† In recent decades, some Christians try to make creationism easier to accept by creating an alternate theory called “Intelligent Design” [ID] Theory. Atheists accuse this theory as a disguise to creationism. The accusation is partially true because ultimately, the theory leads to a Designer God. However, the emphasis of the ID theory is on the impossibility of evolution. Atheists reject the theory without careful examination because it threatens the credibility of the evolution hypothesis which is already seriously plagued by the lack of supporting scientific evidences.
† Atheists’ irrational behaviour of defending an indefensible evolution hypothesis is difficult to understand. However, the Bible gives a short and clear explanation: atheists are described as fools with darkened hearts (Ro 1:21-22).
What is the
Intelligent Design Theory?
This theory holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by intelligent causes, not an undirected random process such as natural selection.
The explanation for some biological features by chance occurrence is not credible; they appear to have been designed. This leads to the necessity of an intelligent Designer.
There are 3 main arguments in the Intelligent Design Theory:
[1] Irreducible complexity:
Many biological features are composed of interrelated parts that rely on each other in order to be useful. Random mutation may account for the development of a single new part, but it cannot account for the concurrent development of multiple parts necessary for a complex functioning system. For example, the human eye needs the eyeball, the optic nerve, and the visual cortex in order to function. It can only work when all its parts are present and functioning properly at the same time.
[2] Specified complexity:
Random process can never produced specified complex patterns. For example, if 1,000,000 monkeys are each given a regular 45-key typewriter. Presume that each monkey can type 30 letters per minute. They are required to type a specific 12-letter word. It would have taken them 4.4 million years to correctly type the word once.
[3] Anthropic principle:
The principle states that the world and universe are “fine-tuned” to allow for life on Earth. If the conditions were altered slightly, many species would cease to exist. This can never occur by chance.
In our universe, there are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an intelligent Designer. Assuming there are 1022 planets in the universe, the probability that the 122 constants would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance is one chance in 10137. There are only about 1070 atoms in the entire universe.
Some examples of Anthropic Constants:
o [a] Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, “stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster.”
o [b] The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example).
o [c] A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2%) would have prevented the formation of protons—yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5% would have given us a universe without stars.
o [d] If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is—roughly twice the mass of an electron—then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it—and to life.
o [e] The very nature of water—so vital to life—is something of a mystery (a point noticed by one of the forerunners of anthropic reasoning in the 19th century, Harvard biologist Lawrence Henderson). Unique amongst the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and Earth would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to the unique properties of the hydrogen atom.
o [f] The synthesis of carbon—the vital core of all organic molecules—on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the centre of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12—allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long.
o [g] Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on Earth.
While the Intelligent Design Theory does not identify the source of intelligence (perhaps God or extraterrestrial aliens), most of the proponents of this theory are theists.
How are
evidences being used to support the evolution hypothesis not credible?
[1] Argument from microevolution:
Evolutionists use breeding experiments as evidence. Dog breeders have developed new breeds of dog; racehorse owners have bred faster horses; horticulturists have developed new plant varieties. However breeding involved working with pre-existing genetic information, not new information.
A species is normally endowed with a rich, diverse gene pool. By selecting out creatures with particular genes, it is certainly possible to change the general appearance of a species over time. In addition, there are natural selection due to adaptation, such as greater resistance in bacteria as a result of antibiotics, colour variations in moths for camouflage. But both types of small-scale changes are confined to the limits of its gene pool. These changes are called “microevolution”. There is not a single evidence of any macroevolution [large-scale changes that would produce new body plans, organs or biochemical systems] involving the formation of a new species.
Simple bacteria can produce another generation in a matter of minutes. Yet, throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. None has been observed.
[2] Argument from similarity:
Similarities between species can derive from biological ancestry. But they can also result from the necessities of intelligent design of a common designer, just like a painter will paint different pictures with the same style.
The Haeckel embryo sequence was drawn by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel about 100 years ago. It has been used to demonstrate our common ancestry with other mammals and thus prove the validity of evolution.
In his picture, he showed that the embryos of man, the ape, the dog, the rabbit, the calf, the hog are also similar in shape. However, the pictures were found to be fakes. He actually took a human embryo and copied it and then pretended that embryos of all other animals look the same. When a scientific team took the photographs of growing embryos of 39 different species, they discovered the fraud. Haeckel’s theory is now rejected by scientists. However, some evolutionists are still attempting to revive it.
There is strong resemblance among all living things: the same 20 amino acids occur throughout life on Earth, and the same 5 bases comprise all DNA molecules. Yet, in reality, their differences are greater than their similarities.
Similarities can derive from biological ancestry. But they also result from the necessities of intelligent design. Cars have 4 wheels because that is the best arrangement. In the same way, God may have created animals with 4 limbs because it was the best design. These do not by itself prove evolution.
o The biochemical “relatedness” between various plants and animals is not what one would expect in a scheme of descent based on evolution from one common ancestor. Instead, plants or animals in one large biological grouping appear to be equidistant from those in any other group, in spite of varying physical differences among themselves. For example, the amount of difference between specific protein of insects and protein of any vertebrate is the same, as though no one vertebrate is more closely related to invertebrates than another.
