o
NOTE: This section is mostly based on
The first people to attack Genesis for “internal inconsistency” were English priest Richard Simon in 1678 and Dutch theologian Campegius Vitringa in 1707. Their arguments at first were not taken seriously. Later in 1753, the doubt as to the authorship of Moses was expressed by French physician Jean Astruc. He observed the puzzling distribution of different names for God scattered through Genesis, sometimes “Yahweh” and sometimes “Elohim”. He concluded that Moses was not the “author” of Genesis but only a “redactor” (editor), who put Genesis together by copying verbatim from two earlier documents.
His idea was picked up by German historian J.G. Eichhorn (1780) who used other criteria to establish a hypothesis for multiple sources in Genesis (and the Pentateuch), such as phraseology and literary style. Later academics (most of them German) pushed this view in the 19th century, culminated in the formulation of the documentary hypothesis (also called JEDP hypothesis) proposed by Julius Wellhausen (1878).
The hypothesis identifies 4 major literary strands behind the Pentateuch: [a] Yahwist (J source, use “Yahweh” for the name of God; “Yahweh” begins with the letter “J” in German) written in Judah during the reign of Solomon around 950 BC; [b] Elohist (E source, use “Elohim” for the name of God) written in northern Israel after Solomon’s reign around 850 BC; [c] Deuteronomy (D source) written in northern Israel around 620 BC, confined to the writing of Deuteronomy; [d] Priestly Writer (P source) written after the Babylonian exile around 550-450 BC.
They raised a number of reasons for
positing the existence of a multi-traditional Genesis, in fact for the whole
Pentateuch:
[a] the different names of God, e.g. “Elohim” in 1:1—2:3, “Yahweh Elohim” in 2:4—3:24, both “Elohim” and “Yahweh” in ch.6—9.
[b] the presence of duplications, the same story told in different accounts which are perhaps irreconcilable, e.g. the Creation accounts (1:1—2:3 and 2:4ff.), the Flood accounts (meshed in ch.6—9), the accounts of God’s covenant with Abraham (ch.15 and ch.17), accounts of Hagar’s banishment (ch.16 and ch.21), accounts of Jacob’s name change to Israel (ch.32 and ch.35), accounts of Joseph’s sale to merchants (37:25-27,28b and 37:28a,36), 3 accounts of wife abduction (ch.12, ch.20 and ch.26).
[c] the presence of anachronism, which appears to be dated much later than the time of Moses, e.g. Abraham’s “Ur of the Chaldeans” (15:7) as Chaldeans appeared only later; also, the list of Edomite kings in ch.36 as Edomites did not settle in Transjordan before the 13th century BC.
[d] the detection of distinctive literary styles or religious ideology, e.g. P’s style is reckoned to be more formal and repetitious; J’s is more simple but with anthropomorphic tendencies describing direct contact of God with the patriarchs; E’s tends to dilute the contact with God by introducing dreams and angels as intermediate factors. (D source is only found in Deuteronomy and therefore not in Genesis.)
By applying their criteria, the
document analysts cut up the book of Genesis into about 170 small segments
based on the 3 hypothetical documents. For example, Gen 21:1-7 is broken up
into: v.1a (J), 1b (P), 2a (J), 2b-5 (P), 6-7 (E). Based on this hypothesis,
the book of Genesis could have only been completed after the first Jews
returned from
Since they believed that the documents were written a long period after the occurrence of the recorded events (death of Joseph at the end of Genesis happened in about 1805 BC), they argued that the information presented in Genesis could not be authentic. Thus the documentary hypothesis led to direct attacks on the accuracy of the Bible.
Wellhausen’s work was followed by many academics, notably Hermann Gunkel (1901), and Martin Noth (1948). However, since the 1960s, the documentary hypothesis has been attacked by both sides of Biblical scholarship. From the radical side, John Van Seters (1975) and H.H. Schmid (1976) simply dated the whole Abraham traditions to the 6th century BC and believed there was actually no historical Abraham. However, this position is full of major unanswerable problems and lacks credibility. From the traditional side, J.H. Tigay (1975), Isaac Kikawada (1974), and Arthur Quinn (1985) refuted the documentary hypothesis by quoting persuasive examples from ancient writings showing the homogeneity of Genesis. With attacks from both sides, many writers now believe that the documentary hypothesis is untenable and should be discarded.
Y.T. Radday and H. Shore (1985) used the computer in a thorough word-level linguistic analysis of Genesis and concluded that the book is a unity, written by one author. K.A. Kitchen (1966) and R.K. Harrison (1969) collected convincing archaeological evidence to support the authorship of Moses composing at about the time of the Exodus. With these works, they satisfactorily answered the two main attacks on Genesis: unity and authorship.
In the first half of the 20th century, the documentary hypothesis was so dominant in the academic circle that to argue for the Mosaic authorship of Genesis was akin to argue for the flatness of the Earth. However, because of many recent studies by Jewish scholars and evangelical Protestants, the traditional view has gained much ground and Mosaic authorship is again dominant in orthodox churches.
[1] Name of the one God: The
belief of one true God was unique and different from the cultures in the
[2] Attributes of God: God is characterized as a powerful God who completed the creation of the universe and continued with His providence over the universe. He has infinite wisdom and He created a universe that is “good”. He is a God of peace and harmony.
God is also a God of love and of perfection.
He loves man and created man as a perfect being after His image. God created
the paradise (
[3] Themes in Genesis: One
constant theme throughout the whole book is a process with 3 phases: [a] intimacy, [b] rupture by strife, and [c]
reconciliation (though this last phase missing in some cases).
The first 2 chapters of Genesis introduce the paradisiacal world where there was only blessing. The last 2 chapters of Revelation introduce the new paradisiacal world, again only with blessing. The world of Gen 3 to Rev 20 is a combat zone between God and the devil.
In Gen 1—2, man is living in complete harmony with God, with other human, and with the created order. Gen 3 introduces the theme of God’s judgment, which is the withdrawal of His blessing as a result of man’s disobedience. This disobedience came from discontent with what God gave man. God gave man the power over nature. Being discontent, man wants to extend his power over things, including the power to be morally autonomous (from God), power over somebody else’s life, power over the determination of one’s own future.
This desire for power alienated man from God. The results were expulsion from paradise, shortening of life span, death from the Flood, confusion of language and dispersion. Yet, throughout the judgments, the voice of grace and promise is never muted. Adam and Eve were clothed. Cain was divinely protected. God announced a covenant never to destroy the whole human race again. Yet the ultimate grace is the election of Abraham and his family by which everyone on Earth may be reconciled to God.
[4] Genesis as Myth: Some people have doubts whether Genesis can stand up to the challenge of archaeology or science. To avoid this problem, they try to regard stories recorded in the book as non-historical. They attach only theological and kerygmatic value to the book but not historical value. They regard the book as myth.
The word “myth”, used in the later books of NT, always has a negative connotation. [a] Paul urges Timothy not to pay attention to myths (1Ti 1:4). [b] Paul predicts that the time is coming when people will find myths more attractive than the truth (2Ti 4:4). [c] Paul instructs Titus to reprove those who are absorbed with Jewish myths, an aberration which detracts from sound faith (Titus 1:14). [d] Peter declares that the basis of certainty behind his message is that he was “an eyewitness of His majesty,” and not cleverly devised myths (2Pe 1:16).
Based on these verses, what is myth is not true. What is true is not mythical. Myths are fictitious narratives, invented stories. Myth is not only a figurative expression of truth, but a false expression of truth as well. As Genesis provides the foundation of all that we believe in about God, the attitude of regarding the book as a myth will undercut all our beliefs. More importantly, the author recorded what he perceived as facts and there is never a hint that anything in Genesis is mythical. Christians should never regard Genesis as mythical.
Some point to anachronisms that lead to the conclusion of late authorship. These include:
[1] Reference to Philistines (Gen 21:32,34; 26:1,8,14–18): The word does not occur until the 12th century BC in Egyptian sources. Yet, the Philistines were later referred to by 5 Philistine cities and the rulers of them were referred to as tyrant (Jos 13:3; 1Sa 7:16–18). However, in Genesis, they were not identified as constituting a pentapolis, nor is Abimelech referred to as tyrant. Scholars believe that the term was actually a “blanket term for non-Canaanite Aegean people”.
[2] Presence of camels: The domestication of camels was said to have occurred at the end of the second millenium BC. It is known the patriarchs bred small cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys. It is not at all certain that the domesticated camels was unknown in that period. Also, if the book was composed later than believed, then we would expect the a much greater frequency of mentioning the horse (Gen 47:17; 49:17; 50:9), not the camel. Probably, camels were rare because they were associated with those with wealth and the prestige.
