Creation Days: The Antithesis of Evolution
EDEN TO ZION VIDEO SERIES
Transcript
Introduction
We’re in a series ploughing through the grand narrative of the bible, developing a biblical worldview.
Hello and welcome, I’m Stephen Buckley, last time we spent over two hours on the first week of history, the creation account and the seventh day of rest. Before we slide into the Garden of Eden, we should pause momentarily to address one of the most successful attacks on the foundations of the Christian faith in the west.
“The Book of Origins,” the book of Genesis, perhaps more than any other informs our worldview. If we do not lay this protological foundation correctly, our whole framework of the gospel story is skewed. Believing the plain reading of the creation account is not a salvation issue as such, but it is a biblical authority issue; and if we are to take God at his Word, we’re required not to read into it our own culturally popular ideologies and theories. His very character is at stake.
Evolution is an all-encompassing worldview, with lengthy accounts of origins and meaning of existence. A philosophy whereby a creator and sustainer of all, is not essential. Given that this philosophy is knitted throughout TV production, broadcast to our living rooms, and aggressively taught in schools, and universities, Christians can be persuaded to concede scriptural meaning, approving evolution as God’s chosen method of creation, embracing a cocktail of a godless worldview and a biblical one.
Often referred to as "theistic evolution" or the favoured "progressive creation", they have reinterpreted the Genesis record of the six days of creation as evolutionary eons. They are committed to find a way to insert billions of years into scripture, wedging open a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 or by changing the “days” into “ages” of evolution.
It is beyond the scope of this book/video to exhaustively travel through each and every argument, but it’s important to briefly look at this world-view and determine if it fits with the Biblical one.
Evolution demands vast eons of time that the bible does not afford
The Day-Age-Theory
The “day-age” theory promotes that the days of creation represent ages of time.Like English, the Hebrew word for day, can refer to an undefined period of time (e.g. Gen 2:4). How do we know when it means a regular 24-hour day in English? If an old man, telling the story of his youth said, “in my day I would fish for trout on a regular basis,” you would know he means a period of years. If the same man then said, “now I have one day left to live, and in the morning I will likely die,” you would know he is speaking of regular days. Context – the usage, determines meaning. As if the author of Genesis couldn’t be clearer in the context of the passages, he defines the word day, by qualifying the length of time by its context, by the word morning coupled with evening plus the number, followed by the word day. Evening, morning, number, day. This is consistent with every other mention in the Hebrew scriptures where day (יוםֹ, yom) appears with “morning” or “evening” or modified by a number, speak of a literal 24-hour period.
Victor P. Hamilton, a highly regarded Old Testament scholar asserts: “It needs to be affirmed that in the Hebrew Bible the normal understanding of yom is a day of the week.” He goes on to say that interpreting the Genesis’ days as metaphorical to suit a scientific consensus would be to “override an understanding of a Hebrew word based on its contextual usage. Furthermore, one would have to take extreme liberty with the phrase, “there was evening, and there was morning–the x day.””[2] There is no doubt that the author of Genesis is being emphatic that these are ordinary days.
We have seen that within the ten commandments God gave the reason for creating in six days and resting on the seventh was to form the pattern of the universal week. This explanation was given on “tablets of stone, written with the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18, cf. 32:16, 24:12, Deuteronomy 9:10). It cannot be overstated that the pre-incarnate Jesus inscribed in stone with his finger: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11).
Did God create the world over 6 million years and rest for a million years, and then expect us to work 6 days and rest one? God holds the power to create in whichever way he chose, and he chose six regular days and rested on the seventh, to teach, instruct, and prepare us.
In exodus we read about the encounter of Moses before God on Mount Sinai: “The glory of the Lord resided on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it for six days. On the seventh day, he called to Moses from within the cloud.” (Exodus 24:15-16). Was it six days? Or was it six thousand, or six million, or six billion years? Did God call to Moses for a further million years? How many days did they walk around Jericho? How many days was Jonah in the whale? The same number of days Jesus was in the tomb (Matthew 12:40). The Hebrew word for day is written 2301 times in the OT in single and plural forms. Why only ever question Genesis 1?
Scripture is overwhelming in declaring a normal week of creation and rest.
If you were ask anybody unfamiliar with the bible to read genesis 1 and inquire how long they thought the author was trying to communicate the time taken to create the universe, they would unquestionably answer, a working week. God is not “the author of confusion” (1 Cor 14:33).