[3] Argument from fossils:
Fossil record is said to display increasing complexity of life as one moves up from bottom to top of the geologic column. However, this is an oversimplification. In fact, there are gaps in the fossils and no transitional forms between the various species. Some gaps are so large that the link between species remain unbridgeable even in imagination. Also, out of the thousands of strata studied, there is not even one sequence of fossils from sequence of adjacent strata showing indisputable signs of progressive change above the species level.
o The way to determine the age of the rocks and the age of fossils in the geologic column is based on circular logic. If the rock layer is thought to be 50 million years old, then the fossils in that rock layer are decided to be 50 million years old. Similarly, if a fossil is thought to be 70 million years old, then the rock where the fossil is found is decided to be 70 million years old. There is no absolute certainty that the age was correctly determined.
Some claim the discovery of skeleton of “ancestors” of man, specifically: [a] homo erectus (1,000,000 to 500,000 years ago, found to have used fire), [b] homo neanderthalensis (150,000 to 40,000 years ago, found to have buried the dead, and made clothes from animal skins).
However, these two have been re-assigned as homo sapiens, a different species from human beings (homo sapiens sapiens). They are also not transitional species between ape and man.
In addition, some of the “discoveries” (previously claimed to be ancestors of man) have been found to be forgeries. Others were found to be wrongly classified and are now re-assigned as belonging to apes.
[4] Argument from anatomy:
In 1925, evolutionist zoologist Horatio Hackett Newman stated: “There are no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities.” He asserted that the human is loaded with vestigial (meaning trace) organs—relics from our animal past no longer serving any significant purpose.
One reason why so many tonsillectomies were previously performed was the false belief that tonsils were “vestigial”; the tonsils are recognized today as having an immune function. Evolutionists said the pineal gland, located in the brain, was vestigial; now we know it secretes the hormone melatonin. The thymus, found in the chest, was also declared useless; we have since discovered it has an immune function. The thyroid, coccyx, and many other body parts previously deemed “vestigial” are now understood to have important uses to the body. The list of 180 vestigial structures is practically down to zero.
What latest discoveries add to the impossibility of evolution?
Scientists continue to debate the issue of how life originated. More and more questions and problems arise on the naturalistic side while evidence accumulates on the creationist side. The latest developments include:
[1] Self-assembled life arising in a primordial soup or on a mineral substrate would be expected to leave behind some inorganic kerogen tars marked by a certain carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratio. No such kerogen is found anywhere in the geologic column.
[2] Biochemists cannot manufacture (from scratch) a single DNA or RNA molecule or any of the more complex proteins, let alone a complete, functioning organism.
[3] The vast complexity of even the simplest life-form argues against random or natural self-assembly. If all the chemical bonds of Earth’s simplest living creature were broken, the chance of its reassembly is less than one in 10100,000,000,000. Even if most of the sequence positions for the atoms are not critical, the odds by the most conservative of calculations are still less than one in 103000 for assemblies attempted continuously over 10 billion years.
[4] The simplest chemical step for the origin of life, the gathering of amino acids that are all left-handed and nucleotide sugars that are all right-handed (a phenomenon known as “homochirality”), cannot be achieved under inorganic conditions.
[5] The various nucleotides essential for building RNA and DNA molecules require radically different environmental conditions for their assembly.
[6] At the time of life’s origin, Earth’s surface was relatively hot, probably between 80°C and 90°C. At these temperatures, RNA nucleotide sequences decouple. Moreover, new experimental results demonstrate that all of the RNA nucleotides themselves degrade at warm temperatures.
[7] Boundaries between plant species are much less distinct than boundaries between animal species. If there is any evolution, it should be easier for plants to evolve. Yet, no plant species radically different from already existing species has arisen under human observation.
Can Christians accept a divinely guided evolution?
Some Christians proposed that living organisms came about by
the process of evolution that
Objections:
[1] The clear teaching of the Bible that there is purposefulness in God’s work of creation seems incompatible with the randomness demanded by evolutionary theory.
[2] The Bible pictures God’s creative word as bringing immediate response.
[3] When the Bible tells us that God made plants and animals to reproduce “according to their kinds” (Gen 1:11,24), it suggests that God created many different types and there would be some narrow limits to the kind of change that could come about (micro-evolution), not large scale mutations in macro-evolution.
[4] God’s present active role in creating or forming every living thing is hard to reconcile with the distant “hands off” kind of oversight of evolution.
[5] The special creation of Adam and Eve from God is a strong reason to doubt theistic evolution.
There are creationists who believe that evolution was God’s way of “creating” or God’s guidance of a sort of “creative process”. This seems to be an abuse of language.
The reason behind such a compromise is that some Christians were afraid that evolution may eventually be proved to be valid by new scientific evidences. Actually, Christian faith does not fall if evolution is true. The only problem that evolution can inflict on Christianity is that if man can be proved to evolve from lower animals because this will make the inherent value of man as God’s image difficult to defend.
If the evolution hypothesis is not supported by scientific evidence, why then are all these scientists still supporting it?
[1] Two types of evidences have been
used by evolutionists: [a] tangible
evidences and [b] theoretical
arguments. All tangible evidences have been discredited. Theoretical arguments
rest on assumptions, not observations. No one has ever observed
life spontaneously generate from chemicals, or one kind of animal transform
into another, or mutations generate true biological advances, or complex
biochemical systems evolve. That any of these things ever happened requires faith by evolutionists. For this
reason, some people consider evolution better characterized as a religion than
as a science. Based on the available facts, it takes
more faith to believe in the evolution hypothesis than to believe in creation.
[2] It is common to hear it asserted
that “all scientists believe in
evolution.” In reality, a large number of scientists have publicly rejected it.