[3] Aramean origin of the patriarchs: The widespread influence of the Aramean culture was only felt during the early first millenium BC. Yet, Aram was descended from Shem (Gen 10:22) and Nahor, Abraham’s brother was father of Arameans and Chaldeans (Gen 22:20–24). This same Aramean origin was again claimed later (Dt 26:5). The Arameans were possibly the descendants of the Amorites who lived in this region in the second millenium BC. During the first millenium BC, the Arameans and Israelites experienced centuries of hostilities. The tendency was against an association with the Arameans. Therefore, the attribution of their heritage to Arameans must be an authentic record.
[4] The rule of Joseph: Some argued that a foreigner like Joseph was unlikely to be the ruler of Egypt. Chronological reconstruction puts Abraham’s birth at 2166 BC and Joseph’s lifespan (1916–1806 BC) in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty (1963–1786 BC). Some believe that Joseph, a Semite, could gain acceptance among the aristocracy because Lower Egypt was ruled by Hyksos (a Greek rendering of the Egyptian word for “rulers of foreign lands”) for 100 years (1648–1540). However, many features of the story can be better explained in the early Egyptian setting: the personal names are Egyptian, not Hyksos; Joseph shaved himself before facing Pharaoh, an Egyptian custom (Gen 41:14); the Egyptian prejudice against Semites (Gen 43:32; 46:34); and the Egyptian embalming process (Gen 50:2–3). In reality, Semites were present in significant numbers at all periods in Egypt and it was not impossible for a Semite to hold great power.
[The dedication of Solomon’s temple is dated at 966 BC. 1Ki 6:1 describes a period of 480 years between exodus and the construction of the temple, thus the exodus is dated 1446 BC. The birth of Abraham is dated 2166 BC and his departure for Canaan is thus 2091 BC. Jacob’s migration to Egypt is dated at 1876 BC.]
† Most scientists believe the universe was originated 13.7 billion years ago and the Earth (and the Solar System) was formed 4.5 billion years ago. To this assertion, Christians have to answer 2 questions: [1] What do you believe is the real age of the universe? [2] When did the creation described in Genesis 1 happen?
How do Christians solve the problem of
apparent conflict between science and the Bible?
In response to this problem, there are 4 schools of thought:
[1] No need to harmonize: Science and religion are two different spheres. The statements in science do not explain religion, and vice versa.
[2] Accept scientific data: The observations in science are objectively true. Therefore the Bible is to be interpreted in a way to fit scientific data.
[3] Accept Biblical data: Scientific data may appear to be objectively true but God holds the key to ultimate reality. When there is an apparent conflict, scientific data are rejected or are interpreted in a way to fit the Bible.
[4] Harmonize: When all the facts are rightly understood, there is no real conflict between science and the Bible. We can accept data from both science and the Bible. When there is an apparent conflict, we can try to harmonize the two.
While the Bible is not a book of science, it is a book of truth. The Bible does not record science and history in the precise details required in academic works. Yet, if the author was recording what he believed actually happened, then it is true and factual. If scientific data are accurately and objectively arrived at, they are also true. The conflicts are only apparent. This course holds the 4th position.
Schaeffer is his book No Final Conflict lists 7 areas where Christians who believe in the total truthfulness of the Bible can have different opinions (agree to disagree):
o [1] There is a possibility that God created a “grown-up” universe.
o [2] There is a possibility of a break between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 or between 1:2 and 1:3.
o [3] There is a possibility of a long day in Gen 1.
o [4] There is a possibility that the flood affected the geological data.
o [5] The use of the word “kinds’ in Genesis 1 may be quite broad.
o [6] There is a possibility of the death of animals before the fall.
o [7] Where the Hebrew word bara is not used, there is the possibility of sequence from previously existing things.
Based on astronomical observations, how big is the universe?
[1] Solar System: Our Earth is the 3rd of 8 planets surrounding the sun, the star at the centre of the Solar System. [In August 2006, the International Astronomical Union formally declared that Pluto is no longer a planet.] Within 11 light-years of the sun are 20 other stars, the closest being Alpha Centauri, 4.3 light-years away. [1 light-year is 9.4 trillion km or 5.9 trillion miles; trillion means the number followed by 12 zeros.]
[2] Milky Way Galaxy: The sun is one of over 100 billion stars in our disk-shaped galaxy (called the Milky Way Galaxy) with a size of 100,000 light-years across. The Solar System is 32,000 light-years from the centre of the galaxy, or 18,000 light-years from the edge.
[3] Local Group: Our galaxy is one of a small cluster of 20 galaxies called “the Local Group”, the nearest being the Small Magellanic Cloud Galaxy which is almost 100,000 light years away.
[4] Local Supercluster: The Local Group is one of unknown number of galaxies in the Local Supercluster with a size of 150 million light-years across. Our galaxy is 45 million light-years from the centre of the supercluster, or 30 million light-years from the edge.
[5] Known Universe: Scientists, by using powerful telescopes, can detect quasars that are over 13 billion light-years away. These quasars are rushing away from us at more than 90% of the speed of light. This is regarded as the limit of the known universe. Scientists are reasonably sure that there are more than one billion galaxies. The estimated number of stars is 100 quintrillion (1 followed by 20 zeros).
Can the Big Bang Theory explain the origin of the universe?
[1] The Big Bang
Theory (proposed by a Belgian priest Father George Le Maitre in the 1950s)
describes the origin of the universe from a big explosion from some primordial
nucleus of infinite density with a dimension of 10-35
cm (extremely
small) and a temperature of 1032 degrees Kelvin (incredibly high). Based on
existing evidences, it is quite certain that the universe came into being with
a Big Bang.
[2] Evidences:
[a] Hubble observed the expanding universe in 1931. There is a red-shift in the spectrum of light from distant galaxies in all directions.
[b] Cosmic background microwave radiation was discovered in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson. It is the remnants of Big Bang.
[c] The extension of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity by Penrose and Hawking in 1970 proved that the origin of space-time is a singular point of infinite density.
Does the Big Bang theory conflict with the Bible?
[1] The Bible did not describe the mode
of how the universe was formed. Gen 1:1 describes the fact of creation
without mentioning any details while Gen 1:2 continues the description
using a perspective from the Earth.
[2] The Big Bang theory supports a definite beginning of the universe
and contradicts the belief that the universe was always there. It unavoidably
leads to the concept of the First Cause (or God).
[3] The numerical accuracy of the force
of the Big Bang helps to prove the intelligence of God and the impossibility of
chance happening. Observations of cosmic
background radiation in 1992 show that the evenness of the radiation is within 0.00003ºK in all directions. If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly
than it did, expansion would have stopped and the universe would have collapsed
on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no
galaxies would have formed. Some describes this phenomenon as “no less than the handwriting of God”
because the phenomenon demonstrates the amazing precision in the rate of the
explosion. If the explosion was too fast, galaxies would not have formed. If
the explosion was too slow, it would have collapsed resulting in a contraction
of the universe.
[4] Therefore, the Big Bang theory
actually contributes in proving the existence of God. If Big Bang is not the
work of God, it will be like a complete set of Encyclopaedia Britannica came
into being after an explosion in a printing shop.
What are the evidences used to prove that the Earth is billions of years old?
[1] Geology: [a] The geologic column is built up by many layers of sedimentary rocks and each rock stratum containing different kinds of fossils. [b] The tallest mountains on Earth today are fold mountains that were formed from the slow mountain building process which we can still observe today. [c] Geologists believe that different continents were originated from a single supercontinent which were splitted by the continental drift that occurred 200 million years ago. [d] Different ice ages were identified in past history of the Earth.
[2] Physics: The age of rocks can be estimated by dating methods using radioactive elements and carbon 14 present in rocks. The age of the Earth can be dated by other geological methods, such as salinity of oceans (presuming that the oceans started out with fresh water), the thickness of cosmic dust, etc.
Based on radiometric method of dating, in particular, using uranium, the age of the Earth is estimated to be 2 to 6 billion years. However, if other methods of dating are used, such as salinity of oceans, radioactive carbon 14, cosmic dust, sedimentary rocks, the results are very different, from a minimum of 10,000 years to a maximum of 100 million years. In other words, dating methods do not produce definitive answers.
[3] Astronomy: The universe is expanding in all directions. Astronomers can observe objects that are 15-17 billions light-years away.
In Genesis 1, is one day equivalent to our present 24 hours?
