Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The subject to be addressed by this small booklet has to do with beginnings. There are two things that I�d like to make clear before we start. First of all, there are several places where I make mention of source material as coming from The Plain Truth magazine. Please do not consider this as an endorsement! Although this magazine has done some excellent work in the evolution/creation debate, I do not count them as Christian brothers. As a matter of fact, I would consider them to be a cult. I spent nearly an entire issue of BQM Reports... (Nov. �95) explaining why I considered Herbert Armstrong and what I believe to be the cult he founded as aberrant from Biblical Christianity.
I know, also, that many have said that this group has changes its perspective to that of Evangelical Christianity. Until I see some definitive proof I�ve got to view this with skeptical eyes. I know of no group in the entire history of the churches which claim Jesus Christ, which has sailed it�s ship of doctrine from the sea of rank heresy to begin to sail the placid inland rivers of doctrinal purity. I know that this is not a nice and polite thing to say. I believe, however, that it is Biblically correct.
The second thing that I must point out is that I am not a scientist. I am able to read those who are scientists and to make informed observations based upon their works. If, however, you would want to talk with some real scientists, I would suggest that you contact the people at The Institute for Creation Research, P. O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021-667, USA (http://icr.org). This is a graduate level school of science. Please, and this is from me!, if you do choose to write to them, enclose a small donation to cover the cost of their time and effort expended in answering your question.
I do not believe that my lack of scientific background is any sort of handicap in this discussion. This discussion does not center on science, but on faith. The entire discussion is based upon an after-the-fact observation and hypothesis based on the understanding of those observed facts. There is no way to do a verification of the understood result. No way. The beginning was once, a long time ago. It is not possible to observe the process with controls to substantiate the hypothesis.
The hypothesis is, simply, an educated guess. That guess is colored by the understandings which one brings to the assembled evidence. I firmly believe that the presuppositions of the theist is much superior to those of the naturalist. I will get to my reasons for assuming this a little later in this paper.
A theist (He is simply one who believes in a Supreme Being not necessarily a Christian.) starts with the assumption that God is in the background of the beginnings. A naturalist (In this case the title suggest one who does not accept the possibility of any entity outside of naturally observed forces are a possibility.) will interpret the data with the background that there is no possibility of supernatural influence beyond the various scientific laws of probability and chance.
All I am attempting to do here is to suggest a fresh look at some of the data. Some of the data will be new to your eyes and ears simply because it does not fit the faith model of the naturalist and has been shunted aside.
The first thing to look at, of course, is that God did create the heavens and the earth. Even a staunch evolutionist would have a problem dismissing this fact. Evolutionists may make reference to differing theories of the origin of the universe. But, the fact is that even if the theory of evolution were true it would not speak to creation. Evolution has to do with the progression of living things. This would come under the evolutionary doctrine of survival of the fittest which asserts that simple organisms are replaced, via mutations (This means, quite simply, birth defects!), which are more able to survive than were the non-mutated progenitors.
Since these mutations are better able to adapt and survive, they become the predominate of the species as they tend to survive longer and are able to pass along the genes of the mutation. They will sometimes even become new species. The pre-, and non-, mutations being less able to adapt and survive die out. They become extinct.
This is evolutionary dogma.
However, let us take the time to examine just two animals - the bird and the moths of England.
Current evolutionary thought is that the bird evolved from the dinosaur. I presume that just the small dinosaurs were those that evolved in such a manner. It would frighten me to see one of the large ones prepare to perch on the tree in my back yard.
As a quick aside, wasn�t it just a few weeks ago that the evolutionist told us that the dinosaurs became extinct when a giant meteor crashed into the earth? I guess, maybe, that the meteor didn�t get all of them!
This sort of thing is one of the reasons why I tend not to get overly excited when the Bible and science do not always seem to line up perfectly. The science books that I studied, even when I went to college the first time, are no so outdated as to be useless in any reputable school class room. Why is this so? It is because the views, theories, and advancements of science have shown many of the previous views, theories, and advancements to be fallacious.