Zoologist Albert Fleischmann sums it up well: “The Darwinian theory of descent
has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the
result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.”
[3] It is true that a lot of scientists
accept evolution. There are 3 possible reasons:
[a] Evolution is all some scientists have ever been taught. They believe it without ever had a chance to seriously examine the evidences.
[b] Scientists who have weigh it and know it to be unsupportable could not bear the social pressure of being ridiculed and therefore pay lip-service to the hypothesis.
[c] Atheistic scientists have no alternative but to support the hypothesis because it is a way to deny the existence of God. Because of their pride, they refuse to submit to truth. If they do not hold onto evolution, they have no answer to the questions concerning human existence and will find it difficult to reject that there is a Creator God.
Why are the evolutionists so desperate in defending the theory of evolution?
Most of the evolutionist scientists (those who actively defend evolution) are atheists or agnostics. For atheism to be objectively true (that there is no God), there must be an alternate explanation on how the universe and life came into existence. Evolution is such an explanation and is the “creation theory” for the “religion” of atheism. Evolution is therefore effectively an enabler of atheism.
For over a hundred years, the dominant scientific establishment has been moving toward an enforced orthodoxy of naturalism, materialism, and secularism. Their fear is that the theory of Intelligent Design Theory will continue to grow, gain adherents, and influence public policy. When the theory of evolution collapses, the whole secularist belief system will start to collapse. That is why so many people still support it, despite of objective evidences.
Both Creation and evolution are faith-based systems. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back in history to observe the origin of life. Evolutionist scientists reject Creation because they accept only one “scientific” explanation of origins and Creation is not science. Yet, evolution does not fit the definition of “science” any more than Creation does.
The battle about the validity of evolution is a spiritual battle. The arguments over evolution have as much to do with morality and politics as with fossils and natural phenomena. Evolutionary theory stands at the base of moral relativism and the rejection of traditional morality. With evolution, human life has no inherent dignity, and morality has no objective basis. When evolution theory fails, traditional morality and theism will advance.
What are the common strategies used by evolutionists in defending evolution?
They rely on irrational ways include: [1] name calling and exaggerations, [2] circular logic, spotty and unsubstantiated trail of fossils and missing links, [3] unwilling to accept any contradictory evidences no matter how good they are.
Evolutionist scientists try to shut down any arguments against evolution. They try to portrait the theory of Intelligent Design as against science. Many try to avoid public debates of the issue because they realize that their theory is weak.
What are the destructive influences of evolutionary theory in modern thought?
[1] If we are merely the product of matter plus time plus chance, then it is useless to think that we have any eternal importance. This should lead people to a profound sense of despair.
[2] If there is no God, there is no Supreme Judge to hold us morally accountable. There are no moral absolutes in life. People’s moral ideas are only subjective preferences. Then one cannot say that anything is absolutely right or absolutely wrong.
[3] If natural selection can bring about improvement in life forms. We should encourage survival of the fittest by not caring for the weak and allowing them to die without reproducing so that we might move toward a higher form of humanity, even a “master race”.
[4] If human beings have animals as their ancestors, animals deserve our respect. This leads to animal rights. Christians need to treat animals humanely but animals do not have rights.
[5] Many new philosophies and social theories are built upon the evolution theory, most prominent of these being secular humanism and materialism. As they claimed: now that they can explain everything with “science”, there is no need of God.
o Teaching of Evolution in school has been debated ever since. In 1968, the US Supreme Court ruled that it is not constitutional to forbid teaching of evolution in school. And it has been taught (erroneously) as a scientific fact ever since. Ironically, teaching of creation theory in school has been facing huge protests and objections, mainly by atheist. As a result, and regretfully, even Christian youth wrongly believe that evolution hypothesis is a scientific theory.
† Evolutionists have no credible alternative and insist on evolution not because of the evidence, but despite the evidence. Evolution, at best, is a disputed theory that should be regarded as a hypothesis until supporting evidences are presented.
† The lesson we can learn from the battle on evolution is that secularists will use falsehood to argue from both sides of their mouths. On one hand, they insist that only human reasoning is accepted in the study of origins. They try to shut down any reference to Intelligence Design arguing that it is not science. On the other hand, they would not accept any presentation of scientific facts that may prove the impossibility of the evolution hypothesis. In fact, secularists want to establish evolution as an unchallenged orthodoxy. We need to discern this illogical strategies and insist on the use of facts in arguments.
† That man was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) is a very important fact. This alone differentiates us from the rest of creation and gives us the position to rule over the rest of creation. It also provide the foundation for human rights. With the concept of image of God, man can claim no more rights than any other animal, or even plant.
o Human rights are moral claims of basic privileges for all human beings. They are founded on the belief of “human dignity” which is defined as the claim to respect by simply being human. But why would just being human be a sufficient reason for deserving human rights. Because Man was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27). If not, then man is no different from other animals and human dignity has no solid foundation. Atheists cannot provide good justification for human rights. There can be no genuine rights of man except on the basis of faith in God.
What is the meaning of the plural “our” in “our image” (Gen 1:26)?
There are similar verses at Gen 3:22; 11:7; 2Sa 24:14; Isa 6:8. Possibilities include:
[1] God plus the created order, especially the Earth.
[2] pointing to the creation of both male and female (see Gen 5:1-2).