There are 4 possible explanations to the word “day” (Heb. yom):
[1] Geological “era”
o [a] Different meaning of yom: Hebrew yom can mean a “time” (a time with sunlight, Gen 29:7), 24 hours (Gen 7:4), a year (Gen 41:1), or an undefined period of time (Gen 35:3; Ps 50:15; Zec 4:10).
o [b] “Day of the Lord” or “Day of Jehovah” do not mean 24 hours (Isa 2:12; Joel 1:15; Zep 1:14). Day can mean 1000 years (Ps 90:4; 2Pe 3:8).
o [c] If the sun was created on the 4th day, days 1,2,3 could not be 24 hours. At least the first 3 days mean geological epochs or ages.
Difficulties:
o [a] It cannot explain “there was evening, and there was morning.”
o [b] If the days are long, the plants created on the 3rd day would all die before the creation of the sun on the 4th day.
o [c] If “day” is very long, then is “night” also means a long night? If so, then all plants would have died.
o [d] There is a suspicion that we alter the Bible to harmonize science.
o [e] Most Hebrew scholars believe that “day” means 24 hours.
[2] 24 hours
o [a] “Evening and morning” imply 24 hours.
o [b] If the 4th, 5th, and 6th day are 24 hours after the creation of the sun, then the first 3 days should be the same.
o [c] The Sabbath Day of the Israelites followed the rest on the 7th day. It must mean 24 hours. Therefore the other 6 days should be 24 hours too.
o [d] The day numbers are actually numbers (1,2,3) not ordered numbers (1st,2nd,3rd). The direct translation should be “And there was evening, and there was morning—one day” so it means 24 hours.
Difficulties:
o [a] The length of the first 3 days before the creation of the sun cannot be defined. However, the rotation of the Earth on its axis must have started so it could mean one rotation.
o [b] The 7th day could not be one day because there is no mention of “evening” and “morning”. [Many Bible scholars including Buswell believes that we are presently still in the 7th day (Ps 95:11, “my rest”; Heb 4:9, God’s Sabbath is still coming).]
o
[c]
According to ch.2, many events occurred in the 6th day: creation of Adam,
building of
o [d] While “day” in the 4th Commandment refers to the Sabbath Day (24 hours), the “day” in the 5th Commandment means a time period.
[3] Day means 24 hours of revelation: God reveals the creation of the 1st day in 24 hours of the author’s time, the creation of the 2nd in the next 24 hours, and so on.
o [a] This is reasonable if God revealed the creation process directly to Moses.
o [b] This explanation can solve many problems, including apparent conflicts with science.
Difficulty: This explanation comes from human reasoning but has no support at all in the Bible.
[4] Literary framwork: The word “day” is only a literary style.
o God can create the whole universe in 6 days or even less. The length of time is not defined in the Bible. The story simply presents a sequence.
Difficulty: With this explanation, every detail in the creation story can be explained away. It is simply a way to avoid all problems.
When was the universe created?
There are 3 theories of creation, each widely accepted by a group of theologians and Christian scientists.
|
Creation with age theory |
Gap theory |
Day-age theory |
|
24-hour days, creation 6,000 to 10,000 years ago; Great Flood as
a major factor (flood geology – use the Flood to explain geological facts) |
24-hour days, original world corrupted by sin from Satan; a
large gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2; Gen 1:2—2:4
describes re-creation |
days equivalent to epochs of very long periods, creation billion
years ago; Gen 1:1 creation of universe included sun and moon; 1:2 view from
perspective of the Earth |
|
|
ARGUMENTS FOR |
|
|
· Adam was created already as a young man ·
evidence for the
coexistence of man & dinosaurs (though apparently disproved) ·
lack of accuracy of dating
(dating methods not trusted) ·
evidences of catastrophism
(not uniformitarianism) in the past, geologic changes could happen in a short
time ·
Sabbath day (Ex 20:9-11)
imitates 7th day in creation. ·
repeated mention of
“evening and morning” |
·
Gen 1:2; 2:7 the word
“was” (Heb. haya) should be
translated as “became” ·
Is 45:18 “empty” same word
as “empty” in Gen 1:2 (Heb. tohu, bohu); Is 34:11; Jer 4:23 words “chaos”, “desolation”, “formless”, “empty” all
relate to judgment; possibly the result of corruption of the original world ·
1:21,27 word “created” (bara) only for animals & man,
others words mean “made” (asa,
indicating renewal) ·
1:28 “replenish”= fill
over again |
·
prima facie (Latin, at
first sight) view: 1:1—2:4 only describe
chronological order ·
Ps 90:4, 2Pe 3:8 — 1000 years=1 day, God’s
time scale ·
“yom” can mean a period of time ·
“evening” (not night) and
morning can mean: This epoch had its gradual beginning and gradually merged
into the epoch which followed ·
present time possibly
still in the 7th day (Ps 95:11, “my rest”; Heb 4:9, God’s Sabbath is still
coming) ·
can accommodate theistic
evolution |
|
|
ARGUMENTS AGAINST |
|
|
· cannot explain fossils (due to flood? otherwise, God’s
deception?) ·
no evidence of worldwide
flood ·
deny all dating methods ·
no 24-hour days before the
sun was created |
·
Were there humans in the first creation (none of pre-Adam
fossils are human)? If not, why was man not part of the first universe? ·
too much emphasis was put
on the word “made” |
·
Is long time needed? Was man created separately? ·
What about Adam, did he
live a long time in the 6th day? ·
The plants were created on
the 3rd day and the sun on the 4th day. If the 3rd day is long, all plants
would die. |
What are the supports for gap theory?
[Reference: “Between the Lines: An Analysis of Genesis 1:1,2” by Arthur Custance]
Gap Theory: Gen 1:1 describes the original creation of the universe by God. It was somehow became ruined. The most popular interpretation is the destruction by Satan and the rebel angels.
[1] For Gen 1:1, Custance analyzed the use of Hebrew word bereshith, concluding that it should read “in a former state”. The reason is that there are more precise Hebrew words if the author meant “in the very beginning.”
[2] The word “created” (Heb. bara) means strictly “to carve out” and in sculpture, it means “to perfect”. Therefore Gen 1:1 can be translated “In a former state God perfected the heavens and the earth.”
[3] In Gen 1:2, the
word “and” (Heb. waw which can mean “and” or “but”) was understood by the Jew in
[4] The verb “was” (Heb. hayah) should be translated as “became”. Then, the Earth did not begin formless and empty; it became formless and empty. [Some argue against this meaning because the word would mean “became” if haya is followed by the Hebrew letter lamedth. However, Custance points out examples where lamedth is absent yet the word means “became”, such as Gen 19:26 and 2Ki 17:3.] Even more, the abnormal word order in Hebrew implies that it is pluperfect and should be translated “had become”.
[5] The phrase “formless and empty” (Heb. tohu wabohu) usually carries a negative connotation elsewhere in the Bible, in connection with something under God’s judgment. [Jer 4:23 is the only other occurrence of the couplet and the passage Jer 4:23-26 clearly reflects the creation imagery of Gen 1.]
[a] Tohu is used of something which has been laid waste (Isa 24:10; 34:11; Jer 4:23) or has become desert (Dt 32:10) or of anything which is the object of false “worship” and therefore displeasing to God, as in Isa 41:29.
[b] Bohu appears only 3 times in the Bible. In Jer 4:23 the desolation which the two words together are used to portray is the result of a direct judgment of God upon the land and upon its inhabitants. When Jeremiah saw this vision, judgment had already been executed, and the land was in a state of desolation. The prophecy has been commonly understood as a metaphorical “reversal” of creation that leads to primordial “chaos”. In Isa 34:11 the same may be said, for the scene is one of God’s “day of vengeance” (v. 8). In this case it is Idumea which is under consideration. The confusion is to be complete, the judgment final.
[c] We are explicitly told in Gen 1:1 of the creation of the Earth, and Gen 1:2 appears to qualify it as a tohu; yet Isa 45:18 says equally explicitly that God did not create the earth in a state of tohu. With support from Rabbinical Commentary, “formless” can mean “was destroyed”. Then Gen 1:2a can be translated: “but the earth had become a ruin and a desolation.”
[d] The phrase “the foundation of the world” in Ro 8:22 uses a different Greek word (katabole) than precise Greek word for “foundation” (themelios). It may mean “thrown down”.
[6] The deep (Heb. tehom) means either a place of judgment or a place under judgment.
[a] In the Bible, “the deep” was always associated with the place to which must finally be banished from the presence of the Lord those who were not worthy to enter heaven.
[b] In Septuagint, like the New Testament, has Abussos, in place of tehom, and undoubtedly the Abyss of Rev 9:11, etc., is the same concept.
