high tides remove exactly 1.00 millimeters of
sand from around the old chest. Knowing this data you now begin to measure the height of
sand that remains around the old chest. You reason that once you know how much sand
remains around the old chest, you can simply calculate how much sand was required to cover
the old chest and from there how long the chest had been buried.
Unknowingly you had been applying the "principle of
uniformity" in your study. This principle, given its first modern formal
pronouncement by the Scottish geologist, James Hutton, in 1785, maintains that "The
present is the key to the past." According to this principle, given sufficient
time, processes now at work could account for all the geologic features of the Globe.
Feeling the triumph of success at determining how long the chest had
been buried, you move on down the beach looking for further challenges. All goes well
until a typhoon blows in and turns your world of investigation inside out. In less than a
span of 24 hours, the storm uncovers three more old chests right near the one you were
working on!
What was wrong with your study techniques? Nothing! Under the initial
assumptions made, your study was correct. However, as the storm pointed out, your
assumptions were not complete! By using a limited range of the present as the key to the
past, you were unable to account for the actions of storms.
Determining the age of past events from present processes is very
complicated. Numerous assumptions are made in order to define and simplify the system
under study. Care is exercised to insure that all "storms" are accounted for in
the study. However, many "storms" can go unnoticed until someone seeks an answer
that is not covered by the previous assumptions.
In order to determine the age of the Earth several elaborate models
based on uniformitarian principles have been proposed and studied.18 Models
based on the rates of erosion and/or sedimentation have been studied in detail. Other
detailed studies include the rate of cooling of the Earth, rate of build-up of the ocean
salinity, rate of production of volcanic ejecta, and growth of human population. As the
number of studies increase, so have the number of conflicting ages for the Earth
increased! One reason for these conflicting ages is the failure of the assumptions to
account for all of the "storms." No methods based on uniformitarian principles
came close to giving consistent results until radiometric dating techniques were
developed.
Radiometric age dating is based upon the ability to accurately
determine the amount of radioactive parent element and its stable daughter product present
in the sample. By knowing the ratio of parent to daughter and the half-life of the parent,
simple mathematics allows one to determine the age of the sample under investigation.
(Carbon-14 dating is based on a comparison of the present parent concentration with an
estimate of its concentration at a known time in the past.)
Numerous measurements support the assumption that the decay rates
(half-lives) for the radioactive elements have remained constant over time. If we are to
question the results of radiometric dating it must be on the basis of the other
assumptions that are involved.
Two other assumptions utilized in radiometric dating are:
Numerous examples are recorded in the geologic literature which
illustrate the point that the zero-reset assumption does not always work. A classic
example comes from the volcanic ejecta of Mt. Rangitoto (Auckland, New Zealand). The
volcanic material was found to have a Potassium-40 age of 485,000 years; however, trees
buried within the volcanic material were found to have a Carbon-14 age of less than 300
years!19 Scientists are aware of these discrepancies and develop techniques to
minimize them. However, it is not always possible to account for all of them.
The position of undisturbed volcanic layers confirm the order of
deposition; however, the radiometric ages of the individual layers do not necessarily
represent the real emplacement times. The reason for such differences can be found in the
fact that there are a wide variety of factors which influence the physical and chemical
makeup of the volcanic material before it reaches the surface.20 These factors
can also influence the radiometric age!
How can a researcher be certain that the system under study has
remained closed to the exchange of either the parent isotope or the daughter with foreign
material from outside the system? He cannot unless he was present at the time of the
geologic event and immediately isolated the sample from its surroundings. Such is not the
case for the majority of samples. Techniques have been developed to help correct for
suspected exchange of isotopes. However, these corrections cannot account for all of the
possible deviations that may have occurred. The criteria that a sample must meet for
"good" radiometric dating are very complex.21,22
A radiometric age is often rejected because it does not conform to the
age "given" the formation from which it was taken. Arguments are presented for
the clock not being reset for ages too old and arguments for selective removal of the
daughter isotope or selective insertion of the parent isotope are given for ages too
young. The question that then arises is, "Is there any radiometric date that we can
trust?"
Only when several different radiometric isotope systems give the
same approximate date can that date be looked upon as approaching a reliable time. The
organization of the Solar System is placed at about 4.56 billion years ago because several
different radiometric isotope systems applied to a variety of minerals yield the same age.
The samples investigated include meteorites and lunar material.
4.56 billion years!? 40,000 years!? 9,000 years!? 6,000 years!? Who's
right? Who's wrong? How can a person handle the different ages for the Earth? Is there
room to harmonize the scientific age data and the data from the Bible? Does it really make
a difference what I believe? These are the questions that the thinking Christian must
answer while seeking harmony between the Scriptures and science in today's modern society.