[3] God and the angels. Support: [a] When God established the foundation of the Earth, angels were present (Job 38:4,7). [b] There were conferences between God and angels in 1Ki 22:19; Job 1:6; Ps 82:1; Isa 6:8. [c] Angels are similar to man (Ps 8:5). Angels appeared in the form of man (Gen 18:2). Difficulties: [a] “Our” in Gen 1:26 does not correspond with “His” in the next verse. Does “image of God” equal to “image of the angels”? [b] Ne 9:6 says that only God was involved in creation.
[4] Hebrew custom of using plural for emphasis, sometimes described as the plural of majesty, greatness, magnificence.
[5] self-deliberation or divine contemplation of God.
[6] trinity; the concept was absent in the OT, may be explained as revelation implying trinity.
The last 3 explanations appear reasonable.
Is there a difference between image and likeness?
[1] Most theologians take the two words “image” and “likeness” as meaning essentially the same and are interchangeable because:
[a] While Gen 1:26 reads, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” only “image” is mentioned in Gen 1:27. As the two verses express consecutively God’s intention and action, they have the same meaning. Therefore “image” and “likeness” are the same.
[b] The Hebrew prepositions “in (Heb. be) his image” and “according to (Heb. ke) his likeness” are interchangeable.
[c] Some claim that the misunderstanding (that the two are different) was the result of the erroneous addition of the word “and” (Gr. kai) in Septuagint between “image” and “likeness”. It was not in the original Hebrew.
[2] However, some believe that the two words have different meanings.
In the Bible, it is true that both words can mean an object similar to something else. However, “image” (Heb. selem) usually refers to the aspect of representation. [Its Biblical usage includes statues or replicas (1Sa 6:5,11), paintings (Eze 23:14), and pagan idols (Nu 33:42; 2Ki 11:18; Eze 7:20; 16:17).] “Likeness” (Heb. demut) usually refers to the aspect of similarity. [Its Biblical usage includes a model or drawing of the altar (2Ki 16:10), figures of bulls beneath the bronze altar (2Ch 4:3-4), and wall paintings of Babylonian chariot officers (Eze 23:15).]
Therefore, some believe “image” describes man’s representation of God on Earth in terms of his responsibilities described in Gen 1:28, while “likeness” describes man’s similarity with God in terms of mental and spiritual capabilities.
Some interprets “image” to mean a symbol of belonging to God or man’s sonship. Jesus might have implied this point when He spoke about paying taxes (Mt 22:20-21). On the other hand, “likeness” refers to the more abstract internal qualities of being similar in character to God. Because of the Fall, man lost the likeness which can only be recovered through Christ; likeness to God is an object for Christians to strive for (Ro 8:29; Eph 4:24; also Ps 17:15).
How is the “image of God” interpreted in church history?
There are 3 schools of interpretation for the “image of God” (Latin: Imago Deo): [a] substantive view: identifying particular quality of man as being the image of God in man; [b] relational view: identifying the ability of interpersonal relationship originated from the image; [c] functional view: identifying human dominion over the creation as the image.
[1] Church Fathers: substantive view
Historically, the “image” had been identified as the spiritual or immaterial properties of a person. Since the time of Irenaeus (AD185), a common view in the church was to differentiate between “image” and “likeness”. It is thought that “image” refers to the ability to reason while “likeness” refers to a person’s correspondence to God in spiritual attributes. As a consequence of human sin, the “likeness” has been lost but the “image”, which distinguishes a person from the animal order, persists unaltered.
Augustine attempted to explain the “image” in ontological terms by appealing to a trinitarian image, such as human memory, knowledge, and will.
[2] Reformation: substantive view
This earlier view was abandoned by the Reformers. They nevertheless perpetuated the standard opinion that the imago Dei was spiritual, but they showed more willingness to understand the “image” in terms of human fellowship with God. Following Augustine, they insisted that the “image” had been mortally wounded in the Fall, which required the intervening grace of the Spirit for salvation.
Calvin used the NT
to explain “image” and he believed that the original “image” can be restored in
the Christian believer (
[3] Modern:
Relational view: In the 20th century, the old view that the “image” was primarily spiritual and ontological was challenged. Emil Brunner believed that our ability of forming interpersonal relationships is a manifestation of the image of God. Karl Barth added also the human ability of partnership with God. While this existential interpretation dwells on relationship, it should be noted that the relationship is the consequence of the “image” rather than its contents.
Functional view: In the 2nd half of the 20th century, the dominant interpretation (following Chrysostom) emphasizes the functional aspect. The “image” is man’s divine ordained role to rule over the lower orders. The idea is the “royal” administration: mankind is God’s image representing Him on Earth as His royal vice-regent.
What are the characteristics of man as an image of God?
In general, the fact that man is in the image of God means that man is like God in: [a] man can emulate God, [b] man can represent God on Earth, and [c] man is entirely different from all other creatures. Obviously, the image cannot be explained in a physical corporeal sense because God is a Spirit.
[1] Moral aspects: [a] We have an inner sense of right and wrong—with an innate moral code or conscience. [b] As we have conscience, we are morally accountable before God for our actions. [c] When we act according to God’s moral standards, we are holy and righteous.
[2] Spiritual aspects: [a] We have self-consciousness, the knowledge of our own existence. [b] We have not only physical bodies but also immaterial spirits with a spiritual realm of existence. [c] We have a spiritual life that enables us to relate to God, to pray to Him, to praise Him, and to hear Him speaking to us.
