Faith and Science
The Fall issue of the “Enrichment Journal”, put out by the Assembly of God, devoted a huge section to the issue of Faith and Science. This paper is in response to those articles and the published videos and papers from the “Inaugural Faith & Science Conference” held at Evangel University that inspired this issue. Also at issue is the Assembly of God’s position paper on creation that was changed in 2010. This paper backed down from the original position held by the Assemblies that God had indeed created the earth and all that is herein in six literal days and rested on the seventh. The reason given for the change was the advances in science that in their judgment rendered our acceptance of the plain understanding of the text as inconclusive.
Serious Concerns
Having gone over all of the material that was presented I have two serious concerns. First that there are some major important point that were not discussed or even mentioned. Secondly the ramification of the new position was not adequately addressed. In the introduction of the book, “Living With James”, the author, Rev. Joel Gunderson cautions us to handle the Word of God with care. He said, “We must learn to approach the Word of God with eager willingness to both learn and obey. At the same time we must use delicate caution lest in our eagerness we change its design or mar its beauty or twist its intent. When we depart from a confrontation with the Word of God, it must remain the same as when we came, only we must be different.”
Faith versus Science
There are those who would propose that faith and science are at odds. Some say they are at war with each other and because faith deals with the spiritual and science with the material we will never be able to reconcile them. People that make statements like this either don’t know what faith is or they don’t know what science is or maybe are confused about both. Many times discussions dealing with faith and science never stop to actually define what they are talking about. A conversation can become very confusing and frustrating if the people involved are talking different languages. The situation is even worse when people think they are talking the same language but have different definition for the key words in the conversation.
We live at a time when redefining words actually is working as a strategy to promote an agenda by confusing the issue. Here in Washington State the voters just approved a measure that redefines marriage. Issues that deal with marriage and family will never again be handled with any sense of clarity. There will be reams of paper trying to deal with the concepts of marriage and family that do not have clear boundaries any more. Confusion will reign furthering the agenda of those who feel that traditional marriage and family are outdated. Marriage and family have receive a great blow. Let us not make the same mistake in our discussion of faith and science. Let us clarify what we are talking about so that we can make informed decisions.
Defining Faith
Faith and Science have come to mean different things to different people. Even in the Christian community there are different understandings of what faith is. For some faith is belief. One dictionary definition says faith is believing something that can’t be proved. Understanding that faith has come to mean different things to different people we must first define what is meant by faith in this discourse on faith and science.
Faith, as used in the Bible is trust, confidence, or persuasion of that which is true. True faith then is not just wishful thinking. It is not belief that is contrary to, or in spite of, the evidence. Faith is trust in what we have come to accept as truth. And that trust is upheld by the evidence. And what is the most convincing evidence? Is it not the Word of God. Has not this proved to be reliable and trustworthy? That is why the Scripture says:
“So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Ro 10:17 AV)
In Romans 1:17 we read, “… : as it is written, The just shall live by faith.” A study of that word faith in the Scriptures shows us that faith and truth are so interlinked that the Hebrew word is often rendered truth in the English. The word believe or belief needs to also be mentioned here, for faith and belief are often used interchangeably. Belief is part of faith, for it refers to our mental assent, but faith must also include obedience and endurance (faithfulness) to adequately describe Biblical or saving faith.
Defining Science
Science also needs to be clarified, for this word also has come to mean different things to different people. The Biblical definition of science is simply: knowledge or truth. Webster’s definition is the same: the state of knowing or knowledge. Science is also defined as the search for truth. The modern twist on that is; the search for truth through naturalistic means. In other words that which is observed must be explained only by using the physical laws of nature. Science can also be referring to the scientific method which uses observation and experimentation to establish truth.
These different definitions would not be that hard to deal with in this discussion if it were not for the other things that are smuggled into the definitions of science that cannot honestly be termed science. (We could also say the same thing on the faith side of things too.) Theories and speculation are not science. They may be used as tools in science but are not to be confused with knowledge or truth. Used properly a hypothesis or conjecture can lead us in the direction of truth. But if we push our assumptions and supposition beyond the point where they violate science (verified knowledge) then we will be forced to support our theories with further speculation and conjecture. When theories and speculation are given the same weight as scientific law or truth then there is not only conflict with faith, but conflict within science itself.
Faith & Science
Therefore, since faith is trusting that which is true and science is knowing what is true, can we separate faith and science? Of course not. At first glance we may think that we can separate them along the spiritual versus physical line. But a second glance will show us that this is impossible. God is a spirit, His creation is physical, but I am both. My faith is not built solely on the spiritual. The revelation of God was transmitted spiritually through the prophets, but I received it in the physical either orally or in the written testament. I have had spiritual experiences when my spirit witnessed with His spirit. But I also have seen, heard, and felt the revelation of God through the physical world. The spiritual and the physical have worked together to develop my faith (trust in God), they are inseparable.
So if faith and science are inseparable, where is the conflict? The conflict is between those that study faith and science. Faith and science are both truth and theologians and scientists are both searching for truth, so what is the problem? Or should I say problems for there is more than one. I have tried to show you how that faith and science are inseparable and I believe that as we continue the discussion it will become even more apparent. So if we change our focus to conflict in general we will see that there is a lot more conflict between theologians and between scientists than there is between theologians and scientists. The point I am trying to make is that there is no conflict between faith and science. The conflicts arise from the opinions of those involved in seeking knowledge in their respected fields.