The first school I attended, just under four decades ago, proudly called themselves a Bible College. We were given hand outs the first week of school, as freshmen, citing the advantages of a Bible Centric education.
Sadly, to my way of thinking, they have progressed beyond this provincialism, now. They long ago removed the Bible from their school name. That single minded dedication to teach the Scripture as the Queen of the Sciences has given way to a, perceived, dedication to simply be like the other colleges about them (I Samuel 8:5).
This dedication to things academic is not bad. Really. It is bad only in the sense of detracting from a sacred mission to major on the Scripture. What has happened to all of the Bible Colleges of years past? All too often the same thing that has happened to our culture as a whole. We have pigeonholed the Scripture as only part of our lives - and a small part at that! We want respectability among men more than we desire fellowship with God, it would seem.
One thing I would remind you, the Bible ain�t changed one little bit! It is still God�s record to mankind!
I have commentaries and study books in my library that are over one hundred years old. They are still useful. God, and His Word, are a Constant Contemporary. He is never out of date. He is always available to us when the time comes that we have need of His Loving Hand.
Not so with the shifting sands and warbling witness of any pseudo science which does not take God into the final equation. Rightly understood, finally understood, we shall see that God was right all along. Speaking of God, Isaiah said,
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. - Isaiah 40:22
Isaiah did not gather this information on the spherical shape of the earth from the science of the day. The scientist of the day knew that the earth was flat. God knew better.
Listen to the words of Job. Job is often considered the oldest Book among the Canon of Scripture.
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. He bindeth up the waters in the thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them. - Job 26:7-8
How did Job understand these advanced concepts of a world which resides in space resting upon nothing, or that the clouds did not tear so the rain water could escape? How did he know? The science of his day did not inform him of these facts.
I am certain that the science of the day would have told Job something quite different than what he wrote. So, how did he know? In truth, he might not have known. But, that Great God Who inspired the Words which Job wrote would have known.
God may have, on many occasions, spoken in word pictures so that finite man could understand. But, God often spoke the Truth even when man could not understand it at that time The God Book is a Book for all of time and eternity. It speaks to us today as certainly as it spoke to the man of antiquity. It is still up to date. It still will be up to date in one hundred years if the Lord tarries His coming.
Science may often disagree with the Scripture. But, the true facts, when understood, must agree with the Scripture simply because the Scripture is correct even if every person on this earth would disagree. God�s Word still stands as a beacon calling us to Truth. The understandings, and misunderstandings, of science may, often do, change. The Word of God is eternal and changeless.
Let�s look at the simple bird for just a minute. For the most part I garnered this information from an article, Handicapped By it�s Own Limitations, which I read in an article from Torch Magazine. Torch is published by Cedarville College of Cedarville, Ohio, a Christian liberal arts institution.
Birds, had they evolved from reptiles (or dinosaurs - which are themselves reptiles),would have to had to begun via the agency of mutation. It would also, for the change to have become permanent (Most mutations - birth defects - die out after a short time because they do not enhance the organisms ability to survive! This is also evolutionary dogma.) have had to be something necessary in that the mutation provided for an animal better suited to survive for it to be in harmony with natural selection.
However, we are told that mutations happen slowly - in stages. In the stages where the appendage was midway between a foot and a wing, the animal would have been less able to survive. He could not have run as well in pursuit of his food; neither could he run as well from predators who might have seen him as food. Also, he could not yet fly for those purposes, either. Thus, natural selection would have killed off this mutation before he would have been able to pass on this trait to his offspring.
Still, the evolutionist, ever a man of faith, would argue that the mode was different in this case. The wing came in one mutation as the reptile became a bird. He could have just mutated a flap of skin to become a flying reptile, but the body type would have still been wrong. His scales would have had to adapt to feathers. His bone structure would have needed to adapt. His body weight and configuration would have needed to adapt. The natural inclination of the reptile to stay on the ground rather than to fling himself to, and from, heights.