When secular scientists study the universe and conclude, ages of millions of years, they miss the fact that God created his universe mature. If Adam on day six of creation had been immediately presented to today’s scientists, they would reasonably conclude he was approximately thirty years old, ignorant of the knowledge that God created him within a matter of hours. It’s the same with all of existence, he created it mature, so of course scientists make calculations based on today’s observations and conclude it must have taken vast amounts of time for light to travel across space, for this or that to form. Of course, they will, I understand why they come to those conclusions - They are missing the God variable. If God created this mug within a second on camera right now, others would come in and say, it must have taken eight hours to make: with moulding, firing in the oven, hand painting, glazing – understandably – but we would know he created it in one second. Presuppositions determine much of our conclusions which is why knowing that God created the world in six, 24-hour days, resting on the seventh is key to forming our biblical mind map.
One of the verses often quoted to plead for the day-age theory, is that of 2nd Peter: “that a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord…” He’s actually reflecting on the prayer of Moses in Psalm 90. Stripped of its context, Peter continued “and a thousand years are like a single day.” (2 Peter 3:8 NET) Which cancels it out. We’ve previously mentioned that Peter is evidently speaking of God’s perspective and patience, exhorting us to think from God’s viewpoint rather than mans. He is revealing that the creation days are a prophetic calendar for the return of Jesus. Not that the creation days were a thousand years each but that those regular creation days are prophetic of the six thousand years of history with the seventh millennia rest to come. This is consistent with other parts of scripture where regular days can be prophetic of years for example. So, the days in Genesis 1 are not symbolic of undefined ages, but regular days that set the pattern for our week, and prophetic of seven millennia of history.
The bible does not describe a distant God who wound up a clock and let it run, but a personal hands-on approach to his creation:
“you knitted me together in my mother's womb.” (Ps 139:13)
“God so clothes the grass of the field” (Matt 6:30)
“your heavenly Father feeds” the birds (Matt 6:26)
He’s an affectionate, hands-on God, not a cold player of a pinball machine.
The Gap Theory
The “gap theory” attempts to crowbar ages of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. According to the theory, God used evolution as the method of creation over long ages, before destroying it. Then over six days the method of special creation to create man and similar creatures, he just destroyed. Not only is this unbiblical and unscientific, but it is also nonsensical.
Are we to believe the plain reading of Genesis? Are we to believe how Moses portrayed the Sabbath? Are we to believe what God wrote with his finger on stone? Do you believe Jesus when he said “I cast out demons by the finger of God” (Luke 11:20) but then question what Jesus meant when he wrote with his finger on stone? It is no surprise that Jesus would declare: “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead” (Luke 16:31). It’s not a science issue, it’s a heart posture.
Molecules-to-man evolution is utterly unbiblical
God created distinct kinds and sex from the beginning.
When God repeats himself, he is making a point. No less than ten times is the word “kind” used to express the distinct characteristics between his special creations. Different kinds of sea creatures, kinds of plants, animal kinds, and mankind as one. Note that the bible does not use the word “species” which is a modern, narrower classification. These kinds would produce different varieties but are limited to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind.
Speaking of mankind Jesus said, “he who created them from the beginning made them male and female” (Matt 19:4). The message is loud and clear: from the beginning there were no interconnecting evolutionary links, amoeba, nor primordial soup, but distinct kinds, made male and female with the capacity to “bring forth” “according to their kinds”.
If God used an evolutionary process to kickstart life forms, randomness determines purpose. Even if you say, God was directing the process all the way, did He create a situation whereby billions of death things were necessary before he got to the one, he chose for purpose?
Or, are you saying each so-called step had their own purpose? You see how weird and questionable it becomes? Your worldview turns out to be unreasonably complex, bordering undefinable. That God created distinct kinds, means He created with intention and purpose, of which he makes plain.
The wording of Genesis 1 does not allow for evolution. “God said”, “God said” “God said”…. “Let the waters swarm” (v20), “let birds fly” (v20), “Let the earth bring forth” (v24), “Let us make man” (26), “And it was so”, “And it was so”, “And it was so”, and “God named”, “God named”, “God blessed”, “God blessed”…. It is an immediate response. God announces, commands, fulfils, approves, names, blesses – the wording intentionally forbids inserting time. Did he announce he was going to create something, wait millions of years before doing it, doesn’t give it a name until millions of years later, doesn’t bless it until millions more, and only approves it sometime when he gets round it. This is why I love Genesis 1, it exposes the foolishness of man.
It was, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.” (Ps 33:6). He speaks and creates immediately. The narrator tells us the execution was complete, followed by God’s approval of his creation.
Evolution challenges the definition of God’s Words
God declared his original creation as good, while evolutionists picture evil.
Throughout the creation process God declares the status of his work in a surprisingly frank manner. On day one we read “God saw that the light was good” (v3). On the third day, “God saw that it was good” (v10), and again in verse 12 “God saw that it was good”. On the fourth day we read “And God saw that it was good” (v18). On the fifth day “God saw that it was good.” (21) On the six day “God saw that it was good” (v25). After completing his creation, we read “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day” (v31). In the beginning then (including up until sometime after creation) everything was very good. What else would we expect from a good God.
If you hold to theistic evolution, you are forced to believe that “God saw all that he had made”—millions and millions of bones and rotting flesh of dead animals, disease and cancer (found in the fossil record), systematic suffering, continuous extinction of living things, and mass bloodshed, over millions and millions of years—and declared it to be “very good”.
God was incredibly careful in how he inspired the scriptures. The use of “good” on seven occasions in Genesis 1 is perfect example. Good can be translated as beautiful, unstained, precious. Understanding the unstained goodness of creation before sin entered the world is critical in grasping the big picture. After all, if God is going to restore this planet to its original condition – he is going to restore it to a good one.
The gospel of theistic evolution is this: The restoration of all things, through the blood of Messiah, back to the good old days of bloodshed, disease, chaos, extinction, and mass graves.
From the beginning, far from chaos and bloodshed depicted by evolution, creation and its order are declared very good.
Evolution heralds death as the hero
Theistic evolution is the process of billions of deaths to bring about God’s final state of humans and the animals today. Try to imagine, as Henry Morris puts it, “billions of years of history of purposeless variation, accidental changes, evolutionary blind alleys, numerous misfits and extinctions, a cruel struggle for existence, with preservation of the strong and extermination of the weak, of natural disasters of all kinds, rampant disease, disorder, and decay, and, above all, with death.”[3] Does this sound like the God of loving kindness who said, “The last enemy to be eliminated is death.” (1 Cor. 15:26)? I couldn’t think of a more evil, brutal, illogical, time-wasting, life-defying process. God even said, “I receive no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezekiel 33:11). Death is the enemy, not the hero!
Contrast the notion of the “survival of the fittest” to the sermon on the mount (Matt 5:2-11). Would God use a process that punishes the poor in spirit, the mourning, meek, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, because they were not strong and aggressive enough?
He is a God of order not chaos. Self-sacrificing, not barbarity. Grace and mercy, not callousness.
On this alone. The philosophy of evolution must be repented of.
Evolution charges God with the direct responsibility for suffering and death
Before you give birth to your beautiful baby, you prepare a lovely room for them, you don’t trash the place and saying “good look”. Yet this is what theistic evolution teaches. No, he created a beautiful home of the earth in perfect conditions, and we have trashed it.
Paul is clear writing to the Romans: “just as sin came into the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned… death reigned from Adam… even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.” (5:12-14)
He goes on to say, “The wages of sin is death” (6:23). Again, when writing to the Corinthians he says: “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also came through a man. For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). It was sin that brought death into the world! Death did not exist until after Adam sinned. Death is the consequence of sin, hence we require a saviour. Jesus had to die on the Cross because Adam had brought sin and death into the world.
Paul connects Jesus’ death and resurrection to the foundational historical events of Genesis 1–3. The Bible says there was no death in the beginning, there is now death, but there will be no more death again. Evolution says, “death has always been around, and always will be”. Not only does the idea of death before sin contradict the bible, it makes God the direct author of evil.
In addition, we understand from scripture that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22) which implies violence and death. From a theistic evolutionary viewpoint, violence and death have always been part of God’s blood bath process for millions of years. How can this make sense? Many attempts to exit this impossible labyrinth have failed. Theistic evolution undermines the atonement of Jesus.
Evolution contradicts the order of creation events
As best one may try, you simply cannot harmonise the bible with billions of years of evolution. Historian of Geology and Theologian Dr. Terry Mortenson lists the obvious contradictory timing of events between the Bible and evolution shown below.[4]
[see table on video]
Creation is the antithesis of evolution.
Evolution attempts to force the creation account into a mythical posture
While scholars debate over the definition of a myth, we can safely rule out any and all, broad and narrow labels that the creation account is a myth. Paul warns us against myths (1 Tim 1:4). Peter contrasted his eyewitness testimony with devised myths (2 Pet. 1:16). Paul later said that there will come a time when people “will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (2 Tim 4:4). Paul speaks about Adam as a real person through whom “every nation of mankind” (Acts 17:26) descended.
Some Christians refuse to even to believe Adam and Eve were real people, which is bizarre when Jesus and Paul spoke of them as real people. The family genealogy from Adam to Jesus is included in Genesis 5 and 11, Luke 3, even Jude (14). Are you suggesting the bible describes Jesus descending from fictional characters? Efforts to undermine the continuity of the genealogies have failed.[5]
Paul says, “So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living person”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (1 Corinthians 15:45). Jesus as we know is referred to as the “last Adam” who lived the life Adam didn’t, who died the death He didn’t deserve to pay the price for the “first Adam[s]” sin. If the “first Adam” isn’t real, why is the “last Adam” real? Why would God base his gospel on mythical figures, and confuse us with poetic imagery of a creation account that didn’t really happen? Genesis is historical narrative. The gospel of Jesus is true, because the history that provides the context of the cross is true. The Christian faith is reliant upon the historicity of these events.
The Genesis account then is not myth or a fictional story, but an accurate eyewitness historical account, beautifully written. The same is true of the global flood, the events at Babel, the life of Abraham, the exodus, the cross, the second coming, and everything in between. Referring to the stories within Genesis 1-11, such as the serpent who speaks, Hamilton says, “it is irresponsible and incorrect to speak of these stories as myths.”[6]
Evolution is more philosophic than scientific
The urge to believe in evolution because “it’s fact” is unfounded. In risk of straying from the bible into the sphere of science, I wish to encourage readers to grapple with this theory because of the great impact it has made on the gospel story.
Evolution proclaims that Man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. The crux of the matter is that all living things require genetic information, and if per evolution, one kind of animal is to change to another kind, or more poignantly for an amoeba to eventually become a human, the organism must gain new information to do so. If you only remember two facts, remember these:
There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism’s genetic code.
Never has it been observed that life can come from non-life.[7]
Both points destroy the theory on their own merit.[8] Evolution does not make scientific sense. It is not observational science (something you can observe, test, and repeat) but rather historical science that paints a fairy tale for adults.
Professor Dr. John Stanford who has published over 80 scientific papers and been granted over 30 patents in the field of genetics dispels the theory in his excellence book Genetic Entropy. He says this: “It must be understood that scientists have a very sensitive and extensive network for detecting information-creating mutations, and most geneticists are diligently keeping their eyes open for them all the time. This has been true for about 100 years. Yet I am still not convinced there is a single, crystal-clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously created information.”[9] Earlier he says: “Nearly all health policies are aimed at reducing or minimizing mutation. Most personal health regimes are aimed at reducing mutations, to reduce risk of cancer and other degenerative diseases. How can anyone see mutation as good?”[10]
It is beyond the scope of this video to address the science behind the theory. Yet, here are a selection of nails in the coffin to contemplate in your own time:
Natural selection, selects – it doesn’t create. It can only “select” from the information that is already there.
Life has been shown to be ‘Irreducible complex’.
A major problem for evolutionists who believe rock layers were laid down gradually over vast eons of time, is the lack of any signs of erosion in the geologic column, and the massive sections of strata that have been tightly folded without fracture or evidence of the sediments being heated.[11] A global flood as described in the Bible however can account for this.
Where are all the missing links? “the fossil record gives no clue that any basic type of animal has ever changed into another basic type of animal, for no undisputed chain of in-between forms has ever been discovered.”[12]
The law of biogenesis—The well-established law of biology that living things only come from living things.
The big bang model has a light-travel-time problem, known as the “horizon problem”.[13]
“The timescale and conditions for the formation and cooling of granites are totally consistent with a 6,000–7,000 year-old earth and a global cataclysmic flood 4,500–5,000 years ago.”[14]
Evolution cannot account for the variety of languages?
Scientists in an eight-year study known as the RATE project revealed the fatal flaws within the methods of Radiometric dating and in fact detailed the evidence for a young earth.[15]
How do you rationalise evolution if we are merely a collection of chemical reactions?[16]
Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space.[17] How could these laws evolve? Are they still evolving?
Could a big explosion really create complexity, beauty, awe, humour, artistry, musicality?
Frauds to promote this theory include Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel’s embryos, Archaeoraptor, peppered moths, Cardiff Giant, some of which are still taught as true.
Macro-evolution (changing from one kind to another: which is never observed) is sold on the back of the cleverly named micro-evolution (variants within a kind: which is observed but has nothing to do with mutations).
According to evolution the moon has existed for over 4 billion years, yet the tidal and gravitational forces and the rates of recession, mean the moon would be touching the earth 1.5 billion years ago.[18]
Evolutionary models fail to address how the earth’s magnetic field could have lasted over such a long period of time considering its rapid rate of decay.[19]
“In recent years, there have been many findings of ‘wondrously preserved’ biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!”[20]
The claim that humans have inhabited the earth for tens of thousands of years do not compute considering a conservative estimate of the population doubling every 150 years. Simple maths reveals human existence of a few thousand years in line with the Bible.[21]
When you consider evolution as a reasonable layman, how did organs evolve. When did the lungs evolve? What evolved first the heart, blood, or blood vessels? Without blood, the heart has nothing to pump. Without vessels, the heart has nothing to carry the blood. Without the heart the blood remains stagnant in the vessels. An organ is useless until it is completely functioning and rightly connected to the rest of the body. They must come about precisely at the same time, otherwise the creature dies. It just doesn’t make sense.
We understand from experience or general knowledge about the perils of inbreeding. Why? Because there is no new genetic information. Which is why there was controversy around the popular televised dog show – The Independent wrote: “Not only do many pedigrees have significantly shorter life expectancies, inbreeding also increases the likelihood that recessive genes will be passed down to puppies, along with a host of serious congenital defects, including heart disease, epilepsy, hypothyroidism, cataracts, allergies and hip dysplasia, a disease that can lead to crippling, lameness and arthritis.”[22]
You can try to play god and breed dogs in whichever way, but there are built in limitations – dogs always remain dogs, cats remain cats. If you attempt to breed dogs into weird new creatures – guess what, you end always end up with unhealthy dogs – because you will be decreasing genetic information not gaining new information. We know this stuff.
Personally, having experience in writing web code, I find it bizarre that ‘misspellings’ and ‘selective copying’ would improve a person’s DNA. Any code must be carefully written and managed, else it will not work.
The consensus in science is a dominant one. Many scientists however, do not believe in evolutionism including those without faith such as the magnificent Dr David Birlinski. Many of these scientists hold firm to the bible’s teaching that the universe is approximately 6000 years old. It is not a battle of evidence (each position has the same evidence), it is a battle of worldviews that determine our conclusions.
There is immense pressure of scientists to toe the evolution line. It is increasingly difficult for scientists who do not conform, to be published in secular journals. As research professor Jun-Yuan Chen acknowledged: “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”[23]
There is no conflict between science and the Bible. Science is the study of the structure and behaviour of God’s physical and natural creation through observation and experiment. Some studies are good and true, others false. God has inspired many great scientific minds. “Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them.” (Ps 111:2)
In the early years of my faith, I was challenged to question the theory of evolution. I was astonished to find, as Stanford puts it “the Emperor has no clothes!”[24]
The fruit of evolution is rotten
The philosophy underpinning evolution is damaging to both the church and to society. If you teach children that rather than being made in the image of God, they are merely higher animals in a dog-eat-dog world where the fittest survive, morality is relative, ultimately their existence is meaningless, and that violence and bloodshed is God’s preferred method of creation, you will not be surprised to nurture disobedient children. More so, if we teach our children to undermine the creation account as plainly written, they will continue to undermine the rest of scripture.
The ‘animals rights’ movement springs from evolutionary thinking. It goes without saying, we care about the welfare of animals, but the secular campaign is a different beast. It begins to blur divine distinctions between man and animal. A product of matter, plus time, plus chance, means no supreme authority – or at the least, invokes a different god. Evolution says the men who write today have brighter minds than the biblical authors. It leads to scholarly arrogance.
The history of this philosophy is in abundance of evil fruit. Dr Henry M. Morris explains: “The evolutionary philosophy is the intellectual basis of all anti-theistic systems. It served Hitler as the rationale for Nazism and Marx as the supposed, scientific basis for communism.”[25] With the conception of superior and inferior peoples, it provides a foundation for racism and warfare. It punishes the weak and rejoices in exterminating the disabled. Jesus said: “every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit” (Matt 7:17). The rotten fruit of evolutionary philosophy is testament to its evil roots.
The theory of evolution is born out of pride
In Charles Darwin’s case one could connect his philosophy with the grief of losing his wife and some of his children. With an incorrect view of suffering and the sovereignty of God, he sort an alternative explanation to the biblical Creator and popularise his findings of this new perspective.
Faith in Darwinism is built on man thinking we are the most intelligent, wise, fittest beings that have ever lived. The human state is now referred to as homo sapiens sapiens, Latin for ‘wise wise-man’. God laughs! Paul’s words ring true: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22).
The bible says the opposite – that Adam and Eve were given perfectly rich genes, and thousands of years later – copy after copy, because of the curse, there are errors – causing damaging mutations that play havoc with life. We know inbreeding is dangerous and outlawed in many countries for good reasons. The further upstream you go, the statistically better genetics you will have, away from the incestuous shallow end of the gene pool. While some knowledge would have been lost in the global flood of Noah’s day, ancient archaeology and studies reveal incredibly sophisticated, innovative, and intelligent people of the past, flying in the face of the half-ape cave men often depicted.[26]
The evolutionary worldview is in stark contrast to the biblical worldview
First let us look at the naturalistic worldview
We remember that a worldview consists of the canvas of existence or field of play, the players of existence, the laws or rules of existence, the history of existence (protology), the goal or purpose of existence (missiology) alongside a doctrine of salvation (soteriology), and the future of existence (eschatology).
Naturalism frames the canvas of existence as decisively materialistic. Its players too are made up of natural building blocks void of spirit or identifying soul. The human players self-describe as homo sapiens sapiens (wise, wise man). Naturalistic protology beings the story with the “big bang.” Its resulting “laws” are purely natural with no room for true morality or ultimate authority. “Survival” underlines the goal of the players which is determined by relative fitness. Naturalistic soteriology is defined by “progress.” Death of the weak players through “natural selection” is deemed necessary, even profitable. Death is viewed as the cleanser of nature. Naturalistic eschatology has no specific destiny in mind. Only unending death cycles, producing progressive, fitter players.
[see video illustration]
Now let’s contrast the Judeo-Christian Worldview
In contrast, the Judeo-Christian worldview pictures a canvas made up of “the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1). Both natural building blocks and the spiritual are cohesive. Biblical protology paints a canvas and its players (so to speak) created purposely, orderly, and without blemish. Sin, chaos, suffering, and death have no place within its origins. As we have seen the purpose of creation is to glorify the Creator [as a testament to him]. The failure to do so, the introduction of sin, which brought about suffering and death, point to the Soteriology that is found in Jesus the Christ (the Creator incarnate). Salvation has been secured by the substitutionary atonement for sin on the cross by this Messiah. His suffering in this age, before glory in the age to come, characterizes the narrative. Biblical eschatology now points to “the restoration of all things” (NKJV) to its original beauty and order described as a “new heavens and a new earth” (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 21:1). Messiah who once suffered will be glorified as “King of all the earth” (Zech 14:9; cf. Ps. 47:7) and who “is ready to judge the living and the dead” (1 Pet. 4:5). This Messianic eschatological age to come will be inaugurated by the “Day of the Lord” (Isa.2:12; Amos 5:18; 1 Thess. 5:2; etc).
[see video illustration]
Theistic evolution is a compromise of the two opposing worldviews
It borrows the protology of the naturalistic worldview, relegating the creation account to a degree of mythical status. The spiritual aspect is retained but bolted onto billions of years of bloody history. The players (including mankind) have been “developed” by God through a process of trial and error. Billions of prototypes finally resulted in an animal worthy of God separating as a new kind (man) and installing a spirit. Histories of existence are merged together (with varying theories, chronologies, and time-gaps), but generally viewing the life of Abraham as the definite start of true history. Biblical history before this is frequently watered down to “stories to learn lessons from.” The cross, now out of context, is held dear, but the eschatological hope warped. We’ve said “the restoration of all things” through a theistic evolutionary lens is: The good old days of widespread disease, violence, extinction, and bloodshed.
No doubt many within this broad and varied group of Christians would object to the above synopsis, but when you start to nail down this strand of view, it is left wanting, and dripping, not in the blood of Christ, but of “pre-man”.
The bloated protology of theistic evolution results in a modification of orthodox soteriology and eschatology
If the start of story is wrong, the ending will be wrong, and middle confused. If fact, if you tell me your protology, I will tell you your eschatology.
In contradiction to the biblical narrative, evolution tells a story of chaos to order, digressive to progressive, unfit to fit. This context drastically alters one’s soteriology and missiology for that matter. This thinking teaches that you are set for “your best life now.” The life of Christianity will get better and better. You are on the road of one progressive, unending story of bad to good. It means you are susceptible to buy into secular schemes and international programs that appear virtuous, progressive, and kind, but the spirit of which is working against God and his program.
In deep contrast, Harrigan summarises that the “messianic suffering before eschatological glory (cf. Luke 24:26; Heb. 9:28; 1 Peter 1:11) defines the essential story line of the Judeo-Christian worldview.”[27] The biblical worldview begins “good”, becomes “bad” through sin, but proclaims a future “good.” Or simply: Good, to bad, to good. We are to expect and even embrace the suffering in the present, in light of, the hope of future glory.
The evolutionary framework forces the hope of the gospel to be replaced by a supernatural spiritual Kingdom. “Why can’t the kingdom be progressively installed too?” they ask. “We can start building the kingdom now” they pronounce.
Believing in evolutionary processes over God’s Word warps all other doctrines. Questions of identity, purpose, ethics, morality, universal locale, depravity, what went wrong (the fall), God’s sovereignty, and the solution is dissimilar. It plays with definitions of words too. As if to complete the contraction, nature is “often personified as ‘Mother.’”(p18, Harrigan)
Evolutionists see themselves as the progressing community. This mentality persuades them to believe they are the ones in the know, the fittest, most intelligent, and they will make the world a better place. It is a breeding ground for egotism and condescension. Hence a propensity of mocking traits toward those who believe the traditional view of protology, shelving them as “crass literalists,” “backward” and “bigoted”. This “enlightened” position comfortably adopts an emphasis on man’s achievement.
This worldview’s regulatory system is not calibrated biblically, resulting in an acceptance of things we should reject, and rejection of things we should receive. For example, if you believe the Creator used the process of evolution, you are more likely to accept Marxism, theories of population control, abortion, and so forth. A “fittest survive” mentally plays out in our vocations. It means you reject simple chronologies of redemptive history. It means, the creation week cannot be a prophetic timeline of history. You are more likely then reject the millennial reign of Christ.
This morphed worldview does not make sense. Questions to ask include: Did angels evolve too? Or, are did God spend billions of years trying to perfect his creatures, and then puff, he created angels instantaneously? If angels, why not humans? Or, did angels hang around for billions of years waiting to deliver messages to humans? Why would God create animals such as dinosaurs to live millions of years before man? Are these a pointless exercise? Did the Son of God wait billions of years before he became incarnate?
The theistic evolutionary gospel story is strikingly different. It preaches different too.
Compare these basic redemptive timelines. [see video] Very different narratives. Very different redemptive histories.
Evolution is refuted by many Scholars
Because a literal six day creation is mocked, I going to read out some quotes from scholars, some of which are ranked as some of the best in the world on their commentaries of Genesis:
Arnold Fruchtenbaum: “This phraseology “evening and morning” simply does not allow for anything but a twenty-four hour period.”[28]
Gordon Wenham: “There can be little doubt that here “day” has its basic sense of a 24-hour period.”[29]
Victor Hamilton: “Whoever wrote Gen 1 believed he was talking about literal days.”[30]
John H. Sailhamer: “That week, as far as we can gather from the text itself, was a normal week of six twenty-four hour days and a seventh day in which God rested.”[31]
Allen Ross: “It seems inescapable that Genesis presents the creation in six days.”[32]
Gerhard von Rad: “The seven days are unquestionably to be understood as actual days and as a unique, unrepeatable lapse of time in the world.”[33]
H. C. Leupold: “There ought to be no need of refuting the idea that yôm means period. Reputable dictionaries like Buhl, B D B or K. W. know nothing of this notion.”[34]
Hermann Gunkel: “Naturally, the ‘days’ are days and nothing else.” He says "the application of the days of creation to 1,000-year periods or the like is, thus, a very capricious corruption from entirely allogenous circles of thought."[35]
Wayne Grudem – known for his systematic theology: “I am now more firmly convinced than ever that it is impossible to believe consistently in both the truthfulness of the Bible and Darwinian evolution. We have to choose one or the other.”[36]
Again we ask, what is the authors intent? Jud Davis says, “Nearly all world-class Hebraists assume that the writer of Genesis intended normal days and the text as history”[37]
Until the 1800’s all commentators, believed the plain reading of the bible, that the universe was thousands not billions of years old. All the translations too including paraphrases such as the Aramaic Targums, use the plain meaning of “days”. Did God make it so that no one throughout history could understand what he meant until the last couple of centuries?
It’s a matter of scriptural authority.
The readers and hearer of this text were not scholars or modern scientists. They were former slaves, common people, who must have understood it as normal days and who were commanded to teach to their children (Deut 6:1–7). Children were to understand it. Were they teaching it wrong? What kind of God gives a text to a people that hides the true meaning and then commands them to teach their children what it means? The significance of the text to be developed later is one thing, but the initial plain meaning is another.
In Conclusion: God’s Character is at stake
Evolution is inconsistent with God’s ways. For those contending that God’s method of creation is inconsequential, I hope by now you can see that not only is it biblically unsound, sociologically harmful, but His very character is at stake.
Paul said that “in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Tim 4:1). More coarsely put then, evolutionism is a demonic belief system that is riddled with lies, struggling to remove God from his throne, and should be renounced from the pulpit. It must be personally and corporately repented of.
You did not evolve. You are an image bearer of God, “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).
Regrettably, millions of dollars are being spent by Christian organisations who are teaching Genesis as myth and promoting evolution as truth. His character is not up for grabs. But the way you view his Word is. It is not a matter of what God could have done, but rather a matter of what God said He did. It is what God said, that matters. This is a battle between God’s Word and man’s word.
Hear the LORD speak through the pen of Isaiah:
My hands have made both heaven and earth; they and everything in them are mine. I, the LORD, have spoken! "I will bless those who have humble and contrite hearts, who tremble at my word. (Isaiah 66:2 NIV)
Retaining the fear of the Lord, we are to tremble at his word. As Jesus retorts: “if you do not believe what Moses wrote, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:46).
That wraps up today's session. Next time - and I'm excited about this - we're heading into Genesis 2 and the Garden of Eden.
God bless, and Maranatha.
[1] Henry M. Morris, https://www.icr.org/article/53/
[2] Hamilton, NICOT, p.53,54
[3] Henry M. Morris, https://www.icr.org/article/evolution-bible/
[4] Dr. Terry Mortenson on April 4, 2006, Evolution vs. Creation: The Order of Events Matters!, https://answersingenesis.org/why-does-creation-matter/evolution-vs-creation-the-order-of-events-matters/
[5] https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/gaps-in-the-genesis-genealogies/
[6] Hamilton, NICOT, p59
[7] Evolution? Impossible!, Answer in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/evolution-impossible/
[8] Some will argue that the theory of evolution begins with simple life forms, but wherever one draws the boundaries of scope, it must at some point account for life arising from non-life.
[9] Dr. J. C. Stanford, Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, FMS Publications, p17
[10] Dr. J. C. Stanford, Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, FMS Publications, p15
[11] Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured, by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on April 1, 2009, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/rock-layers-folded-not-fractured/
[12] The Biggest Problems for Evolution by John D. Morris Ph.D., http://www.icr.org/article/biggest-problems-for-evolution/
[13] Dr. Jason Lisle, under pseudonym Robert Newton on September 1, 2003, https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang/
[14] Dr. Andrew A. Snelling and John Woodmorappe on December 1, 1998, Originally published in Creation 21, no 1 (December 1998): 42-44, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/geologic-time-scale/rapid-rocks/
[15] Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE), http://www.icr.org/rate/
[16] Dr. Jason Lisle on February 13, 2008, Evolution: The Anti-Science, https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-the-anti-science/
[17] Ibid
[18] David Wright on August 11, 2006, Lunar Recession: Does It Support a Young Universe?, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/moon/lunar-recession/
[19] Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on September 1, 1991, The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/the-earths-magnetic-field-and-the-age-of-the-earth/
[20] Six Evidences of a Young Earth, https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/
[21] Billions of People in Thousands of Years? by Dr. Monty White, https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/billions-of-people-in-thousands-of-years/
[22] Mimi Bekhechi, Thursday 10 March 2016, https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/crufts-spectacle-cruelty-if-you-love-dogs-you-won-t-watch-it-year-a6922846.html
[23] Jun-Yuan Chen, Research Professor, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, The Wall Street Journal August 16, 1999
[24] Dr. J. C. Stanford, Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, FMS Publications, Prologue p. vii.
[25] Quote from Dr. Henry M. Morris, Evolution and the Bible, https://www.icr.org/article/53/.
[26] For example, this evolutionist recognised the intelligence of ancient man: George Dvorsky, Here Are Some Essential Survival Skills We've Lost From Our Ancient Ancestors, http://io9.gizmodo.com/here-are-some-essential-survival-skills-weve-lost-from-1732594841
[27] John Harrigan, The Gospel of Christ Crucified, p19
[28] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Ariel’s Bible Commentary: The Book of Genesis, 1st ed. (San Antonio, TX: Ariel Ministries, 2008), p42
[29] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 1:19
[30] Victor Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, The New International Commentary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), p53
[31] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with New International Version: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 2:95
[32] Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 109
[33] Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1972), p65
[34] H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1942),, 56–57
[35] Hermann Gunkel, Genesis, translated by Mark Biddle (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997), p108
[36] Wayne Grudem foreword, Norman C. Nevin’s book, Should Christians Embrace Evolution? Biblical and Scientific Responses (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2011): 9-10
[37] https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/24-hours-plain-as-day/