An Analysis of the Chick Tract "In The Beginning"

This tract presents a dialog between an evolutionist (Jason) and a young-earth creationist (Bob), the later being presented as an example on how to persuade evolutionists. In this analysis we will examine how persuasive it is or not.

	The young-earth creationist's disparaging reaction is out of harmony with the council given in 1 Peter 3:15: "Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always {being} ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (NASB) or "gentleness and respect." (NIV); "mild temper and deep respect." (NWT)
	The same comments above apply.
	The Bible "does not claim to be a scientific textbook. Nevertheless, when the Bible does touch on scientific matters, what it says is completely accurate." (The Bible: God's Word or Man's? page 98. Published by Jehovah's Witnesses.) Here he quotes Genesis 1:1 which teaches that the earth and the heavens, the sun, moon and stars, were created in the beginning. The 6 days that followed developed the earth for human habitation.
	This is a disconnect as that scripture would not refute the Big Bang since it is not addressing the act of creating the universe.
	This is a valid objection against young-earth creationism since the heat from the sun would be needed to prevent the deep global ocean from freezing. Also, without a sun, the new plants would freeze. However, Genesis 1:1 presents the earth revolving around the sun before the 6 days began. Also, Genesis 1:11, 12 have the flora growing from the earth to maturity in Day 3: "Let the earth sprout vegetation. ... The earth brought forth vegetation." This took place over many years, all within Day 3.
	Genesis 1:14-19 need only present what an earthly observer would have seen, the heavenly luminaries becoming clearer. This would harmonize with the flora absorbing carbon dioxide which would have obscured the view of them. As stated above, if there was no sun on Day 3, the plants would have died immediately by freezing. Bob has God making the "cart before the horse." Even if the defense is made that God kept the plants or seeds warm until the sun's creation the next day, that would make God a micromanager, and a very unwise one at that.
	Perhaps his brain is reeling from hearing that the earth was covered with liquid water with no sun, with only geothermal heat, and that plants were planted with no sun yet they grew to maturity and spread over the earth in one solar day.
	"Prehistoric" simply means what occurred before recorded history. Before Adam started recording history, it was prehistoric. This word was certainly not created for brainwashing, as stating that is conspiratorial and ignores the span of time from the start of creation to when Adam started recording history.
	A) Since the third day had plants growing to maturity, it certainly was not meant to be understood as a solar day. As the sixth day had the garden of Eden planted during it, it certainly was not meant to be understood as a solar day either. (Genesis 2:8) Therefore, dinosaurs and mankind were not necessarily concurrent. B) In The Beginning was published in 2000 with that claim of photographs of human and dinosaur footprints together in Texas (without a ruler in the photograph). Yet, it was rejected over a decade prior in 1986 by "a number of leading creationist researchers." It is also listed under "Which arguments should definitely not be used?" (italics original) by a young-earth creationist organization.*
	While it is true Adam is our first relative, it is not true that "before Day One there was no world," since it was created before Day One according to Genesis 1:1. The six creative days developed the already created earth.
	Adam knew what death meant, which could indicate that he observed death of plants and/or animals. Also, for the rest of this creative day, Adam had some activities to complete. He had to name all the animals after observing them, fully explore the garden to be informed about it and to be settled in, naming plant life in the process, and then fall into a deep sleep to be married. (Genesis 2:15, 19-22) This scenario clearly requires a period of time exceeding a solar day.
	The serpent had arms and legs? And opposable thumbs? While Genesis 3:14 commands the serpent to slither on its belly on the ground, this does not require it to have had appendages. It may have been in a tree when the command was issued, and in any case, was merely illustrative of Satan's condemnation as an outcast before God.
	(Gotta love that opposable thumb.)
	(Corn on the cob?) The serpent looks a lot like a dinosaur.
	(I didn't know the Grim Reaper was created in Genesis.)
	Genesis 2:7 states that Adam received "the breath of life" (Hebrew: nishmath [from neshamah] chaiyim) and he "came to be a living soul," a breathing creature (Hebrew: nephesh). So Adam did not have a soul but was a soul. If not, then why is there absolutely no record of Adam's soul being warned of eternal hell? Why only warn his body of death to dust but not warn his soul? This disconnect is inescapable. "Hell" is sheol in Hebrew and hades in Greek, the grave of mankind and not a place of eternal torture.
	It cost God his life to be his son Jesus?
	According to that scripture John 3:16, it was not God, but but "his only begotten Son" whom God raised from the dead. Those two frames in this tract have been worded contradictorily like this due to the Trinity doctrine.
	"It is even so written: 'The first man Adam became a living soul.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:45) "That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned. ... For if by the trespass of the one [man] death ruled as king through that one, much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings in life through the one [person], Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:12, 17)

In summary, aside from the concluding Trinitarian language, the following may be concluded about In The Beginning:

1. It is out of touch with current young-earth creationism.
2. Like young-earth creationism, it fails to note events that greatly exceed a solar day: flora requiring time to grow to maturity and Adam's involved, complex assignments in the garden.
3. Being young-earth creationist, it holds that the sun and moon were created on Day 4, as opposed to merely appearing then to an earthly observer. Creating the sun on Day 4 would mean that God was micromanaging earth by placing and maintaining temporary light and heat sources for the first three days. This would not reflect wisdom. The Creator does not micromanage his creation, but establishes physical laws for it to function in. Thus, the earth was created in the circumsolar habitable zone, where it can support life without his constant attention or micromanagement. The earth with no sun and moon for three days also violates the fact that they were created in Genesis 1:1, which declares that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." "The heavens and the earth" were created before the first creative day began. This is important because Genesis 1:2 begins, not with the creation of the earth, but with its development. God evidently used the sun's natural forces of gravity and heat while he proceeded with the creative days. He used natural forces that he created to aid his development of the earth. Thus, the Creator in young-earth creationism is a micromanager, and not the Creator found in Genesis or in nature. (Romans 1:20)

In The Beginning may be seen at www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5001/5001_01.asp (8 October 2008)