Engaging Our Minds
The introduction to the Faith & Science section of the “Enrichment Journal” was authored by George O. Wood, general superintendent of the General Council of the Assemblies of God. In this article he shares how a chapel speaker helped him see how that Christianity was based on facts, not feelings. That chapel speaker won George’s mind for Christ. I hope to strengthen George’s mindset for Christ as I attempt to separate fact from opinion, and faith from feeling. It is a trumped-up charge that there is conflict between faith and science. It is no different than the charge that faith is opposed to reason. That charge was leveled a Christianity at the beginning of the enlightenment. God has never asked us to leave our mind at the door. He has always encouraged us to seek wisdom and knowledge. In Isaiah 1:18 God invites us to come and reason with Him. But importantly He leads the discussion that follows. Reasoning needs to be lead by truth. Are you following me? God is concerned with our heart and mind but truth must lead the discussion, not follow.
“”I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve.”” (Jer 17:10 NIV)
“Test me, O LORD, and try me, examine my heart and my mind;” (Ps 26:2 NIV)
The Battle For Truth
I have tried to convince you that there is no battle between faith and science. Nor is there a battle between faith and reason. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a battle, for there is an intense battle. It is a battle of good against evil, truth against falsehood, and souls are at stake. The most vulnerable are our young people and the uninformed. George Wood recognizes that young people today are experiencing crises of faith similar to what he faced. He also recognizes that it was truth that set his feet on solid ground. Let us then keep our focus on truth, separating it from that which is not.
“Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.” (Joh 17:17 NIV)
In our technological scientific age it is very important for Christians (especially Christian pastors and educators) to keep abreast of what is happening and where it is taking us. Computer technology for instance has advanced so fast and far that it can leave your head spinning. This has opened access to knowledge in a phenomenal ways that have been exciting and challenging. For the Christian this has provided powerful tools for evangelism, research, communication, etc, etc. But it has also opened dangerous doors that possibly can with a click violate the sanctity of our homes and families. With all this tremendous volume of knowledge at our fingertips, so is confusion, for the lies, perversions, innuendoes, misinformation, etc., are interspersed indiscriminately amongst that which is true. We need discretion. Knowing and understanding God’s Word is now more important than ever. It is our fixed reference point in a changing world. His Word is Truth.
God’s Word is Truth
God’s Word has never been more accessible than it is today. Not only do most people have multiple copies and versions in their homes, but we have computers. Computers and software features have greatly enhanced our ability to study God’s Word. Yet for the most part even amongst the Christian community many are Biblical illiterate. My discussions with people reveal that most people can tell you more about what people say the Bible says than what the Bible actually says. I am pointing out these things simply to remind us that our most reliable source of truth is the Word of God. It is precisely in this area that God’s people have failed in the past and resulted in their destruction.
“my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. “Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children.” (Ho 4:6 NIV)
Bad Science
When I first started dealing with computers I had some disappointing experiences as I struggled to learn what I needed and how it all worked. Most of the time it was because of bad information, or you might say bad science. Not everything I was told was true. I actually passed on bad information a time or two. I got to the place that I had to see it work first before I would pass on that information that I thought I had. It is not a good feeling when you realize that you have made a fool of yourself and cause people grief in the process.
As George Wood is introducing Faith & Science he makes the mistake of categorizing good science with bad science. Good science is truth, bad science is false or even worse, for it may be misinformation with the intent to deceive. The science, technology, engineering, and mathematics that have created computers, cell phones, GPS devices, medical advances, etc. ,etc., are examples of things that are based on good science. But George goes on to include areas that are called science but are in an entirely different category than the operational sciences that find their conclusion through the scientific method of observation and experiments. If we want to in good faith call these areas science then we must distinguish them as historical science or better yet speculative science.
Speculative science is by no means new. Those speculations from the past that were insightful and bore resemblance to later scientific discoveries are heralded as genius. Whereas those that later proved to have little resemblance to the discovered facts are usually set aside as mythology or old wives tales. History considered, it is not very wise to adjust your beliefs or direction based upon speculative science.
The Challenge
Those who do not have our faith (trust and confidence) in the Bible have always challenged its authenticity and our understanding of it. I believe the Scriptures have stood the test of time and will continue to be vindicated as truth is revealed. But one of the issues before us now is that those who testify as to having our faith are now challenging our understanding of some key foundational creation verses. It is therefore necessary that we take this very seriously and examine the evidence that has been presented. Since all the parties involved have stated their confidence in the authority of God’s Word and the inerrancy of Scripture, we should share this as common ground. I want to deal with two questions that were raise in the discussion on Faith & Scripture. First: Was our world and all that is in it created in six literal days? Secondly: Does it matter or affect our faith if we are to believe one of the other scenarios as presented by Hugh Ross, Amos Yong, or Davis A. Young?
Faith and Logic
If something is logical it has been through deductive and inductive arguments judged good reasoning. If it is illogical it has been judged bad reasoning. My theory coming from a Biblical world view is as follows. Just because it seems logical does not make it true, simply because we may not have all the facts to incorporate in our arguments. But if it is true then it will be logical. God’s Word is truth, therefore when deductive and inductive arguments are applied it will stand the test of good reasoning and is logical. That is why it is always wise to start with God’s Word. As we gain knowledge and understanding we will find that the facts of science will vindicate the Word of God as truth.
In the Beginning
Keeping all of this in mind we need to realize the great difference there is as we move from operation science, that which has precise checks and balances, to speculative science, that is trying to piece together a puzzle that has most of the pieces missing. As George Wood points out, it is in this search for our origins that “science sometimes seems to crowd out faith, calling into question Biblical teaching on creation.” This is a very mild way to say it, for indeed there are intense forces trying to discredit those important foundational chapters of Genesis.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Ge 1:1 NIV)
Let us first examine the Scripture. After we first look at what Scripture says then we will go on to examine the science of it. All of us seem to agreement on the first verse, so we will move on from there.
“Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” (Ge 1:2 NIV)
A discussion of this verse would already show a difference of opinion between me and some of the participants in this discussion. I would like to move past some of that possible controversy for now and establish some facts first and if time permits we can revisit the implications of this verse and why different perspectives will foster different opinions. I think we can all agree on this point, that this verse describes the condition of the earth on the first day of creation.
It is obvious from the text that this is a historical, eye witness account. It was dictated for the understanding of Adam’s race. Perversions of the creation history and flood history made it necessary for God to establish the written record. He chose the seed of Abraham to accomplish that task. Through Moses this Word has come down to us.
“And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night”. And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.” (Ge 1:3-5 NIV)
I will try to stick with the facts and avoid as many assumptions as possible. The earth was covered with water and darkness covered the deep. Then God said, “Let there be light”, and there was. We don’t know the source of the light because we are not told. God spoke, there was light, the light was good.
Several things are clear from this text. Time as we know it was created. God separated the light from the darkness, night and day. In these scriptures the word day is used to refer to the day light hours and also as the complete cycle of darkness and light. In both cases it is clearly defined.
As we follow through these days of creation we will see that it was written in such a way that it would be clearly understood in Moses day, and it is also clear to us who have advanced scientific knowledge. The cycle of evening and morning as the first day would have clearly communicated to the ancient Hebrew a normal 24 hour day. Our scientific understanding that God accomplished the separation of light from darkness by the rotation of the earth only solidifies that understanding in our day (notice how this usage of day is also clear in my text). And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day.
We have just gone through one of the most clearly precise texts you will ever find. God has described the creation of a day defined by the rotation of the earth and declared that this was the first day. There are no Hebrew scholars that with intellectual honesty can deny that the word “day” as defined here is talking about a normal day, the rotation of the earth through one cycle. As we follow the text through the six days of creation the wordage does not change. Creation is described as taking place in six literal earth days that linguistically speaking can’t be mistaken for anything else. The argument that “day”, or “yom” in Hebrew, can be used to mean period of the day, or a full day, or a distinct period of time, is irrelevant. Because it is the text that communicates the meaning. It can’t be communicated any clearer in any language than it is here without using a calendar. But then which calendar would He have used? God knows best.
If you wondered why some are trying to insist that Genesis is poetry or an analogy, now you know. The text is clear. God’s purpose is not to provide us with a science text book, but what is written in this creation account is in perfect harmony with modern science. The details that are given to us in this account are all important. The order in which God created, the distinct kinds and their reproduction, their diet, and even time frame of creation all are necessary to provide us with a description of a created world that adheres to our scientific understanding of how things work. One of the things that is hidden both from this text and from science is the secret of life itself.
If we are to look only at the Scripture with intellectual honesty we would have to conclude that God created the world and all that is herein in six normal earth days.
Reconstructing the Past
Faith has always given Christians a great advantage in all disciplines of science. The acceptance of design and purpose as “truth” has inspired a quest for understanding rather than a tendency to categorize what is not understood as junk. This is brought out very powerfully in many of Dr. David Menton’s lectures, which include, “The Hearing Ear and the Seeing Eye”, and his teaching series, “Body of Evidence”. This advantage is intensified when we deal with history, especially ancient history. Historical science is attempting to use science to reach back and uncover our very beginning. Rather than just blindly accepting historical science’s reconstruction of the past, we need to answer some fundamental questions. Such as: What are the actual facts? Do the facts that have been uncovered conflict with our understanding of Scripture? How does science date the evidence they have uncovered? Are their dating systems verifiable?
History itself can be very subjective. The perspective of the author and sources of his information lend great weight as to how we view the authenticity of what is written. The closer to the actual people and events the sources are, the more likely it is that the record of those events is accurate. More importantly is the integrity, credibility, and reputation of the author. Even when we have an eye witness accounts we have to realize that we as people see things from a very narrow perspective. Several eye witness accounts of the same event give us a much broader perspective. We also need to keep in mind that only God can truly see things circumspectly.
How accurate are we at deciphering the past? An example of our vulnerability in judging the past can be seen in the overturning of court cases with the introduction of DNA evidence. Just this one small piece of scientific evidence can change our entire perspective of the truth in an incident of history. The court’s judgment in a case could go from guilty to innocent or vice versa.
Modern science has certainly provided us with new tools to interpret evidence. Our interest in these matters is reflected in the number of TV programs that are devoted to solving crimes using modern technology. Even though most of these programs are fabricated stories there are truths that we can gather from them. Science has given us tools to discover facts from the past that were not available before. We might be able to say it was his hair, his blood, and his fingerprint, But even if we add video footage we still will have questions, because that video may be only from one angle.(Think about how people are still arguing over a close play in sports years after the fact.) But what if the evidence is not available to analyze? The more time goes by the more chance that evidence will be destroyed. Less evidence decreases our ability to reproduce and accurate picture of the past.
Crime scenes are recent history and can use those organic elements, eye witnesses, and other delicate evidence in an undisturbed scene. These are elements that are usually missing from ancient archeological digs. Archeologists rely on sketchy remains from a preserved site. Most of their conclusions are guesses at best. Archeologist’s will testify that they interpret the evidence. If we find and arrow head we can make some pretty good assumptions of what the arrow looked like because of our familiarity with its modern counterpart. But occasionally someone will find something that we are not familiar with. These are the areas where there is a great diversity of speculation.
Back to the Beginning
Historical science has attempted to take us back to the very beginning of time, to our very origin. I have tried to point out some obvious difficulties in clearly defining the past. All of those problems are magnified as scientists attempt that huge leap back in history to the very beginning. Yet they have come to conclusions. Can we trust those conclusions? We know that they have much less truth or evidence to deal with than the archeologists that provide us with a sketchy picture of the past. How much evidence do they have? What is the basis of their conclusions? Should we believe them? Should we adjust our understanding of Scripture based upon their conclusions?