[7] While the word “create” (Heb. bara) appears in v.1, 21 (fish and birds), 27 (man); the word “make” (Heb. asah) appear in v.7 (sky), 16 (sun and moon and stars), 25 (animals).
In 2:3, God had rested [shabath] from all his work [melakah] which God created [bara] and made [asah].
The word “made” was regarded mostly as equivalent to “create” as Ex 20:11 says that “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth.” However, “made” has the sense of “appointment”. (2Sa 2:18; 2Ki 22:12,14; 1Ch 4:35) The significance of the appointment is that they received divine sanction as part of God’s plan. In Ps 104:9, we clearly have a reference to Genesis 1:16 and to the appointment of the sun and the moon as markers of time. The Ex 20:11 probably points to the reconstitution of the Earth.
[8] The existence of
animal cemeteries in different parts
of the world (US,
What are the problems of gap theory?
[1] The Hebrew verb haya is not followed by the Hebrew preposition la. So it could not be translated “became”. [Custance analyzes the Hebrew and believe that it could be translated “became”.]
[2] The phrase tohu wabohu appears in only 2 other passages in the Bible: Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23. In both instances, the context points to future actions by sinful humans. [However, the point in gap theory is that those conditions involved God’s judgment.]
[3] The Bible teaches that God alone, not Satan or any other created being, has the power to create and to destroy what God creates. [However, the original world might have been destroyed by God like the Noahic Flood as a result of Satan’s corruption of it.]
[4] Astronomers, physicists, and geologists have established that the physical laws governing the heavens and the Earth have not changed since the universe was created. [However, the gap can be described as a suspension in Earth’s history.]
[5] If there was a previous world that failed, then God failed. How can we be sure that God would not fail again?
[6] Some theologians
criticize this theory as a way to avoid confronting the problem or “an easy way out” because it satisfies
both the 24-hour creation days as well as the great antiquity of the Earth.
[However, if this is the best explanation of the Bible, then being “an easy way
out” is not a good reason to avoid it.]
† To the vast universe beyond human comprehension, we can only say: how magnificent is our Creator God and how insignificant is man! To the perfect planning of God in creation, we can only say: how infinitely wise is our God. God is truly worthy of our worship.
† We need to affirm that there is no conflict between the Bible and science. There are many reasonable and acceptable answers to the questions about the antiquity of the Earth. We need to humbly admit that there may not be any definitive answers.
† While evangelical Christians may hold different views on the antiquity of the Earth, this is not a question of essential belief. After examining all the arguments, we can tentatively subscribe to any of the 3 views but at the same times allow the possibility that the other 2 views may be the correct explanation. Furthermore, we should encourage evangelical scientists and theologians to work together despite disagreements.
† The known universe has a radius of over 13 billion light-years, and the Milky Way Galaxy alone has over 100 billion stars. Because the universe is so vast, some people speculate that there may be another planet with intelligent living organisms similar to man. As insignificant human beings, we cannot know God’s reason for creating this vast universe. Some say the universe is there simply to proclaim God’s glory. In any case, it is very unlikely that the conditions on Earth can be found in another planet because both the sun and the Earth were so uniquely suitable for human inhabitation.
† Isa 45:18 clearly says that God “fashioned” or “formed” the Earth to be a habitat for man. The word has the meaning of planning and designing. Job 38:1-8 describes how God designed the Earth. He “laid the foundation of the earth” (v.4) which involved “measurements” (v.5), and He “prescribed limits” for the clouds (atmosphere) (v.10). Ps 74:17 describes how God “fixed all the boundaries of the earth.”
o In April 2007, after searching for many years, astronomers discovered the first planet that is potentially habitable because it is of the right size and might have water in liquid form. The planet is named “581c” and is 120 trillion miles away (20.5 light-years). It is thought to have an average temperature of between 0°C and 40°C but astronomers cannot be sure. Until now, all 220 planets astronomers have found outside our solar system have had the “Goldilocks problem.” They’ve been too hot, too cold or just plain too big and gaseous, such as uninhabitable Jupiter.
o However, there is another giant obstacle: how will life begin? Life cannot begin with spontaneous chance occurrences as evolution is proved to be an impossibility.
o Can life form exist on other planets or somewhere in the universe? We don’t know and we cannot restrict God’s planning and work. If God decides to create other life forms, it will be according to His purpose. Of course a host of other questions can be asked: What kind of life will it be? Will they be intelligent like man? If they are, will they be corruptible and experience the Fall? Will they need a Saviour? All these can generate boundless speculations which we will not deal with here.
Is our sun just an average star?
No. The following special characteristics of the sun make life possible on Earth.
[1] Mass— The mass of our Sun helps determine its life span which is very important and it is among the 4-8% most massive in the galaxy. If it was of higher or lower mass it would probably deliver more frequent intense radiation events.
[2] Composition—The composition of the Sun is atypical of similar stars. Among stars with a similar age as the Sun (most of which do not have giant planets), the Sun has a higher amount of heavy elements. Among stars with giant planets, the Sun has a lower amount of heavy elements. The Sun’s composition is reflected in the composition of the Earth which has the right proportion of heavy elements for the requirement of man.
[3] Stability— Our
Sun is highly stable which provides a very stable climate for the Earth. The
uncommon brightness stability of the Sun is at present unexplainable.
[4] Location— Our
Sun has an excellent position in the galaxy in between spiral arms and in a
circular orbit. A location very close to the corotation circle preventing it
from crossing the more dense spiral arms of the galaxy too frequently,
minimizing catastrophic encounters with objects from other systems of our
galaxy.
[5] Planets— [a] The Solar System has a very uncommon
mixture of orbiting planets: inner rocky planets and the large outer gaseous
planets which have uncommonly stable orbits which act as a shield to minimize
the number of space objects that impact the Earth. The planet Jupiter has been
described as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that
might otherwise strike Earth. [b]
All planets revolve around the Sun in their precise individual velocities to
allow stable orbits, balancing the centrifugal force of planetary movements and
the gravity of the Sun as well as all other planets.
In what characteristics is the Earth fit for human inhabitation?
The following is an enumeration of the many special characteristics of the Earth that makes human inhabitation possible. With the accumulation of these evidences, it is practically impossible that these characteristics could occur by chance.
[1] Stability of the sun:
Our sun burns its fuel at an unusually constant and reliable rate.
If the sun’s luminosity and Earth’s biomass and biodiversity fall out of sync by even a slight amount, the result would be either a runaway greenhouse effect or a runaway freeze.
[2] Distance from the sun:
The distance from the sun determines the mean temperature of the atmosphere and the Earth. The pliable materials of which living tissue is composed are made up of chains of molecules which retain their physical characteristics within a comparatively narrow range of temperature variation. If the temperature becomes too cold, these chains become inflexible, and if the temperature becomes too high, they lose their bonds and disintegrate.
[3] Size of the
Earth:
The size of the Earth determines the constitution of its atmosphere, and the constitution of its atmosphere determines the nature of the living forms upon it. If it were much larger, it would have retained a large percentage of gases inimical to life. If it were much smaller, its gravitational forces would have been insufficient to retain virtually any atmosphere at all. The best comparative examples are Jupiter, a gaseous giant, and Mercury, a small planet with no appreciable atmosphere surrounding it, its gravitational field being too weak to retain nitrogen, oxygen, and water vapor.
[4] Rate of rotation:
The rate of rotation of the Earth is just right for the continuous renewal of the atmosphere for animal life. Nothing gets too cold or too hot over most of its area, and plants have just sufficient times of light and of darkness to perform their function of regenerating the air (since the unique stability of carbon dioxide depends upon alternating light and darkness).
If the rotation of the Earth took longer than 24 hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be to great.
The slowing down of Earth’s rotation rate means calmer wind velocities which in turn mean significantly less efficient sea-salt aerosol production. The result was the thinning of Earth’s cloud cover in the creation week.
[5] The existence of the satellite the Moon:
The Moon is the largest satellite relative to the size of its parent body. From this point of view it is, in fact, huge. The moon has sufficient mass to cause tides, and tides are of great importance in keeping the oceans fresh.
With the help from the moon, the land to sea surface ratio and the placement of continents yield tides strong enough to enrich the seashores and continental shelves with nutrients while cleansing them of pollutants, but not so strong as to devastate them.
If the Moon-Earth gravitational interaction were greater than it currently is, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. If it were less, orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event, life on Earth would be impossible.
[6] Thickness of atmosphere:
The rule of thumb in planetary formation is that the greater a planet’s surface gravity and the greater a planet’s distance from its star, the heavier and thicker its atmosphere. Theoretically, Earth should have an atmosphere heavier and thicker than that of Venus, but in fact it has a far lighter and much thinner atmosphere.