Ah, but the evolutionist has a complete faith system built around his great god, Chance. The entire superstructure of the evolutionary system is built upon the premise (once again, a word that means guess!) that nothing, and no One, is in Charge. Everything happens by blind chance.
Now we have the conjecture (another word for guess!) that after all of this coincidence of mutation, this one - remember, he hadn�t yet mated to pass on his mutated genes, lonely creature was chased up a tree, or to a cliff, and jumped off to escape the predator. �Wow,� he thought, �I can fly. At least I can glide. I�ll have to remember this!�
Thus was born the progenitor of the bird. I like to call it the Immaculate Conjecture. I guess it could be argued that the mutated reptile had made a leap of faith. Now, that�s a terrible joke. Unfortunately, for many it is not a joke. It is a tenant of evolutionary thought.
As far as I�m concerned it is still a joke.
Now, what about (This information was also gleaned from the same Torch article.) the well known moths of England?
There were in England, before the Industrial Revolution, white moths. With the coming of the Industrial Revolution, these white moths were replaced with dark moths.
This was, of course, an honest case of natural selection in action. Whereas before the Industrial Revolution the lighter moths were less able to be seen by their predators than were the darker moths. The darker moths, conversely, were a much easier dinner to find for the birds, and other predators of these moths. Many more of the lighter ones tended to mate and produce more of their kind simply because they lived longer.
With the coming of the smokestacks, and their belching forth the soot into the countryside, the darker moths were now more likely to produce offspring with their coloration than were the lighter. Hence, there were now more dark moths than light moths.
It is important to note, however, that the moths remained moths. They were the same organism as they had been before the Industrial Revolution. Though the coloration of the population may have changed, the population remained of the same type.
I said before that natural selection was a doctrine of evolutionary thought. That is, of course, true. But, it also points up an important fact in consideration of the lies of Satan. Often his lie will contain just enough of a truth as to lead astray those who would follow their own paths without trusting, or considering, the Truth of God�s Word. When we fail to continually ground ourselves in a passion for His Word, even if we were previously attuned to It�s Truths, we are prone to follow paths which lead us away from God.
Continue to study His Word!
While looking at the animals I�d like to take a look at an organism that is not an animal: Man!
Man is a separate creation of God from the animal life. We are not simply another animal put upon this earth. We do not have to live as brute beasts.
Unfortunately many have been taught that they are simply an organism that has no meaning, spawned by cosmic chance and doomed to an epitaph of meaningless oblivion. It is any wonder that the youth of this day, fed this drivel by an intelligentsia which denies the existence and power of God, often behave as the savages which they are told that they are?
Let us now look at the Neanderthal Man. Most of this information was gleaned from an article The Missing Link - Found!, in the August 1979 edition of The Plain Truth. Please note my reference to my lack of endorsement of this magazine, and those who publish it, in the beginning of this work.
We have all seen the pictures of Neanderthal in textbooks and magazine articles. He is stooped, covered in hair so long as nearly constitute fur, with a blank look on his uncomprehending face.
Stooped, he probably was. He suffered from arthritis. However, when he stood erect to his full height, he stood about 5' 5 �" tall. What is interesting about this is that he was about � inch taller than were the people who lived in the valley where he was unearthed at the time the spade of the scientist met with his remains.
To further contradict the impression we�ve been given of this man, his brain size (1450 - 1600 cc.) compares more than favorably with that of so-called modern man (1300 cc.). Not only, given a shave, haircut, and modern clothing, would he pass unnoticed on any city bus, given any training he would probably have been more than capable of driving that bus!
Perhaps calling someone a Neanderthal is not the insult we�ve thought!
We�ve been fed a bill of goods on evolutionary probability.
At this point I�d like for us to take a short look at the consideration of the age of the earth. This does not properly concern evolution except that evolution must have long, long periods of time for its model to work.
Although the creationist will generally campion a young earth, the time span is irrelevant to his schema.