Evidence in the Present
We have before us two sources of information, Scripture and science. Both in their purest form we believe to be truth. Scripture is the written testimony or revelation of God. Science is God’s testimony or revelation through the laws that govern our physical existence. I think that it is logical to look at both of these to answer the question of how old the earth is. I have attempted to briefly show how difficult it is to reconstruct the past. As we look at these two records we need to realize that we are limited to examining these records only in the present. I cannot stand where Adam stood, or Abram stood, or Moses stood. Yet there are volumes of evidence that have convinced me to have a tremendous confidence in the authenticity of this testimony.
On the other hand we need to understand that historical science can only be viewed by the evidence that still exists in the present. That evidence has to be interpreted and is very subjective because of its extreme sketchiness. Imagine with me making sense of the film “Gone With the Wind” from only one picture frame. We cannot dismiss the facts that we see in this frame, but we have to remember that the interpretation of those facts are highly subjective. Our interpretation is going to be influenced by the knowledge we have of our present world and what we believe from the testimony of those voices from the past.
Our World View Perspective
How we interpret the evidence is very much contingent upon our world view. In this paper I am attempting to present a view of creation from my world view. I hope that that view is becoming clear through my attention to definitions and details. As we look at the evidence in nature through the eyes of science it becomes critical that we distinguish science from the opinion of scientists. It becomes especially critical when we are dealing with scientists who do not have our world view. Mainline science in general has dismissed the supernatural as a force to be considered. In other words they approach science from the perspective that there is no God and everything can be explained by natural forces or the laws of nature. This world view is dominate and dominating in the world of science today. This trend was presented very powerfully in the documentary film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, hosted by Ben Stein. To be sure many scientists do not entirely adhere to this atheistic perspective, but the persistent view does influenced their thinking.
“since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Ro 1:19-20 NIV)
That which was created certainly is a testimony of who God is and some attributes of His character, especially to those who study creation. But if they reserve no place in their thoughts for God in their world view, they fulfill the following scripture.
“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Ro 1:22 NIV)
Where We Start
My world view begins with: “In the beginning God …”. Without God where do other people begin? In the beginning hydrogen, or matter, or whatever … And where do they go from there? My world view says God created … God is eternal. Their world view says things evolved, matter or energy is eternal. Where we start determines where we will end up. It is in essence our foundation. It is a point that must be defensible and guarded at all costs, because if the foundation is not true then all that is built on it will crumble. I have confidence in my foundation, it has stood the test of time and every test in time. Their foundation has been found deficient as I will continue to point out in the paper. That is why in scientific circles, public education, and politics it is forbidden to question evolution. They not only guard their foundation, but forbid an examination of it.
Billions of Years
Why is it so important when our world was made? According to my world view God created the world in six days 6000 plus years ago. Scientist say it was 4.54 billion years ago. I believe what I do because the Bible so clearly reveals this information. But If the Scripture had said that it took a long time it would not have upset my world view. The reason is simply that through the Scripture and creation God has revealed Himself to be powerful beyond my comprehension. With my view of God, He could have told me that He made the world in 6 minutes or 6 billion years and I would believe Him. My faith is not contingent upon the time scale, God is almighty and awesome. But it is contingent upon what he said.
On the other hand the evolutionary world view is dependent upon a vast amount of time. Not that anything has ever evolved, but the illusion requires a mind bending expanse of time to delude other into accepting it. Evolution is essential to their world view. Without it their world view collapses and they have nothing. Christians don’t need billions of years, atheists do.
Evolution
Evolution is the central issue. Evolution is to the evolutionist as God is to the Christian. This is not the foundation of science as they claim. It is anti-science, but it is foundational to what is being disguised as science. It is very important that we spend a few moments on this subject. This is a lie that is affecting people’s perception of that which is real.
I want to get past the generic definition that evolution is change. We need to move past the arguments of micro or macro. We need to get right to the heart of the matter. Evolution as it is usually used means a progression from lesser to greater complexity. It is “a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state”. It is referred to as science, or a “scientific theory” on the same level as gravity. It is religiously guarded and treated as sacred. If we take the mask off we will see that it is not science or even scientific, it is a religion, a belief system. If I said that evolutionists have faith in their system I would be misleading you, for we as Christian’s have a faith that is sustained by the evidence. What evolutionist believe is better called blind faith, for there is not one shred of evidence. Their faith is sustained by necessity, for without evolution their entire world view collapses.
Biological Evolution
According to the most recent estimates our bodies are made up of 50 to 75 trillion cells. According to evolutionists we have through the evolutionary process arrived here from the simple beginnings of a single living cell? We aren’t just a collection of random cells but each of our cells is specialized in one way or another to perform a task. Indeed the whole concept of life is so mind boggling that it is in many ways beyond our comprehension. With the introduction of millions of years the evolutionists proposes that this evolution from one cell to 50 trillion cell happened through the process of time and chance. Mathematically this is impossible, billions of years would not be enough. Never-the-less they insist that it did happen in less than a billion years. Given the number of changes in the numerous species on earth at this time it requires evolution to be an ongoing process. Yet no one has ever seen, let alone documented, a single example of evolutionary change. How can this be? Can there be a process of nature that has had such a dramatic effect, and yet has never ever been observed?
Modern science has afforded us insight into the workings of life itself. We have seen the tiny mechanisms that duplicate chromosomes and DNA. We have been able to study life from its simple cell beginning to a mature adult. But the evolutionary process eludes us. In our humble beginning as a simple cell is the pre-determined information of what our adult form will be. Every living thing from a one celled animal to a human the pattern is the same, nothing evolves. Logically, hypothetically, theoretically, we should be able to observe this process taking place everywhere, yet we can’t even document one instance in all of recorded history.
The problem is that there are laws in nature. Even in the most chaotic situations there is still semblance of order because matter behaves in predictable ways. Evolution require things to behave without regard or contrary to these laws that have been observed in nature. Not everything in nature is understood by science. We don’t fully understand gravity, but we can observe it, measure it, and predict its effect. Evolution can’t be observed or measured, let alone predicted. From the laws of physics we can predict that things won’t evolve, and that prediction holds true in our observations.
Darwin’s, “survival of the fittest”, concept could not provide a mechanism for living things to evolve to a more complex organism. Modern science has revealed that survival of fittest merely segregates those organisms that already have those attributes that give it the advantage for survival. Time and chance actually are counterproductive to a superior species since the most adept specimen may be killed in an accident.
“I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favour to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.” (Ec 9:11 NIV)
Mutations
The study of mutations has indeed inspired the imaginations of the evolutionist. But it is only in the imagination that mutations have been helpful for evolution. A mutation is a genetic defect or damage. The extremely rare cases in which a mutation is heralded as an advantage also usually comes with a cost. Damaged pieces can in nowise be considered as evolution, progressing from less to greater complexity or even assisting it. Mutations can be passed on to a species offspring. A general rule of thumb is that mutations are harmful. In a handful of cases a mutation may give a temporary advantage. If we were to examine the overall effect though we would see that it is not progressive evolution but a degenerative trait that does not strengthen the species.
The Best Evidence
If no one has ever seen evolution, it defies logic, it defies the laws of physics, and it is mathematically impossible, then what are the so called proofs of evolution? A web search will list all of the things we have mentioned and several others. Foremost in this list will be the fossil record.
There are billions of fossils. But under normal conditions living things do not make fossils when they die, it take some sort of catastrophe. Floods present the best ideal condition for fossils to form. A world wide flood that was intended to destroy the world would make quite an impression. It is interesting that we do have that record so clearly represented in the fossil record.
Under ideal condition fossils can form fairly quickly. There are modern objects that have fossilized. But no matter when the fossil was made we can only view that object in the present. So what is it in the fossil record that evolutionist look at as proof? Scientists look for similarities, bone structure, shape, etc, etc. If you look at their best evidence they will point to a fossil of an animal that has similarities with at least two different animals. Their interpretation (from the assumption that evolution is true) is that it a logical progression from one species to another. Even from their narrow world view these “transitional fossils” are very rare. If your conversation with evolutionist is about “transitional fossils” they will emphasize the incompleteness of the fossil record.
The story changes dramatically when you start talking about fossils in general. There are billions of fossils. They will be the first to point out the multitude of fossils we have of extinct species, especially marine fossils. What they don’t like to admit is that many of these fossils are amongst those that look just like the organisms that are alive today.
So is there a discrepancy here? Are fossils rare, or are they plentiful? The answer is yes. Most living things die and do not become fossils. They simply decay through natural processes or are devoured by another animal. But if there is a disaster or cataclysmic event, like a flood, and that living thing is cover with mud or silt, then it will not rapidly decay but leave an imprint wherein the living tissue is replaced with minerals. That is the short version of a long story. Fossils are preserved in sedimentary rock, in other words rock that has been formed by water laying down sediment. Understanding how fossils are formed doesn’t seem to equate to the vast graveyards of huge animals that we have discovered. Nor does it account for the billions of fossils that are found in abundance all over the world. Nor does it account for the places that we find fossils, such as on mountains. Unless of course we consider the Biblical account of a worldwide flood intended to destroy the entire world and all living people and animals.
The evolutionary tale of this fossil record is one that is continually evolving. Evolutionists are continually devising hypotheses to explain the apparent discrepancies and anomalies that undermine their theory. The concept that these layers of earth were laid down over millions of years simply violates the science of observation and experimentation. We know how fossils form. We know rock layers can form rapidly, it is happening everyday as we pour concrete. In nature when the proper ingredients are present it can happen almost as fast.
The eruption of Saint Helens in Washington State presented a visual of how things can and do happen. We were, in our present time, given insight into a multitude of geological formations and how they can form. Formations, strata, sedimentation, lake formation, and canyons being carved,all happened before our eyes. And to the shock of scientists these things that were assumed to take millions of years happened in hours, days and weeks. Did this make a difference in the academia of mainline science? Of course not. Evolution is not about the facts it is a belief system that is heavily guarded.
“Six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” (Ex 20:9-11 NIV)
The Scripture is very clear about how long it took to create the earth. But what about the science of radiometric dating? If we are to believe the Bible how do we reconcile it with radiometric dating? Before we begin to make excuses and make elaborate schemes to reconcile the two, let us first look at the facts.
Radiocarbon Dating
Radiocarbon dating is able to compare this decay rate by comparing it to the amount of carbon in living beings today. Radiocarbon dating is only used on substance that were once alive. Without going into a lot of detail, radiocarbon can only date to a max of 50,000 years. This is the most verifiable dating methods because we can cross check our dates with known dates of things that were once alive. The older the specimen the more subjective this method becomes, because there are assumptions that have to be made. One assumption has to do with the amount of contamination that has occurred with the specimen. The other important assumption is if in past history the amount of carbon in our atmosphere has always been the same. We can most assuredly be certain that that amount has not remained constant over the past 6,000 years, especially if we consider the account of the Biblical flood. If the amount of carbon was different in the past it would throw off older date considerably.