If the atmosphere were less transparent, not enough solar radiation would reach the Earth’s surface. If it were more transparent we would be bombarded with far roo much solar radiation down here. (In addition to atmospheric transparency, the atmospheric composition of precise levels of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and ozone are in proper proportions for life.
[7] Composition of atmosphere:
[a] Proportion of oxygen: On Earth, oxygen comprises 21% of the atmosphere. If oxygen were 25%, fires would erupt spontaneously, if it were 15%, human beings would suffocate.
[b] Carbon dioxide level: If the CO2 level were higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop (we’d all burn up). If the level were lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis (we’d all suffocate).
[c] Water vapour levels: If water vapour levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runaway greenhouse effect would cause temperatures to rise too high for human life. If they were less, an insufficient greenhouse effect would make the Earth to cold to support human life.
[8] Ozone balances:
After a long period ranging from thousands to millions of years, enough oxygen had diffused into the upper stratosphere to permit, under certain precise conditions, formation of a thin and delicate layer of ozone. The ozone layer offers essential life protection. It absorbs ultraviolet radiation from the sun. However, if there is too thick a stratosphere ozone, there will be too little ultraviolet radiation getting through the Earth’s surface, then plant growth is inhibited and certain vitamins will not form in certain animal species. Therefore, the ozone layer needs to be just right to not impair the Earth’s biomass, biodiversity, and biovitality. In addition, the stability of the ozone shield throughout history is another miracle.
[9] Atmospheric Discharge:
If the atmospheric discharge (lightning) rate were greater, there would be too much fire destruction; if it were less there would be little nitrogen fixings in the soil.
[10] Movement of the
Earth’s crust:
Plate tectonics and volcanic activity cause the wrinkling of a planet’s surface. Compared with other planets, Earth experiences an extremely high level of both kinds of activity.
Seismic activity: If there were more seismic activity, much more life would be lost; if there were less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift. (yes, even earthquakes are necessary to sustain life as we know it).
o Continental Drift: The Genesis wording suggests that continental land began as a conglomerate, one mass in one locale, with the ocean surrounding it. In 1912, Alfred Wegener proposed the theory of continental drift. About 150-300 million years ago, there was one huge supercontinent named by geologists Pangea. Later, this supercontinent was broken into 2 large pieces—Gondwanaland in the south and Laurasia in the north. The movement, as proposed by Arthur Holmes, was caused by convective currents within the Earth’s mantle which were driven by the radiogenic heat produced by radioactive minerals within the mantle. The large pieces were further broken into smaller pieces and drifted at about 1/2 inch per year to form different continents.
[11] The
constitution of the Earth’s surface:
If the thickness of the Earth’s crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible.
The abundance of water on Earth makes life possible.
The proportion of Earth’s surface area covered by land compared to oceans plays a crucial role in the development of life. This ratio determines the amount of biodiversity and biocomplexity possible on the planet. The current ratio of 29% land surface to 71% water surface has been theoretically and observationally demonstrated to provide the maximum possible diversity and complexity of life. If this ratio is different, the land may be dried out through insufficient precipitation or may be turned into a swamp through excess precipitation.
[12] Balance of carbonates:
Plants had some help in removing carbon dioxide and water vapour from Earth’s atmosphere. Carbon dioxide easily reacts with atmospheric water to form carbonic acid. This carbonic acid reacts with the crustal rocks to form carbonates. If it were not for some mitigating factors from tectonic and volcanic activities, these carbonates would have leached enough carbon dioxide and water from the atmosphere to turn this planet into a permanently frozen, arid wasteland.
[13] A stable water
cycle:
Advanced life can survive only if the evaporation and precipitation average between 25 and 60 liquid water inches per year, and only if snow and rain condense in the right proportions. A water that meets exacting requirements demands intricate balancing of multiple factors: the physical characteristics of the sun and Earth; atmospheric composition, temperature, and pressure; wind velocities.
[14] Comet influx:
Earth’s gravitational pull is not quite strong enough to hold onto all of Earth’s atmospheric water indefinitely. An independent phenomenon largely unknown until the 1980s and unproven until the late 1990s replaces the lost water in just the right quantity to maintain the balance life demands. This phenomenon is an ongoing influx of water-rich extraterrestrial material in the form of comets. The comet influx rate changed with time but it must have been accurately compensating throughout the Earth’s history.
[15] Seasonal variations:
The seasonal variations which take place throughout the year, due to the 23.5° axial tilt of the Earth, are very important for the continuance of human life. Were it not for these changes, microorganisms which cause diseases and which are favored by certain environmental conditions, would multiply so extensively that the human race might very well suffer extinction because of them.
[16] Combination of optimal conditions:
Even if the universe contains as many as 10 billion trillion (1022) planets, we would not expect even one, by natural processes alone, to end up with the surface gravity, surface temperature, atmospheric composition, atmospheric pressure, crustal iron abundance, tectonics, vulcanism, rotation rate, rate of decline in rotation rate, and stable rotation axis tilt necessary for the support of life.
What is “scientific creationism” and Flood Geology?
A group of science-trained Christians support a literal reading of Genesis, that is, a 6-day creation of not more than 10,000 years ago. It is therefore called “Young Earth (YE) Theory”. They sought to discredit widely accepted scientific notions and reestablish science in terms that would appear to be in concordance with their interpretation.
The founders of scientific creationism were initially drawn together in defense of the Genesis Flood account. The first book was The New Geology written by George McCready Price published in 1923. He believes that Gen 6—9 reports a relatively recent Flood inundating all the land masses of the whole planet. According to him, the Genesis Flood could account for all the geologic features on all the continents, all the fossils ever found, and all Earth’s limestone, coal, oil, natural gas, and mineral deposits. The sediments, fossils, and fossil fuels were laid down quickly in the great Flood. He believes that radioactive dating methods are neither accurate nor well founded on scientific principles. Because of the heavy emphasis on the effects of the Flood on all areas in geology, it is named Flood Geology.
In 1961, theologian John Whitcomb and civil engineering professor Henry Morris published The Genesis Flood. It was written by professors with earned doctorates from accredited institutions. The arguments follow the same line as Price but are supported by numerous references to the scientific literature. It tried to establish both Flood Geology (explanation of all geologic phenomena by the global Flood) and a recent 6-day creation.
In 1963, the Creation Research Society (CRS) was formed to publicize Flood Geology and recent creationism. It was successful in getting acceptance in the majority of American conservative churches. In 1972, Henry Morris founded the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) to promote “scientific creationism” on university campuses. The effort was quite successful. Even today, scientific creationism is still supported by many well-known scientists and evangelical theologians.
What are the main problems with Flood Geology?
There are many problems with Flood Geology. However, flood geologists have come up with answers to all these problems, though some of them are speculative.
[1] Number of species in the ark:
With the acceptance of a truly global Flood covering the whole Earth, the only land and sky animals left were the ones in Noah’s ark. The 8 people on the ark would not be able to look after all the animals (an estimated maximum of 35,000 to 50,000 kinds of animals).
But the more serious problem is the large number of species in the world today. Even if all the animals aboard the ark hibernated for the entire duration of the Flood, the maximum carrying capacity is estimated to be about 50,000 pairs of land animals. But the fossil record indicates the existence of at least half a billion species before the Flood. Even today, we have at least 2 million species living on Earth. [Flood geologists try to provide an explanation by suggesting that Noah took only pairs of each family, order, or genus rather than a pair of every species. However, this creates other problems described below.]
[2] Super-rapid diversification of life:
Flood Geology requires the introduction of a huge number of new species of animal life in just a few hundred thousand in two areas: [a] the super-rapid diversification of animal life from a few thousand post-Flood species into millions of species, and [b] the super-rapid adaptations from pre-Flood animals that were completely herbivorous into a wide variety of carnivorous animals; such adaptations also include the new weather and environment, e.g. from warm grassland into subarctic forest.
The theory teaches that all animals ate only plants until the Fall of Adam and Eve. Because carnivorous activity involves animal death, they presume it must be one of the evil results of human sin. They propose that meat-eating creatures alive now and evident in the fossil record must have evolved in just several hundred years or less, by natural processes alone, from the plant-eating creatures.
[3] Rapid evolution after the Flood:
Shortly after the Flood, many species (such as dinosaurs, trilobites, etc.) went extinct; so the remaining few thousand species must have evolved by rapid and efficient natural processes alone into millions of species. For example, Morris and Whitcomb suggest in their book The Genesis Flood that zebras, horses, and other horselike species evolved from a single pair of horselike creatures on the ark. However, animals, especially animals as advanced as horses or zebras, do not and cannot evolve at this rapid rate. If such rates of change exist after the Flood, biologists could witness thousands of newly developed animal species through human history, even today.