[3] Mental aspects: [a] We have an ability to reason and think logically, analyze in abstract terms, and learn, e.g. mathematics and philosophy. [b] We use complex abstract language. [c] We have an awareness of the distant future and are concerned about life after death. Ecc 3:11: God “has put eternity in man’s mind.” [d] We are creative, such as art, music, literature, and inventiveness in science and technology. [e] We are able to recognize and to cherish truth, beauty, and goodness. [f] We possess a drive to discover things unknown. [g] We have a large range as well as complexity of emotions.
[4] Relational aspects: [a] We aspire to have deep interpersonal harmony, such as in marriage, in family, and in church fellowship. [b] Despite our different sexual roles, we have equality in importance. [c] We are given the right to rule over the rest of creation. When Christ returns, we will be given authority to judge over angels (1Co 6:3; Ps 8:6-8).
[5] Dignity: We have great dignity as bearers of God’s image. This is the foundation of human rights.
Did man lose the image of God after the Fall?
Based on Gen 9:6, it is clear that even though men are sinful, the image of God in man is not totally lost. There is still enough likeness to God remaining in man that to murder another person is to attack the part of creation that most resembles God; such action betrays an attempt or desire to attack God Himself.
However, man is certainly not as fully like God as he was before the Fall. In every aspect of life, the resemblance to God has been distorted: [a] Morally, man’s moral purity has been lost; his sinful nature and behaviour do not reflect God’s holiness. [b] Spiritually, man cannot relate to God because of sin. [c] Mentally, man’s intellect is corrupted by falsehood and misunderstanding. [d] Relationally, man’s relationships are often governed by selfishness rather than love. Man experiences alienation or estrangment from other people.
Jas 3:9 describes that all human beings, not just believers, “are made in the likeness of God.” That is why despite all the distortions, man still possesses dignity.
Only after receiving redemption in Christ can a person progressively recover more of God’s image and likeness.
Is man genetically and physically similar to chimpanzee or other primates?
[1] Primates:
In biology, primates are the highest order of mammals which include man and the higher apes, such as gorilla, orangutan, chimpanzees, gibbon. This term in biology implies that man has the same origin as apes (in evolution hypothesis). However, the Bible says that man was specially created in the image of God. Therefore, grouping man with apes is effectively a debasement of man.
[2] DNA:
Past research claimed that human DNA is 98.4% identical to the DNA of chimpanzees and bonobos, a lesser-known chimp-like ape. However, in a more recent research, segments of human DNA and chimpanzee DNA (totaling 1,870,955 base pairs) were laid side by side, the genetic similarity is found to be 86.7%.
Similar procedures found that human DNA is about 75% similar to that of a nematode, a small soil-dwelling worm. Can we then suggest that a nematode is 75% human? Or that the chimpanzee is less than half way between nematode and human?
Even more recently in 2005, researchers found that 80% of the proteins in the human and chimpanzee genomes are different; only 20% are similar.
[3] Brain size:
Average brain size: human 1201 cm3, gorilla 469 cm3, chimpanzee 400 cm3, orangutan 397 cm3. It is clear that the human brain is 2.5 to 3 times in size of those in apes, while apes have similar brain sizes.
[4] Wonders of the human brain:
[a] It is doubtful that we will ever fully understand the human brain. Some describe it as no more than a wonderful organic computer, but that is a great over-simplification.
[b] Functionality: Our brain is a computer that can change and modify its functionality. Tests with people who have had brain surgery and lost some capabilities indicates that over time part or much of the lost functionality can be recovered with non-damaged portions of the brain assuming capability that lost brain sections once controlled.
[c] Plasticity: Our brain has “plasticity”; it is continually changing. These changes come about by synapses becoming activated or deactivated through the growth or contraction of dendritic spines. Moreover, these changes can take place in surprisingly short times. Varying genetic factors combined with varing environmental factors and the plasticity of the brain gives us “individuality”.
[d] Memory: Our memory is miraculous in terms of its capacity and access. The fact that we can recall anything in our life almost instantaneously as we need it, sometimes with pictures and sound too, can never be achieved by a computer.
[5] Other differences:
The significant differences between human and apes include skeletal elements (skull, vertebral column, thorax, pectoral girdle, arm, hand, pelvic girdle, leg, foot), locomotor anatomy, bipedal locomotion, vision and communicative eyes, communication by speech/language.
Is it true that the Neandertal man (homo sapiens, literal “wise man”) was the ancestor of human beings (homo sapiens sapiens, literal “wise wise man”)?
Neandertal man appeared between 40,000 BC and 150,000 BC. They were found to bury their dead and to make clothes from animal skins. That leads some anthropologists to speculate that they were the ancestors of modern-day human beings.
Until the mid 1990s, anthropology routinely taught that there are no significant anatomical differences between modern humans and Neandertals. However, recent findings have firmly concluded that there are dramatical anatomical differences between Neandertals and modern humans. These evidences refute against any biological link between the two.
Further, the comparison of DNA concluded that the difference was enormous—an average of 26 nucleotide links in the DNA chain differed completely. Modern humans differed from one another in an average of just 8 links of the chain.
Conclusion: The Neandertals could not have made any contribution to the human gene pool.
† God is a God of life. The Bible is pro-life because man is created in the image of God. Every person is valuable in God’s eyes. Because of this, every human being must be treated with dignity and respect, including the frail elderly, the seriously ill, the mentally retarded, and children yet unborn.
† As Christians, we “are being changed into his (God’s) likeness from one degree of glory to another” (2Co 3:18). The goal for which God has redeemed us is that we might be “conformed to the image of His Son” (Ro 8:29). This is a restoration of the likeness that God intended for us at creation. This is an important objective in life.
†
The renewed image is characterized by knowledge,
righteousness, and holiness (
† The Fall of man is sometimes traced to the creation of the forbidden fruit. Why did God create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Why did God prohibit man to gain knowledge? How did evil come into the world? These are some of the questions related to the Fall of man.
Why did God create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
[1] The tree is a test of obedience—The tree represents the absolute moral standard that is prescribed by God—morality based on divine command. To obey the command is to express the love for God.
o There are at least 9 theories on how to define moral standard and why man needs to act morally. However, the only completely consistent theory is the Ethics of Divine Command, that is, moral standard is based on what God prescribes for man. Of course, different religions claim different divine commands but that is a question in a different subject, apologetics.
[2] Love is always a choice—God wants (not needs) love from man. Love must necessarily involve a choice. A love that is under coercion or compulsion is not true love. (Such is the case if God created robot-like humans who could only answer yes to God’s command.) That is why God gave man a choice to choose.
[3] God’s plan is for a
perfect world—God could have kept Satan away from
Why did
God not allow man to know good and evil?
The answer depends on the meaning of “knowledge of good and evil” which may mean:
[1] acquired sexual awareness and the ability to procreate
o Support: One of the results of eating the fruit was the recognition of their nakedness (Gen 3:7). Also, to “know” in the OT can refer to having sexual relationship (Gen 4:1). Creation is the power of God; and human procreation is man’s imitation of God’s immortality.
o Objection: But why would the ability to procreate lead to death? God commanded man to procreate (Gen 1:28). “Knowledge of good and evil” is never linked to sex in OT. The awareness of nakedness was connected with disobedience that brought about guilt.
[2] increased advanced knowledge in everything
o Support: Dt 1:39 shows how children are dependent upon their parents for the knowledge of “good and evil” while they remain under parental responsibility. Eating the fruit was like a transition from adolescence to adulthood.
o Objection: The Fall represented a drastic change, not just a transition which would have eventually arrived.
[3] increased human capacity of moral discrimination
o Support: Similar passages in Dt 1:39 and Isa 7:15-16 describe a child lacking in moral judgment. This may explain why they realize their nakedness.
o Objection: The knowledge gained was something that was beyond the normal human experience of Adam and Eve. They should already have some power of moral discrimination before the Fall.
[4] acquired divine wisdom in terms of becoming morally autonomous (moral autonomy), and possessing self-determination
o This is the best explanation. Adam and Eve wanted to be morally independent.
o Wisdom is possessed by God (Pr 2:6). Man can obtain wisdom, but only through the “fear of the Lord” (Pr 1:7). To obtain this knowledge independent of God was to act with moral autonomy.
o The eating of the forbidden fruit was an outward act of disobedience but was also an expression of an inward attitude of wanting to be morally autonomous, that is, making own decision and own standard on right and wrong.
o Their sin was pride, wanting to be like God and to have God’s authority (just as what Satan did).
When and how was the fall of the devil?
Evil came into the world because of the fall of Satan, the
devil. The devil is a spiritual being, a real person, probably an angel,
created by God (
The Bible does not contain any clear information on how the fall of the devil occurred. However, most Biblical scholars (though not all) have pointed to 2 passages in the OT that likely describe this important event. While the 2 passages appear on the surface to be God’s judgment on 2 historical pagan kings, the details describe events that were much more significant in scope.
[1] Isa 14:12-17 appears to be God’s
judgment on the king of
[a] fallen from heaven (v.12): God cast the devil out from a privileged position.
[b] Day Star, son of Dawn (v.12): “Day Star” (Heb helel, KJV Lucifer, NIV morning star), referring in classical times to the planet Venus appearing at dawn. The name Lucifer comes from Vulgate (Latin lux ferre, meaning light-bearer). The 2 names probably refer to the devil’s original state, as a shining one.
[c] You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God’ (v.13): The stars refer to the angels. Probably, all angels took orders from him as the chief administrator under God. The devil now desired to be an independent ruler and to receive the recognition belonged to God.
[d] ‘I will set my throne on high’ (v.13): The devil desired to occupy the abode of God, probably desiring equal recognition with God.
[e] ‘I will sit on the mount of assembly’
(v.13): Mount refers to a place of rule. In Isa 2:2; 4:5 and Ps 48:4, the mount
of assembly is the centre of God’s kingdom rule. It seems to associate with
Messiah’s earthly rule from
[f] ‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds’ (v.14): Clouds associate with the glory of God. Satan desired a glory equal to or above God’s glory.
[g] ‘I will make myself like the Most High.’ (v.14): This is the climax of all self-assertion and defiance of God. Satan wants to be like God. He wants to possess God’s power and authority.
[h] who made the world like a desert: The devil caused the destruction of the world.
[2] Eze 28:12-19 appears to be God’s
judgment of the king of
[a] you were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty (v.12): The devil was created the greatest of all creatures.
[b] you were in
[c] every precious stone was your covering (v.13): The devil was bright and glorious.
[d] you were an anointed guardian cherub (v.14): The devil belonged to the cherub class of angelic being. These are probably of the highest order. Among them, he was the anointed one, a privilege given to a God-appointed leader.
[e] you were on the holy
[f] you were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you (v.15): The devil was created by God to be good but he was corrupted by his own pride.
[g] in the abundance of your trade (v.16) AND the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your trade (v.18): These phrases may refer the devils’s solicitation of fellow angels to his evil cause which led to the rebellion of a large group of angels (Mt 25:41; Rev 12:9). As many as one-third of the angels might have followed Satan in his defection (Rev 12:4).
[h] you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned (v.16): The devil committed the sin of violence.
[i] I cast you as a profane thing from the
[j] guardian cherub from the midst of the stones of fire (v.16): Guardian or covering cherub refer to the devil’s previous role as a guardian and proclaimer of God’s glorious presence and holiness.
[k] your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendour (v.17): Reflecting upon his God-endowed beauty and glory, he became enthralled with himself and was lifted up with pride.
[l] I brought fire out from your midst; it consumed you (v.18) AND you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever (v.19): The devil’s ultimate punishment is the eternal lake of fire (Mt 25:41, Rev 20:10).
Summary:
[a] Nature of the devil. Before his fall, Satan seemed to possess the greatest privileges ever given to a creature. Satan belonged to the cherub class of angelic being.
[b] Position. Among the cherubim (plural of “cherub”), Satan was the anointed one, a privilege given to a God-appointed leader.
[c] Habitation. Satan was in the very presence of God as he was twice called a guardian cherub. Even after his fall, he could still appear before God (Job 1:6; 2:1).
[d] Perversion. Satan’s sin is arrogance,
self-occupation, and violence. He wants to have the same glory, power, and
position of God. He perverted other angels from God’s way. In
[e] Punishment. Because of Satan’s sin, God cast him from his privileged position. His ultimate punishment will be the lake of fire for eternity. Though he was cast from his exalted position, Satan yet retains some of his great dignity. Even the archangel Michael “did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment” (Jude 1:9).
Was the serpent in Gen 3 Satan in disguise?
Gen 3 does not explicitly say that the serpent was Satan. It is described as one of the animals that God created. It was just more cunning than others.
However, there are clear indications that the serpent is either: [1] Satan, or [2] Satan in disguise of a serpent, or [3] a serpent being controlled by Satan and served as Satan’s tool. The reasons are:
o
[a]
The serpent could speak. His voice surely came from a supernatural source.
However, ancient Jewish legend believed that all animals in
o [b] The serpent tempted Eve to disobey God. His communication reflected the mind of Satan.
o [c] The serpent was later cursed by God as if Satan was cursed (that the serpent’s head will be crushed by the child of the woman and that the serpent will strike the child’s heel, Gen 3:14-15).
o [d] Satan was described as the “ancient serpent” that leads the world astray (Rev 12:9; 20:2).
o [e] Other NT verses relate the serpent with Satan (Lk 10:19; Ro 16:20; 2Co 11:3).
Why did
Adam and Eve not die as God had warned them?
God said in Gen 2:17: “for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Yet Adam lived another 930 years. There are different explanations to why Adam and Eve did not die immediately.
[1] 1000 years: In God’s eyes, one day equals to 1000 years (Ps 90:4, 2Pe 3:8). Adam lived only 930 years which is less than one day in God’s standard.
[2] Sovereign God: God did not follow through in order to indicate that He is completely sovereign.
[3] Waiting for repentance: The phrase “die, you will die” appears 14 times in OT. The passages in Eze 3:18; 33:8,14 all indicate that death will be averted if the person repents. God gave them the chance to repent.
[4] Hebrew “day”: The Hebrew “day” does not mean that same day but simply a time period.
[5] God’s mercy: God did not kill them immediately because of his love and mercy. God gave them time to complete His plan of salvation—by giving birth to Seth.
[6] Process: Death is a process that begins with the weakening of the body and leads eventually to death. That day was the first day of this process.
[7] Certainty: The emphasis is on the certainty of death, not the timing of death.
[8] Fruit of life: “Shall surely die” means
“will be expelled from
[9] Separation from God: Death means the loss of life. The separation from God is the loss of life. For example, Hosea declared that “But he (Ephraim) became guilty of Baal worship and died.” (Hos 13:1) The tribe of Ephraim did not die but was separated from God.
[10] Spiritual death: Adam and Eve experienced physical death later but on the day that they disobeyed God, they experienced immediate spiritual death by: [a] losing the open, free, and trusting relationship with God, and [b] more importantly, losing their eternal life and would eventually experience physical death.
o For those who believe the tripartite composition of man (3 parts: body, soul, spirit), the spirit of Adam and Eve died on the day of the Fall. [Spirit is the part that communicates with God.]
The 1st explanation is the least supportable and the 10 explanations follow a progression until the 10th explanation which is the best one.
What is meant by the struggle between the “offspring of the woman” and “offspring of the serpent” (Gen 3:15)?
“Offspring” (literal: seed, Heb. zera), though singular, can refer to a single individual or can be a collective noun applied to the whole group. There is a mixture of opinions among Bible commentators. Most interpret “offspring of the serpent” to mean the devil Satan.
[1] If the term “offspring of the woman” refers to humanity as a whole (such as Church Father Chrysostom), then the struggle is between Satan and humanity and eventually man will win over Satan.
[2] The term was used for an individual in Septuagint, thus referring Gen 3:15 as the prophecy of a Messiah. This interpretation is called the “protevangelium” since it is used as the prototype for the Christian gospel and its first announcement in the Bible. Note that such an interpretation is never clearly used in the Bible.
Church Fathers Justine and Irenaeus interpreted the woman of Gen 3:15 as the virgin Mary so that the “offspring” would then be Jesus Christ. This is apparently supported by other Bible verses. Gal 3:16 refers to Christ as Abraham’s “seed”. Gal 4:4 speaks of Christ as “born of a woman.” Rev 12:9 speaks of the ancient serpent plotting the destruction of the Messiah, the child of the woman. The prophecy in Gen 3:15 will then refer to Christ who will eventually win over Satan (see also Ro 16:20; Heb 2:14).
The reasons for such interpretation include: [a] The offspring was referred to as of the woman. Jesus Christ was born of a woman (virgin Mary), not involving a man. [b] The offspring’s crushing the head of the serpent is a sign of the salvation of Jesus which deals a death blow to Satan. [c] The serpent striking the heel of the offspring points to the piercing of Christ’s feet in crucifixion or to the insignificance of the serpent’s strike (only the unimportant heel was struck) because Christ eventually resurrected. Some believe that bruising his heel refers to Satan’s repeated attempts to defeat Christ during His life on Earth.
[3] Other interpetations: Luther interpreted the seed to mean both humanity in general and Christ in particular. Calvin applied the “seed of the woman” to mean the church under the headship of Christ.
What was the immediate impact of the Fall on man?
The disobedience of man impacted 3 areas of human relationship. Before the Fall (in
[1] The relationship of man to God:
In
Outside
[2] The relationship of man to the environment:
In
Outside
[3] The interpersonal relationships within the human family:
In
Outside
Did pain and death occur before the Fall? What is the curse of the ground?
Most Christians believe that pain, decay, and death occurred only after the Fall. However, others (including some famous theologians) believe that these 3 conditions could have existed before the Fall. Schaeffer believes that orthodox Christians can have different opinions on whether animals (not man) died before the Fall.
[1] Pain: The Bible did not say the Fall caused the experience of pain. Pain has a function in alerting man to avoid danger and also to take care of injuries. (People infected with leprosy cannot feel pain and are in danger of sustaining serious injuries.) Before the Fall, Adam could have possessed the sensation of pain (perhaps less than our pain today) when he touched some thorns. [In God’s judgment of Adam in Gen 3:18, the inclusion of the thorns may signify that Adam knew that thorns were bad.] The Bible says that Eve’s pain in childbearing would be multiplied or greatly increased, indicating pain was perhaps a part of human experience. Even before the Fall, Adam had to work. After the Fall, his work became much harder and less efficient than it was before, causing him pain.
[2] Decay: Disorder (termed “entropy” in the second law of thermodynamics) is a natural tendency of things in the world. The simple example is the dropping of salt into water. The salt sinks to the bottom. Water and salt are separate and are clearly distinguishable and are in order. Yet, after the salt is dissolved in the water, the salt molecules spread to all parts of the water and the two are not indistinguishable and are in disorder. Since the Fall did not change physical laws which have been in effect since creation, the natural tendency to disorder has always been the rule. The tendency to disorder leads to decay. That is why some Christians believe that decay possibly existed before the Fall. The difficulty of this possition is that decay leads to death and most Christians believe that death did not exist before the Fall.
[3] Death of animals: Most Christians believe that there was no death before the Fall. Therefore, carnivorous activity by various animal species (those with cruel, bloodthirsty, wasteful characteristics) happened only after the Fall. On the other hand, in Gen 1:24-25, there were 2 different kinds of long-legged land mammals: [a] those that are easily domesticated and [b] those that are wild. The first group is herbivorous and the second, carnivorous. It is possible that their carnivorous activities occurred before the Fall. Futher, the carnivorous animals were probably created for a beneficial purpose. They go after the weakest, sickest, and most genetically damaged individuals, and effectively but indirectly enhancing the quality of species of their prey. This position, however, is a minority position. It should be noted that in Isa 65:25, probably describing the Millennium, carnivores will no longer eat herbivores.
[4] Death of man: Ro 5:12 describes that death came to man because of sin (also 1Co 15:21). [Note that the passage teaches about the cause of death of man, not death of animals.] Before the Fall, Adam had no sin and therefore should not have died. Death of man certainly came after the Fall.
o However, Calvin noted that Adam’s “earthly life truly would have been temporal; yet he would have passed into heaven without death,” thereby receiving eternal life.
[5] Curse of the ground: When God cursed the ground in Gen 3:17-18, only 2 changes are mentioned: [a] Adam’s work would be more difficult, and [b] thorns and thistles would grow to give Adam more problems. Minimally, these changes represent a corruption of the environment so that farming is no longer as easy as before. These environmental changes could include violent and unpredictable weather (hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, drought, rainstorms leading to floods, etc.), diseases, and insects (locusts, etc.). It is also probable that violent geological processes started to occur after the Fall, including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, earthflows, landslides, avalanches, etc.
† How could we resist temptations? We must realize that being tempted is not a sin. We have not sinned until we give in to the temptation. To resist temptation, we must: [a] pray for strength to resist, [b] run away, sometimes literally (2Ti 2:22), [c] say no, that is, resisting to commit the sin. Blessings and rewards wait for those who overcome temptations: “Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.” (Jas 1:12)
† The forbidden fruit represents human effort to be morally independent from God. When God’s commandments are ignored such as in the secular world today, all moral rules can only be relative, leading to moral relativism and subsequent moral corruption.
† Sin affects more than just the sinner. Adam’s Fall led to cursing of the ground. Widespread sin led to the Flood which killed all human beings (except 8 persons), birds, and animals, and destroyed the environment. Our sin can lead to downfall of our children or breaking up of our families.