There are basically three approaches one can take when dealing with
radiometric age data. They are:
The first approach is no approach and does not warrant further consideration. The difference between the second and third choices depends upon one's interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty (without form and void), darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light ... [v. 3 added for context].23
It appears that the first day of Creation Week actually begins with
verse three.
The second approach is preferred by individuals whose convictions
concerning the biblical interpretation of Creation do not allow for a 4.56-billion-year
age for any inorganic matter of the Earth. This approach assumes that what we currently
classify as long-term radiometric features were introduced as "apparent age"
into the inorganic matter in a recent creation.
The third approach assumes that elementary inorganic matter of our
solar system existed before the creation of life on planet Earth.This assumption is
supported by a broader interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 than the second approach.
The fact that there is no reference in the Scriptures within the
Creation Week that addresses the creation of water or the mineral components of dry land
("Earth" that was created on Day Three) could be used for support of this
position. The only reference made to their creation is "in the beginning."
It seems possible then that the elementary inorganic matter is not bound by a limited age
as is the living matter.
The implications of this third approach would suggest that the
radiometric clocks are not reset to zero whenever the minerals are transported by igneous
(volcanic) or erosional processes. This approach also strongly suggests that the
radiometric age assigned to the inorganic minerals associated with a fossil is more a
reflection of the characteristics of the source material than an indication of the age
of the fossil.
Conflicts between scientific and biblical interpretations are minimized
with this approach. However, not all of the questions are answered, and areas of faith
continue to remain.
As a Bible-believing Christian it is necessary to maintain confidence
in the validity of Genesis 1-11! However, we must realize that there is no way that we can
proceed directly from the radiometric data to a fiat creation within the past 10,000 years
and a world-wide flood some 5,000 years ago. These are religious concepts that are
accepted on the basis of faith in the same manner as is Salvation.
Through a proper blending of this faith viewpoint and science it is
possible to obtain a more complete understanding of God as our Creator and Sustainer. In
seeking to harmonize the revelation of God through Scripture and natural science, we must
attempt to find a model that is consistent with both sources of revelation.
The success of science, especially since 1900, can be demonstrated
simply by looking at the everyday things that we take for granted. The food we eat, the
clothes we wear, the television we watch and the calculator we use to balance our
checkbook — all of these marvels attest to the brilliant success of science.
With success comes confidence, confidence that whatever science sets
out to do, it can, and confidence that whatever science says, is true. For
the most part everything that science sets out to do, given enough time and money, can be
done. However, caution should be exercised in order to keep science in proper
perspective by taking note of its strengths and limitations.
The history and development of science is intriguing and informative.
For example: The Egyptians successfully measured the radius of the Earth in 250 BC.
Another fact: In 1541 Copernicus estimated the length of the year to be 365 days 6 hours 9
minutes and 40 seconds. This value is only 30 seconds greater than today's accepted value!
The strength of science exists in its ability to make observations of
the physical world and predict future events. Herein also lies one of the greatest
limitations of science. If the observations are limited only to incomplete evidence of
past events and it is impossible to conduct appropriate experimentation in order to
test hypotheses concerning the past, the strength of the scientific method has been
neutralized and one is left with little more than speculation.
When these limitations of observation and experimentation exist, the
scientist is compelled to make simplifying assumptions and develop a model based upon
approximately similar processes which can be studied. By creating a model based upon the
assumptions necessary to study the past events, the scientist hopes to move away from
speculation and closer to reality.
The conclusions drawn from research, especially in the untestable
areas, are heavily influenced by the assumptions used to conduct the studies. Logically it
is reasonable to maintain that the conclusions drawn and the theories proposed from such
research are also influenced by one's personal philosophy and convictions.
A great potential for misunderstanding exists when scientists and
laymen, of differing philosophies and convictions, fail to recognize that these hypothesis
and theories are based upon assumptions and simplified models and may not accurately
represent reality. Their conclusions may include a bias derived from personal viewpoints.
In your conquest for knowledge and truth, do not force all answers to
come from a single source. Where multiple sources exist, examine the differences and then
strive to find the harmony between them. Truth has many faces, comes from many places, and
will withstand the tests of time.
All contents copyright
Geoscience Research Institute. All rights reserved.
| Home
| About Us
| Contact Us
|
Send comments and questions to
webmaster@grisda.org
| What's New
| Resources
| Search
| Links
|