Radiometric Dating
So scientist have to use other radiometric systems to date older rocks. Radiometric dating looks at the decay of certain isotopes, comparing the amount of these isotopes in a substance and comparing that amount to the amount of daughter atoms that were created. Assuming that scientist have accurately determined the decay rate for these isotopes, and that rate remains constant, and there is no contamination it would appear that this could be used to accurately date certain rocks. Assuming of course that there aren’t any other assumptions. The problem is that these systems are so riddled with assumptions that when scientist get a date that they don’t accept they just assume that it is wrong and throw it out until they get a number that makes sense to them.
It would make sense to check out these systems on something we know the age of. How about the lava from Mount Saint Helens, which erupted in 1980. I think it was dated to be 350,000 years old. H’m that don’t sound right. How about Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand, it erupted in 1949, 1954, and 1974. The samples ranged from .27 to 3.5 million years. Obviously these methods don’t work on recent samples, but I’m sure they are much more accurate on older samples? Steve Austin checked samples of lava from a volcano on the rim of the Grand Canyon that had flowed over the rim to the bottom. He compared that sample with a sample from one of the foundational layers in the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Oddly enough the recent lava flow was 270 million years older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon that were supposedly 1 billion years older.
An in-depth analysis of radiological dating method and accuracy would take a week, but I think I have made the point that we cannot verify these methods and they are riddled with assumptions and contradictions. We must also consider that the initial creation process would not fit our paradigm of natural events. How this event affected the mother and daughter atoms we are talking about is anybody’s guess. There certainly isn’t enough demonstrability in radiometric dating to provide a case strong enough to challenge God’s Word with.
In addition radiometric dating provides us with no help in dating sedimentary rocks where fossils are found. Those layers are dated by the fossils that are found in them. And the fossils that are found in them are dated by the layers in which they are found. These checks and balances keep things systematic anyway.
It Is All About Evolution
Creationist that are compromising God’s clear declaration that He created “the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” in six days, seem to be ignoring this simple fact: It is still all about evolution. The whole reason that scientists are insisting on vast periods of time is so they can replace God and His creative process with evolution through time and chance. I am writing this to those of you who think that it is necessary or even acceptable to compromise. The minute that you suggest that those creation days were long periods of time you submit to the evolutionary concept. I have tried to show you that nature defies such an inclusion. All of the elements of those six creation days are necessary for life on earth to exist as we know it. God knows this better than us, for it’s His design. It is my belief that he stretched that process over six days for our benefit, not because of His ability.
I don’t think that most people are aware of how evolutionary thinking has permeated our society. Although Darwin was not the first to introduce evolutionary concepts, it is his promotion of the idea through biological evolution that has catapulted this idea forward in our era. It is an evolutionary mindset that causes the geologist to interpret the evidence as he does. Without evolutionary thinking it would be logical that simple organism would be buried in lower strata caused by a cataclysmic flood. The fossil order in the geological record is easily explained because of the nature of the organisms being buried. I am proposing that the pre-conceived notion of evolution has greatly influenced the interpretation of geological evidence. And it doesn’t end here. It seems like every field of study has been influence by evolutionary thinking. It is about time we took a step back and look at the direction we are going.
Evolution is a mindless, purposeless, process of things moving from less complex to greater complexity. As I have been trying to show you it has never been observed, yet people are putting their trust in this concept to help them understand the world around them. We have looked at how it is applied to biology and geology. With acceptance at this level comes the application to human development, knowledge, intelligence, politics, culture, etc, etc. But it is also widely accepted in areas where there is no life or growth. Let’s take a brief look at astronomy.
Evolution In Space
Because we have not been able to verify life in the rest of the universe beyond our own planet we are limited to studying energy and mass (material) E=mc2. Isn’t it interesting that it is here, far away from the Galapagos Islands where no life exist, that evolution is so prominently used to explain the evidence we have before us? What we observe seems to be in contrast with the explanations that are used. What we see is an aging universe. Stars are in the process of changing matter into heat and light. Yet we are told that in this process that started with a big bang, stars form, planets form, elements come together in marvelous ways which can result in planets that look just like ours. In fact they say that is exactly how we evolved. Mass plus energy plus time will give you sophisticated operating system. Considering all the trillions of stars, doesn’t it seem odd that no one has ever witness the birth of a star? And if you did wouldn’t it be devolving from the minute you saw it?
Evolutionary thinking has been applies to almost everything in our culture. It’s affecting how we view ourselves, our faith, and how we relate to God. If we use the term “primitive man” we automatically think of a person of lower intelligence than we have today. Adam was the most intelligent man that ever existed. Since his time we have devolved. True science confirms that we are with time genetically breaking down. It is easy to equate the accumulated knowledge that we have today to intelligence. If you turn off the electricity most young people won’t come across as that intelligent. We are not evolving. Our improvements come through hard work and using our intelligence.
From every field of science we observe a world, a solar system, and a universe that are growing old. Yet there is an observed order that keeps things functioning in a reasonable fashion.
“He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.”” (Heb 1:10-12 NIV)
“He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Col 1:17 NIV)
Nothing is evolving. These scriptures give us that insight into the things we observe so that they make sense. God is holding all things together as they grow old.
One more area I want to visit before we finish our discussion of evolution, and that is faith or religion. There are volumes of material that will follow the evolution of religion. Of course they are wrong. When Adam walked and talked with God the relationship was perfect. After the fall things devolve very quickly. It is the same thing with Christianity. This is not an evolving religion. We see Christianity in its perfection in the life of Christ. The early Church experience is one that we strive to repeat. Christianity has a tendency to devolve just like everything else. What keeps it vibrant is that we occasionally return to our roots and seek to renew what has been lost. Which brings me to my next point.
Perceived Evolution
When anything progresses from simple to complex it is because an intelligence is behind that thrust. When man is that force that creates something he is usually still in the process of learning. If we follow the development of computers we acknowledge it was a process of trial and error. Little discoveries of key principles allowed for huge leaps in progress. It is somewhat understandable then when men seem to have a tendency to imagine God’s acts of creation to proceed in the same fashion. But this thinking is the product of man turning reality upside-down and man creating God in his own image. It is we who have been made in the likeness of God. We are a creative intelligent being, but we are not God. When God created the world He did not have to develop it in incremental steps, because He knew what He was doing. When God made something it was truly good.
When man sinned he brought a curse on the earth. The judgment of man in Noah’s day also left indelible scars on the world. We have since seen great strides made to make life more comfortable on the cursed planet. Things have evolved in this sense, but through the intellect that God has given us and not through natural processes. Our creative process works like an evolution because we are still learning. Sometimes our trials end up in errors, sometimes we improve upon what we have discovered. Nothing ever evolves without added information from an intelligent source.
Could God Use Evolution?
Why would it not be possible that God used evolution and maybe directed it? This really is the proposal that many creationist are proposing. The answer is found both in science and in Scripture. Both would answer with a resounding NO. As I have pointed out there is no mechanism in all of creation that would cause something to go from simple to complex except man. The Scripture on the other hand is filled with reasons why God did not and cannot use evolution in His acts of creation. From the beginning all plants and animals produced after their own kind. Science confirms this and is required to work within those bounds created by God. At the end of every day God examined His work and it was good. At the end of the sixth day when God’s creation was complete He examined it and said it was very good.
Much could be said about the attributes of God that are revealed in Scripture. There is nothing in those attributes that would allow us to even imagine that God would use death and disease to perfect His creation. Death is the result of sin. Man brought the curse not only on himself, but on all creation. Evolutionist propose that through death and destruction we experience progression. When we take the time to analyze this proposal we find just how ludicrous it is. They have taken our worst enemy, death, and elevated it as our savior. Individually of course no one wins in their system , for individuals are just meat for the grinder that will eventually produce the ultimate product of evolution. Satan knows what that product is, it is pride.
How in absolute contrast is this message from our creator. Life progresses and grows, it is driven by a glorious design and purpose. That design in marred by death and decay. But there is redemption through our Lord Jesus Christ, who has conquered death. Death is conquered through a new birth, a glorious creation, eternal in nature. Each individual is not just another stepping stone, but each and every one was designed to have a glorious eternal future in the presence of our creator.
Incompatible
Can you not see how incompatible it would be for God to combine these two systems? It is science that has opened the door of our understanding that life does not evolve but stems from a defined predetermined plan. God has in these last days allowed us to see as if it were into the very mind of God as we recognize that in the DNA of every living thing is the blueprint of what it is to become. We can now follow the unfolding revelation of all that was written on that DNA in code, as each individual comes to physical maturity.
It is only through the Scripture that we will true understanding of what we see in science. It is in the foundational chapters of Genesis that we learn of how sin entered the world to bring death. When we study genetics that is what we see. As time goes on there are an increasing number of mutations and genetic defects in our genes. These lead to an increasingly number of diseases and death. This is in fact the opposite of evolution and it is seen in all creatures. It is no wonder that we have lists on extinct species, but no new ones.
There is no mechanism for creation in nature. The whole concept of trying to explain how we got here by using evolution is as ridiculous as me trying to explain how I made myself. But any and all examinations of things in the physical world will convince us of the incredible design and organization. It leaves us with no other alternative than to acknowledge that there has to be a creator. Those of us that have faith all believe this. Yet there will be many who even after reading this will still say that the whole argument over the length of days in unimportant. Why can’t we just move on and talk about something that is important? For those of you still there please bear with me a few more minutes.
Why Does It Matter?
The Scripture does not reveal to us every detail of history or of science. In fact it is a very sketchy account of both. Knowing that this is the revelation from God we must conclude that everything written here is of great importance. This is first and foremost why we should consider the revelation that “in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day”, as very important.
I have already pointed out in the beginning of the paper how very important it is that we handle properly the Word of God. Many theologians have take great leeway with the Word of God to promote their ideas and concepts. My personal belief is that God’s Word was dictated so that we could easily understand it. For the most part it was not intended as something that needed to be interpreted. That doesn’t mean that we don’t acknowledge that some of it is historical narrative, some poetry, some prophesy, etc.. Neither does it mean that I don’t acknowledge that it has great depths to be explored. I mean that God’s purpose and intention as revealed in His Word is to make it possible for everyone to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Foundation of Doctrine
In reading these first important chapters of Genesis we are seeing the foundation of every doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ. Let me name a few: Creation, purpose, our relationship to God, choice, the lie, sin, consequences, the curse, death, sacrifice, atonement, hope, promise, and so forth. If we undermine just one of the principles laid out for us here it will bring a distortion of the message of the gospel in our day. This may not have the same devastating effect on someone who has experienced the love of God in his life as it would have on someone trying to find his way. Never-the-less a undermining of the foundation will lead to further deterioration and danger to everything built on that foundation.
For Example
Let us just say that we take one of the stances that a creation day was not a normal earth day. Evolution is ruled out because it is anti-science and anti-God. Where do we go from here? I suggest that we have just entered the twilight zone where nothing is as it seems. It would be necessary for God to magically uphold his creation for thousands of years until all things were in place for him to institute the laws of nature that require all of creation to produce the necessary balance we see today. Without that balance life as we know it cannot exist. If you honestly look at the situation scientifically you are forced to do as Hugh Ross does and resort to that magical force of evolution to explain what science cannot. The result is that we create more questions than answers forcing us to either just blindly believe what scientist tell us or to believe that God created the earth in six days.
Irreducible complexity is not only true of every organism that God created but also true of His creation as a whole. In the early 90’s scientists tested their understanding of the balances of nature with Biosphere 2. With all the sources of living things that God had provide for them to work with and with all the scientific knowledge at their fingertips, they could not make it work. In spite of the fact that incredible preparation proceeded this experiment. We need to take a step back a see just how sensitive every detail in our whole solar system is to creating an ideal place for us to live. Only by God bringing all things together and organizing them perfectly does the world we know function. Timing is crucial. Drawing the creation process out to any substantial degree would require some serious adjustments throughout the process.
Purpose
When we begin to mess with the simple explanation that God created our world in six days we start to lose the message God is giving us about the purpose of this creation. God was preparing a place for man to live and work. God created man to have fellowship with Him. God is a God of purpose. When he wanted a chicken, He made a chicken, not a dinosaur. When God wanted a horse, He made a horse, not a sea creature. The Bible is very clear on this point. Science confirms this. God’s creation has endless variety even within the kinds. But the boundaries and purpose of God are clear.
Order
God created in a specific order, day one through day six. This order defies the challenge of long days. But the order speaks of the nature and purpose of God Himself which is reflected in the nature of His created world. Listen to Hugh Ross as he takes great latitude with both the Scripture and science as he forces long periods into the order in which God declares.
“God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.” (Ge 1:16 NIV)
God says he made the two great lights and the stars on the fourth day. Hugh Ross says that the stars and the sun was made long before the fourth day.
Blessing
God blessed his creatures that they would produce after their own kind. Plants, birds, sea creatures, land creatures, animals, and man were all designed to reproduce after their own kind. And God said it was good. Long day ages are simply not compatible to God’s blessing and repeated declaration of after their kind. There is no room for evolution.
Sustenance
God gave both animals and man vegetation for food. Of course this is not compatible to the concept of animals killing animals as things evolve. But there is no reason for long ages unless we are pushing the concept of evolution.
Man
“the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” (Ge 2:7 NIV)
Man was formed from the dust of the earth, in God’s image. Woman was made from that man’s flesh and bone. Male and female created He them. And when they were created He called them “man”. Every word of every phrase in Genesis is important for our understanding of God’s purpose and plan. In this case we learn essential principles for our relationship between male and female. These principles are being challenged in our present culture as never before. At what point in the Genesis narrative do we begin to take these words to literally mean what they say. Jesus took these words literally and taught them. We should too.
Will Misuse Lead to License?
As we move on to the fall of man and the curse that came upon mankind and all of creation because of man’s sin, our handling of the word of God becomes critical. If we allow the compromise of the clear reading of the Scriptures by saying that an evening and a morning of a certain day can be a long period of time, then people will take leeway where ever they see fit. Truth then become relative to the time and place that you live in. Before we know it man’s logic has trumped the Word of God. Subtle questioning can lead to open rebellion.
Can Science Sort It Out?
If we try to compromise only in those areas where science (actually scientists claims) seems to conflict with our understanding of Scripture, then we open a theological nightmare. If God created through death and disease then what kind of God is he? When man sinned what happened? What does it mean when God curses the ground? Is it just a less pleasant place for animals to kill each other? Do we know more about God than Adam did? Because of our 20th century knowledge is God able to reveal more about Himself to us then He did to Moses? How do long days distort our understanding of how sin entered the world through one man? What does it mean when Jesus died to redeem the world from sin?
Did We Reach A Preconceived Conclusion?
You see, what was attempted at the, “Inaugural Faith & Science Conference”, was to allow believers the leeway to believe any of the creation theories that retain God as creator. Each of those theories has their own baggage and challenges to reconcile it to the rest of Scripture. In an attempt to allow believers to retain their confidence in scientists ideas, while embracing the Faith, we’ve opened a can of worms. I am not questioning that the intent was to break down barriers that are making it hard for people in the 21st century to believe. I am saying that this is the wrong direction. The right direction is to present the truth in its purity. It is the truth that will overcome those barriers. Thy Word is Truth.
From my perspective this conference was very slanted toward the acceptance of the theory that God did not create the world and all that is herein in six literal days. There were great resources out there that could have been presented to give it a more balanced presentation. “From Evolution to Creation” a DVD by Dr. Gary Parker would have been a good choice. Of course my preference would have been to slant it in favor of the literal reading of Scripture. Science can be our friend or our enemy, it all depends upon who is wielding it.
Fact and Fantasy
We live at a time when the line between fact and fantasy is being blurred as never before. Young people are spending more time in cyber space than they are in the real world. Technology can create illusions like never before. It is now more important than ever to properly discern truth from fiction. The Assemblies of God leadership has adjusted our position on the age of the earth based upon peoples understanding of science. In doing so they have veered from the plain clear language of the Bible. There is no other book in all of history that has been examined as much or as thoroughly as the Bible.
All of this poses a giant question in my mind. Why didn’t the science come under close examination? How well would the science confirming the age of the earth have stood up if it was subjected to the same scrutiny applied to scripture? Why have all the presentation been with the assumption that science has definitively determined earth is old? Where is the proof? I questioned their opinions with science and Scripture, but those kind of question weren’t part of this presentation. Scientific assertion has been accepted as proof and reason to override Scriptural understanding. God help us! I am afraid I already know where this is leading us. We are not the first to start down this road.
Young Earth Science
If you want scientific evidence for a young earth, it is there. In this short paper all of that information cannot be adequately addressed. I have found Answersingenesis.org to be a great avenue for a multitude of resources. “The Genesis Flood”, by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb is also an excellent resource.
May the truth of the Scriptures reign supreme.
Bob Gunderson