Ironically, creation scientists propose an efficiency of natural biological evolution greater than even the most optimistic Darwinist would dare to suggest. If naturalistic evolutionary processes actually did proceed at such a rapid rate, they would, of course, be observable in real time today. Because of this, flood geologists actually support “short-timescale macroevolution.”
[4] The use of a blanket answer:
Any challenges to the validity of flood geology can of course be answered by invoking God’s miraculous work. For example, “short-timescale macroevolution” is definitely possible if God wishes it so. However, we have to ask why God would perform such a large-scale miracle (which the Bible does not speak about, which objective evidences do not support, and which causes His children so much trouble in explaining) if there are easier ways to complete His plan.
Can evangelical Christians support Flood Geology?
There is little doubt that a literal reading of Genesis 1 will support a recent 6 day creation of 24 hours each. Flood Geology is a genuine attempt to maintain literal reading of the Bible and therefore has a noble objective. However, there are also great difficulties in the theory. The present state of the theory does not satisfactorily resolve all the difficulties. If one is truly convinced of the explanations, Flood Geology is as supportable as other theories on creation.
Since the Word of God has not given us clear answers, we should accept our ignorance and wait for the definitive answer in heaven.
How does the Young Earth (YE) Theory explain scientific evidences that show an old universe?
[1] Light of stars billion of light-years away:
The explanation is called Gravitational Time Dilation Effect. According to Einstein’s Theories of Relativity, gravity distorts time. Time passes slower for objects closer to the source of gravity. The result is that time recorded on a space satellite is a little faster than time recorded on the Earth surface.
This distortion across the vast universe will be significant. Light could travel billions of light-years (distance) in billions of years (time) from stars far far away in what we on Earth would perceive to be a much shorter period of time.
[2] Geologic column:
Fossils found to be unique to certain strata are called “index fossils.” If an index fossil is thought to be 70 million years old, then the rock layer in which it was found must also be 70 million years old. The “Geologic Column” is a sequential catalog of these layers, the fossils they contain, and the assigned ages of geological eras. Biologists then turn around and use the evolutionary progression organized by the geologists as evidence for evolutionary progression. This is a circular logic.
A circular argument arises when authorities maintain that evolution is documented by geology, and then geology is documented by evolution. Similarly, they use rocks to date fossils, and fossils to date rocks.
The problem is that sometimes the strata are not always found in the predetermined order, e.g. rock layers containing supposedly older fossils are found above rock layers which contain supposedly younger fossils. Sometimes, we find discrepant fossils in the same rock layers when land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock. Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.
[3] Radiometric dating:
Radiometric dating is a method which scientists use to determine the age of inorganic matter. Uranium-238 (U238, parent element) is an unstable radioactive isotope which decays into Lead-206 (Pb206, daughter element) naturally over time. It takes 4.46 million years for half of a sample of U238 to decay into Pb206; this is called half-life. By measuring how much parent and daughter are present in any given specimen, scientists believe they are able to accurately determine the age of a specimen.
The technique depends on 3 key assumptions: [a] that the rate of decay has remained constant throughout the unobservable past; [b] that the specimen is not contaminated, and [c] that we can determine how much parent and daughter were present before the decay process – some Pb206 may have been part of the original specimen.
Recent research has revealed that the decay rates may have been drastically different in the unobservable past. When uranium decays to lead, a by-product is helium. In one specimen, the zircon crystals contain decayed uranium as well as helium. The radioactive decay of the uranium showed an age of 1.5 billion years but the amount of helium showed an age of 4,000 to 14,000 years.
Another example: the Potassium-Argon method was applied on
volcanic rocks from an eruption in
The conclusion is that the accuracy of radiometric dating remains ambiguously suspect at best.
[4] Evidences indicating young Earth:
[a] Continental Erosion: If not for tectonic uplift, meteoric dusting and volcanic influx, natural erosion would flatten all mountains in less than 25 million years.
[b] Subterranean Fluid Pressure: Subterranean fluids kept under pressure include oil, natural gas, and water. Since the rock above many deposits are relatively permeable, the pressure should have escaped in less than 100,000 years. And yet these deposits remain highly pressurized.
[c] Global Cooling: In the 19th century, the renowned physicist Lord Kelvin pointed out that if the Earth began in a white hot molten state, it would have cooled to its current temperature billions of years sooner than the 4.6 billion years accepted today.
[d] Lunar Recession: The moon is slowly moving farther away from the Earth. This is because the Earth’s spin is slowing down due to tidal friction and other factors. Physicists have determined that the Earth-moon system could not have existed beyond 1.2 billion years.
[5] Concluding observation: All these evidences rightly lead to questions about the age of the Earth. However, they will not fully support the 10,000 years limit in the Young Earth Theory.
† We need to affirm that there is no conflict between the Bible and science.
† Christians need to learn to provide answers to difficult questions involving creation raised by those who seek truth. Answering their questions may help them overcome the barriers to their acceptance of salvation. However, we are not required to answer against hostile attack on our faith, aiming solely to insult (Mt 7:6).
† All the facts about the Earth show us that it is impossible for all these to happen by chance. If God could make these precise planning and execution, He can deal with any problems that we have.
† From the detailed design by God to make the Earth suitable for human inhabitation, we can see a loving and caring God, not omitting any small details, all for our benefit.
† It is often said that belief in evolution requires more faith than belief in creation. In view of the evidences presented from the two sides, the statement is definitely true. The reason why many scientists support evolution despite the lack of evidence is that they do not want to accept the existence of a Creator God. Without evolution, they have very few alternatives but to admit there is a God. Some of those who understand the difficulties of evolution even try to construct incredible theories such as the planting of life on Earth by extraterrestrial aliens.
o Sir Fred Hoyle and his fellow astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe proposed in 1978 the extra-terrestrial origin of life, perhaps from a comet.
o Francis Crick, who won the Nobel Prize for helping to discover the structure of DNA molecules, proposed in 1973 that life may have been sent here by alien beings in a spaceship from a distant planet because he believes that it is unlikely that organic molecules of any complexity could survive drifting in interstellar space. He called his theory “Directed Panspermia.”
o
It seems ironic that brilliant scientists could
advocate so fantastic a theory without one shred of evidence in its favour, all
the while rejecting the straightforward explanation given by one book (the
Bible) that has never been proved wrong. [from Grudem, supplemented from
† When the Bible describes how life was created; the phrase “according to its/their kind(s)” is used 10 times in Gen 1. While the word “kind” may not be equivalent to “species” in biology, it is clear that God created different plants and animals, not relying on any hypothetical natural process called evolution. In Job 38:39—39:30, God told Job that he created and designed animal life. He hinted that he prepared special environments for them, e.g. “salt land for his dwelling place” (Job 39:6). In Job 40:15—41:34, God describes His creation and detailed design of the biggest animals on Earth, Behemoth and Leviathan. Some thought that these refer to hippopotamus and crocodile; other believe that these were perhaps whales, or even dinosaurs.
o
Historical note: Uniformitarianism, as developed
by Geologist James Hutton and Charles Lyell, provide the basis for
What are the major propositions of biological evolution hypothesis?
[1] Living material has evolved from non-living matter.
[2] All living things (including man) have evolved from the simplest living things through beneficial mutation of genes.
[3] Evolution took place by means of the random operation of existing natural forces (natural selection or survival of the fittest).
Is evolution a scientific theory?
Scientific method includes the following basic steps:
[1] the observation of phenomena,
[2] the formulation of a hypothesis concerning
the phenomena,
[3] experimentation to demonstrate the
truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and
[4] validation or modification of the hypothesis based on evidences obtained.
The present state of evolution can be described as having passed through the first two steps. The hypothesis has been stated. However, there has been no progress toward any definitive verification of the hypothesis. In fact, the evidences collected so far appear to weigh more heavily toward disproving the hypothesis. If evolutionists can honestly examine the evidences, the evolution hypothesis should either be invalidated or at least greatly modified. Therefore, evolution is certainly not a scientific theory and is best described as a hypothesis.
Even Darwin himself said in 1858 that his book Origin of Species was “grievously too hypothetical.”
What are the
evidences showing evolution hypothesis does not represent reality?
[1] Evidence from
Genetics: (Mutations are ALWAYS bad.)
A creature cannot be anything physically its genes won’t allow. Even after millions of years in the jungle, monkeys would still be monkeys, because they only have monkey genes.