Before the age of evolutionary thought there was scant attention paid to any concept of what we would call today an old earth. What is sad is that the church world began, in the latter portions of the 19th century, to make concessions to the evolutionary mode. The so called gap theory (That there was an indeterminate gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.) which, as Scofield (p. 3 of The Scofield Reference Bible) says, �...gives scope for all the geologic ages.�, was popularized so that the Scripture would be in harmony with the science of the day.
When we surmise that there is a disharmony between Scripture and science we may understand either of two possibilities: 1) We have an incomplete understanding of the Scriptural passage, or, 2) Science has yet to gain a proper understanding of the subject.
We may rest certain that Scripture is sure and correct. It is admitted that this is spoken from a standpoint of faith. But, it is a faith well grounded in the Word of, and the Person of, God.
When we come right down to the basis of the situation, the problem is there for the secularist, not for the theist.
When it comes to the questions of origins the secularist has no answer to the question, �How did it all begin; what happened first� Even allowing for the Big Bang, the question must be asked: What came before the �Big Bang?� Considering that the laws of science state that matter can be neither destroyed nor created, how did the material for that �Big Bang� arrive in the first place?
And, about that �Big Bang,� when all the material coalesces, does that include the empty matter of the universe? If it does, what is the proceeding �Bang� into? If it does not, where did it come from as it must then precede the formation of the universe?
If the �Bang� includes the empty area of the universe, then we have the problem of a vanishing universe. How would it then reassemble if the walls had closed in on themselves? That would mean there must be something beyond our physical universe. Else the �Bang� would be a tree falling in a forest with no one to hear. The sound and substance could not form.
Further, if the �Bang� be true, then we would need to speak of the universe in the same eternal sense as would the theist of God. �The universe has always existed,� would be the only credible answer. How could there be a young universe with no One to create it.
This presents another problem. Since it would seem obvious that the empty area of the universe would remain when the material of the physical universe coalesced into the lump from which the �Big Bang� would occur, energy would have to be released to effect the contraction, expansion, and most certainly the explosion of the �Bang.� This energy would dissipate into the large empty area. If this happened over a long period - such as the eternity which must be the time line of the universe, then the energy would have long sense been dissipated. Simply, the energy to produce further �Big Bangs� would have been used, spread as heat, among the large empty area.
The truth is, without the God of the Bible we could not exist. We would not exist.
The God of the universe stands outside the physical laws of the universe. He stands outside the physicality of the universe as He is Spirit. I can not explain this. It is beyond my understanding. But, I can accept it!
But, what about those long ages for the earth which the evolutionist must postulate?
First, may we consider the question of stalactites. This material comes from the same issue of Torch - �How Old is the Earth?� Stalactites are, of course, rock formations which are formed by water seeping down through he ground and dropping on the tops of cave roofs.
The evolutionary mode would argue that the caves were formed over hundreds of thousands of years. The creationist, for the most part, would argue that the caves were formed during the Flood of Noah.
One of the methods used to judge the ages of these caves is to measure the length of the stalactites and extrapolate the age of the cave from the time surmised to have passed in order to build a stalactite of that size.
The evolutionary mode would hold that these stalactites grow at a rate of .01 ci per year. Of course, no one was available to check out the beginning of the stalactites so as to make certain this rate. Simply stated, the .01 ci is an educated guess. Simple equations such as extended flood and dry periods, or climatic changes, would throw off this guess work.
Just how certain is this rate of growth? The aforementioned article from Torch relates a measurement which is easily determined by observing a physical examination from the beginning of the stalactite. There is a bridge on US 42 East of Cedarville, Ohio, upon which stalactites were measured to have grown at a rate of .032 ci a year from 1941 until 1976.
This is, of course, a measurement from a bridge. This is not the same sort of physical structure as would be a cave. However, a mine would be of the same general physical structure as would be a cave. The Torch article mentions a mine in Bruceton, PA where stalactites were observed as growing at a rate of .47 ci to 6.81. ci per year.
Two things are true about these measurements. 1) These measurements may or may not have any correlation between each other, or with cave stalactites. The one may or may not have relevance to the other. And, 2) Neither the observed measurements, nor the educated guesses are able to give certain testimony to the ages of either the stalactites or of the true caves.