To be a different kind of creature, the genes must have
mutated. Mutations are abrupt alterations in genes. They generally occur very
rarely. According to the evolution hypothesis, an organism develops some new
positive characteristics through a mutation, thus better adapting to the
environment.
However, scientists who specialize in the study of mutations discover that all observed mutations reduce the genetic information, not increase it. No mutations with additional information have ever been observed.
Mutations delete information from the genetic code and never create higher, more complex information. When mutations occur in human beings, they cause birth defects, including death, sterility, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Down’s syndrome, and 4,000 other diseases.
Some evolutionists pointed to mutations with beneficial effects. The most common example given: mutations sometimes make bacteria resistant to antibiotics. However, the fact is that mutations that cause antibiotic resistance still involve information loss. The reason for antibiotic resistance can be explained as follows. To destroy a bacterium, the antibiotic streptomycin attaches to a part of the bacterial cell called ribosomes. Mutations sometimes cause a structural deformity in ribosomes. Since the antibiotic cannot connect with the misshapen ribosome, the bacterium is resistant. But even though this mutation turns out to be beneficial, it still constitutes a loss of genetic information, not a gain. No “evolution” has taken place; the bacteria are not “stronger”. In fact, under normal conditions, with no antibiotic present, they are weaker than their nonmutated cousins.
It is often possible to deduce a benefit from information loss. For example, you can argue that a child born deaf gains a benefit for never being able to hear any curse words.
Mutations are inheritable; they do create changes, but the changes are inevitably downward, or at best neutral. Mutations have never been observed to originate a new hormone, organ, or other functional structure. They reduce, but do not generate, biologic complexity.
Can mutations ever be beneficial with an information gain? There is no evidence of the existence of such mutations, despite intense search by Darwinists. Since not even one is observed, it means that they are highly unlikely, or at least unproven. As the validity of evolution depends on billions of beneficial mutations with information gain, the probability of this is virtually zero.
According to evolution, all life began as a single cell. If mutations can only lead to the loss of information, no advanced multi-cell life could ever be the result of mutations.
[2] Evidence from
Origins Science: (The evolution of life from chemicals is
impossible.)
At
However, through advances in biology, we now know that even a “simple” cell contains enough information to fill a 100 million page encyclopedia. Cells consist essentially of proteins; one cell has thousands of proteins, and proteins are in turn made of smaller building blocks called amino acids. Normally, chains of hundreds of amino acids compose a protein, and these amino acids must be in precise functional sequence.
Evolutionists often quote the experiment done by Stanley Miller in 1953. It is used to prove that chemicals can be turned into amino acids. Miller assembled an apparatus in which he combined water with hydrogen, methane, and ammonia (proposed gases of the early Earth), although no oxygen because it created problems for him (see details below). He subjected the mixture to continuous electric sparks. After a week, he discovered that some amino acids had formed in a trap in the system.
Using the result of this experiment, evolutionists conjecture that in the primitive Earth, lightning could have struck a similar array of chemicals and produced amino acids. Since millions of years were involved, eventually the amino acids came, by chance, into the correct sequences. The first proteins were formed. Eventually, thousands of necessary proteins were formed by chance, and they constituted the first cell.
However, there are reasons why Miller’s experiment could not have happened in nature.
[a] A vital part of the experiment was the cold trap where the synthesized products collected as they were formed from chemical reactions. Without the trap, the chemical products would have been exposed to the same energy source (the electrical sparking). In other words, amino acids caused to form by lightning would soon be destroyed by the same agent, lightning.
[b] Time required would have been several years, and with no way to trap the products of synthesis, they could not stay together in the natural environment.
[c] Accumulation of significant quantities of simple organic compounds would have been precluded by the fact that rate of destruction would have far exceeded rate of synthesis.
[d] Only very small quantities of simple organic compounds could have accumulated since ultraviolet radiation penetrating sea water would have destroyed those compounds.
[e] Amino acids and sugars react with mutual destruction.
[f] Most important of all, geologists conclude that the early Earth was probably rich in oxygen. If oxygen was in the atmosphere, it would have destroyed most of those organic compounds by oxidization. For this reason, Miller’s experiment exclude oxygen from the experiment. In other words, the experiment did not replicate primitive Earth conditions.
[g] What happened if the primitive Earth really did not have free oxygen? Then there is another problem. Without oxygen, there would be no ozone. Without the protection of ozone, the solar radiation would have destroyed the organic compounds anyway.
Presume even that Miller’s experiment could work in nature, the
probability of getting just one protein
by chance would be 1 in 10260 (calculation by evolutionist Francis
Crick). In mathematics, odds worse
than 1 in 1050 are considered an impossibility. Thus chance could
not produce even one protein, let alone thousands of protein that one cell
requires.
Moreover, cells need more than proteins; they require the genetic code. In addition, cells also need devices which actually translate the code to be understood. To believe in evolution, we must believe that, by pure chance, the genetic code was formed, and also by pure chance, translation devices arose and transformed the meaningless code into something with meaning. [Today, it is still not possible to synthesize one self-replicating protein molecule in the laboratory under any artificial conditions, such as applying extreme high temperature, extreme high pressure, and whatever chemical compounds available.]
Evolutionist Thomas Huxley was once reported to have use an
example to make his case for chance origins. He said that 6 monkeys, poking
randomly at typewriters, and given enough millions of years, could write all
the books in the
Question: what are the odds of a monkey correctly typing one predetermined 9-letter word, such as “evolution”? Let us assume that the typewriter has only 26 letters and no other symbols. The probability of typing “evolution” once correctly is 26 to the power of 9, equal to 5,000,000,000,000 (5 trillion) attempts. Presume the monkey can type 10 letters per minute; it would take over one million years to type one 9-letter word correctly. To type two consecutive predetermined 9-letter words would take more than a billion billion years. [In comparison, many scientists believe that the universe began in a Big Bang explosion 15 billion years ago.] If a monkey started typing at the time of the Big Bang, he had only enough time to type correctly one predetermined word of 12 letters.
o Another similar example was attributed to Fred Hoyle and quoted in Philip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial: “That a living organism emerged by chance from a pre-biotic soup is about as likely as that ‘a tornade sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.’ Chance assembly is just a naturalistic way of say ‘miracle.” No wonder he supported extraterrestrial origin of life.
To explain the beginning of life by chance happenings based on probability is unbelievable. An evolutionist scientist Dr. Morowitz formulated a model to calculate the probability for the formation of the smallest living organism by random process. He comes up with a probability of one chance in 10340,000,000. Yet he and his fellow evolutionist scientists still believe that it happened!
[3] Evidence from
Biochemistry: (Biochemical systems do not allow
step-by-step evolution.)
Biochemical systems are very complex. If any component was missing, the system would have no function. It is termed “irreducible complexity.”
For example, blood clotting is a very complex process involving more than a dozen steps. A person with just one clotting factor missing has hemophilia and is at risk for bleeding. If blood clotting had evolved step-by-step over long periods of time, creatures would have bled to death long before blood clotting was ever perfected.
For example, the immune system requires white blood cells (macrophage), B cells, and 4 kinds of T cells. Without any of these kinds, immunity will not work. If evolution caused the existence of these cells one after another. Diseases would have wiped out all creatures long before the immune system could have been perfected.
Biochemical systems, such as human vision, are also irreducibly complex. They cannot have evolved step-by-step because individual parts of the organ are useless unless the entire organ is functioning.
An amusing example of the need for all the parts of a complex organic system to be put in place at once is pointed out by Robert Kofahl and Kelly Segraves in their book, The Creation Explanation: A Scientific Alternative to Evolution. [from Grudem]
o The “Bombardier beetle” repels enemies by firing a hot charge of chemicals from two swivel tubes in its tail. The chemicals fired by this beetle will spontaneously explode when mixed together in a laboratory, but apparently the beetle has an inhibitor substance that blocks the explosive reaction until the beetle squirts some of the liquid into its “combination chambers,” where an enzyme is added to catalyze the reaction. An explosion takes place and the chemical repellent is fired at a temperature of 100°C at the beetle’s enemies.
o The book rightly asks whether any evolutionary explanation can account for this amazing mechanism: “Note that a rational evolutionary explanation for the development of this creature must assign some kind of adaptive advantage to each of the millions of hypothetical intermediate stages in the construction process. But would the stages of one-fourth, one-half, or two-thirds completion, for example, have conferred any advantage? After all, a rifle is useless without all of its parts functioning…. Before this defensive mechanism could afford any protection to the beetle, all of its parts, together with the proper explosive mixture of chemicals, plus the instinctive behavior required for its use, would have to be assembled in the insect. The partially developed set of organs would be useless. Therefore, according to the principles of evolutionary theory, there would be no selective pressure to cause the system to evolve from a partially completed stage toward the final completed system…. If a theory fails to explain the data in any science, that theory should be either revised or replaced with a theory that is in agreement with the data.”
[4] Evidence from
Fossils: (Missing links are ALL still missing.)
Evolutionists made up a “tree of life” to explain how life forms branch out. At the tree’s bottom is a single-celled creature. According to evolution, this little organism gradually evolved into the first invertebrates such as jellyfish.
Cambrian rock is the low geologic layer containing most of the oldest known invertebrate fossils. In it, we find literally billions of fossils of invertebrates: clams, snails, worms, sponges, jellyfish, sea urchins, swimming crustaceans, etc. But there are no fossils to demonstrate how these creatures evolved. For this reason, we hear of the Cambrian “explosion”—a period in which many different fossils simply suddenly appeared.
Supposedly, invertebrates evolved into the first fish. But despite billions of fossils from both groups, transitional fossils linking them are missing.
According to evolution, one species was evolved into another
species through a large number of small changes through mutations. That is why
If evolution hypothesis is true, the geologic fossil record
should reveal the innumerable transitional forms
There are a handful of questionable fossils, thought to be missing links. They include:
[a] Piltdown Man (1912): claimed to be a transitional form between ape and man. It was validated by many British leading scientists to be 500,000 years old. It was finally determined in 1953 to be a deliberate fraud. It was in fact a very recent orangutan jaw, its teeth filed down to make them more human-looking, planted together with a human skullbone, stained to create an appearance of age. Chemical tests, such as nitrogen loss or fluorine uptake, then showed that none of the human bones could be more than a few centuries old.
[b] Archaeoraptor (1998): found in
[c] Coelacanth: a bony fish claimed to be a
missing link between fish and amphibians. It was regarded as an index fossil in
the Jurassic rock and thought to be extinct 70 million years ago. A live one
was caught off the African coast in 1938 and another caught near
The reason why biologists can be misled by a fossil is because 99% of an organism’s body is in its soft anatomy. When only the bone is left, there can be unlimited ways to speculate what the organism originally looks like.
All the missing links are still missing. All life forms appear in the fossil record with no trace of how they evolved. Most new species, genera, and families appear quite suddenly, without ancestors, only a few with possible but disputed links; all new order, classes, and phyla are without ancestors. Most fully formed species appear suddenly without transitional forms.
Since there is no transitional forms, the links between organisms on the tree of life are purely speculative. That is why different biologists construct different trees of life and they is no consensus.
[5] Evidence from
Taxonomy: (There are NO living intermediates between
groups.)
Taxonomy is the science that classifies plants and animals, grouping them by characteristics they share, assigning organisms by kingdom, class, and species. The pioneer of taxonomy was Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) who strongly opposed evolution. He saw that the larger divisions of living organisms were distinctly divided by large gaps, without overlaps.
If there is evolution of species, we should not see distinctly different groups, but living intermediates between these groups. Evolutionists acknowledge the missing intermediates but say that they must have become extinct. Yet there are even no fossils of any intermediates.
The biochemical “relatedness” between various plants and animals does not support evolution. The difference in anatomy proved to be much wider under careful examination.
o Listed here are all possible ranks, with non-obligatory ranks in brackets:
o Kingdom, [Subkingdom,] Phylum, [Subphylum, Superclass,] Class, [Subclass, Infraclass, Cohort, Superorder,] Order, [Suborder, Superfamily,] Family, [Subfamily, Tribe,] Genus, [Subgenus,] Species, [Subspecies]
[6] Evidence from
Molecular Biology:
(Molecular biology demonstrates the large
GAPS between species.)
Evolutionists believe that fish evolved into amphibians, which then evolved into reptiles, then vertebrates, then mammals, then primates, then humans.
If evolution follows a sequence, then fish must be much closer to amphibians than to humans.
Research of different animals on a molecular level disputes the validity of evolution. An analysis was done on the molecular structure of cytochrome C, a protein involved in producing cellular energy, found in organisms ranging from bacteria to man. The study shows that fish are just as distant from amphibians as fish are from humans.
Molecular biology has served to emphasize the enormity of the gaps between different species.
[7] Issue of Natural
Selection: (Explanation using natural selection has been
abandoned.)
Evolutionists explain how reptiles evolved into birds: Reptiles wanted to eat flying insects that were out of reach. So the reptiles began leaping, and flapping their arms to get higher. Over millions of years, their limbs transformed into wings by increments, their tough reptilian scales gradually sprouting soft feathers.
According to natural selection (survival of the fittest), a physical trait is acquired because it enhances survival. Yet many natural phenomena undercut the theory of natural selection.
o Obviously, flight is beneficial. Why didn’t all advanced species possess flight since it is a beneficial trait?
o Since the evolution process is still ongoing today, why aren’t at least some reptiles develop feathers?
o Existence of many organisms contradict adaptation and natural selection, eg. snakes live on the ground, but there is no grass eating snake; birds live on trees but there is no leaf eating birds.
o The complex eyes of insects are obviously more advanced than simple eyes of mammals. Unlikely our eyes, they can detect enemies approaching from all directions. Why would all advanced life forms give up the advantage?
Because of these evidences, the modern scientific position (including the one held by evolutionists) is that the struggle for existence plays no part in evolution. This is a retreat from the position of natural selection.
[8] Insufficient time:
(Earth’s history is too short for evolution.)
Even with Huxley’s generous estimate of one mutation (harmful or beneficial) every one million births, the 4.5 billion years are too short for cooling down of the Earth, synthesis of inorganic matter into organic matter, and evolution of one-cell plant to human.
What are the difficulties about the evolution hypothesis, even if we accept that many mutations are beneficial?
[1] Assumption 1: one mutation per million births
o Julian Huxley estimated that the rate of inheritable mutation (harmful or beneficial) was around one in every million births. This optimistic figure has not been proved. Let us PRESUME his figure is correct.
[2] Assumption 2: all mutations beneficial
o The evolution to higher species requires inheritable “beneficial mutations with information gains”. Occasionally, some mutations may appear to have beneficial effects but all these are results of information loss. No existence of such”beneficial mutations with information gains” has ever been observed. However, let us PRESUME that EVERY mutation has such characteristics.
[3] Assumption 3: one mutation to evolve into the next species
o For one species to evolve into the next higher species, thousands of “beneficial mutations with information gains” are required. Thoretically, there are innumerable number of transitional forms between one species and the next higher species. Not even a single proven transitional form has been observed. However, let us PRESUME that no transitional forms are required, and that ONE “beneficial mutation with information gains” is required to evolve into the next higher species.
[4] Assumption 4: at least a male and a female of the new species are born carrying the same mutations
o For this new species to propagate, the mutations need to occur in at least one male and one female of the species. However, let us PRESUME again that this ALWAYS occurs for EVERY step up the evolutionary ladder.
[5] Result: 1 member of the higher species per 1 million members of the lower species.
o What do we have after all these assumptions?
o Presume Species A evolved into Species B which in turn evolved into Species C. Then there will be 1 member of Species B for every 1 million members of Species A. Similarly, there will be 1 member of Species C for every 1 million members of Species B. In other words, for every 1 member of species C, there should be 1 million million (1 trillion) members of species A in the world. If humans were evolved from apes and apes from monkeys, then for every human, there should be 1 trillion monkeys in the world. Again, for every human, there should be 1036 members in the each of the thousands of species 5 steps below us. This is of course not what we find in the world.
o Furthermore, the ratio should be much much larger because this ratio (1 million to 1) is based on a 100% success rate for all 4 assumptions above. If only one of the 4 assumptions fails even once, the ratio will be double. In other words, the ratio between species from consecutive steps should be much larger than 1,000,000:1.
o How high can this ratio be? Before answering this question, let us guess what the next more advanced species evolved from human beings would be like. Among the 4 primates, gorilla has the largest average brain size. The average human brain is 2.5 times larger than the gorilla’s. Perhaps we can expect the super-human species to have a brain 2.5 times the size of the human brain. We have not seen one such super-human among the 6 billion people presently on Earth. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the ratio between consecutive species is at least 6 billion to 1. In other words, when in history, the evolution process succeeded to produce one human being, there should be over 6 billion apes on Earth at the same time.
† Our faith does not depend on whether the evolution hypothesis is proved valid or not. However, objecive facts prove that the use of evolution to account for the origin of life is groundless.
†
We have to keep a skeptical eye on all the
pronouncements of proof to evolution. Don’t blindly believe them. There has
been no definitive evidence that can stand under scrutiny since