None of the foregoing has begun to address the changes which may have come due to droughts and rainy periods which would have changed the amount of water in the ground to trickle down and change the rate of growth of the stalactites.
Again accessing an article from The Plain Truth magazine (The Atomic Clock, March 1970), we make note of Carbon 14 dating and, a little later, of rings on a tree.
As to the reliability of Carbon 14 dating, there is just no way to have any sort of established control of the veracity of its finding prior to about 5000 years ago since there is no recorded history to act as a check against its findings back past that time. The only control is the theory that all things have continued in the same manner, under the same situations, throughout all of history.
However, if it is true, as many of the creationist�s claim, that there was a canopy of water vapor over the earth prior to the Flood of Noah, then the rate of radiation from the sun reaching the earth would have been reduced at this point. The rates of decay would then become unreliable.
It would seem that a canopy, or something, was in place at some point in the past history of this planet. Mastodons have been unearthed in polar regions which have had undigested meals consisting of tropical plant life within their stomachs. Since it is unlikely that those large animals were able to walk that sort of a distance without digesting their food, it seems likely, at the very least, that the climate of the earth has undergone great changes in the past.
Except for having died in those spots, the only other explanation for these large animals being in the polar regions would be the upheaval of the Great Flood of Noah. It does not appear that this sort of thing is associated with this flood. Still, the fact of the rapid dying, possibly coupled with the removal of these large bodies to another part of the earth is best explained only by the flood.
One of the surest means, I�ve been told, of tracing time has always been to count the rings on trees. One ring, at least I�ve always been told, will equal one year. Four hundred rings would then equal a four hundred year old tree. But, such is not necessarily the case. A dry spell, or even a cold snap, may give a tree more than one ring in a year.
None of the foregoing may be considered with certainty. We can not tell, with any certainty, the age of the earth. There was no one, at least no human alive on earth today, and no written - save that in the Scripture, record made that might serve as a control of any dating procedure.
That is not a problem for the creationist. The creationist does not need long periods of time to establish the truth of his theory of origins. Theology, it would seem, would point toward a young earth. Still, an old earth would not in any way jeopardize the world view of the creationist.
The same area of latitude does not extend to the evolutionist. His theory must have long periods of time for it to be viable. Anything which would suggest a young earth would present a strong problem for the theory of the evolutionist.
These are all, of course, simple arguments made to bolster the argument of the creationist, as opposed to the evolutionary account of origins. It is all good exercise, but it is not as important as is the question of what it was that God wanted us to understand from His explanation of the beginning of the universe.
As big as the Book seems to many, when we consider just how many persons, and how many years, and how many subjects, are touched upon in Holy Writ, we must be impressed with the conciseness of the Message. Things are not included in the Scripture to give simple answers to simple curiosity. God gives us profound answers to profound needs.
We need to understand that God does, indeed, stand outside the laws and strictures of time and the physical universe. He is the Author of the universe of matter and time. As such He stands in ultimate control of the destinies of man and empire.
We could not have fully understood this via observation of the physical universe. Our ability to understand is limited to what we can see, hear, feel, smell, taste ... experience. In order for us to fully understand the Majesty of the God of the Universe, it was necessary for Him to reveal Himself. This He has done via the Words He has recorded in Scripture.
But, He has done even more than simply this to show Himself to His creature, man. Look at the first three verses of the first chapter of the Book of Hebrews:
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds, Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high...
Jesus put it very succinctly to Philip, �...he that hath seen me has seen the Father...� (John 14:9)
When we look at the creation accounts we see a God of Love, a God of Power, a God of Action, a God of Purpose.
We see that same Person in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ loves us so much that He came into this sin cursed world to die for our sins. He, and He alone, has the power to cleanse us of our sin. Even we can not do this for ourselves. Only He can do it for us. His action was to effect this sin cure at the Cross of Calvary. The purpose of Jesus is to, as He Himself said, �...to seek and to save that which was lost.� (Luke 19:19)
The Great God of Power is interested in the health of your soul. Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior?