The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate (6 page)

Scripture tells us that God is the Sustainer and Governor of
the universe (Acts 14:16-17; 17:24-28). The Bible shows Jesus
"upholding all things by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3
KJv), and "all things consist" in Him (Colossians 1:17 KJv). That
which from a human vantage point is called a "law of nature" is
in reality nothing more than God's normal cosmos-sustaining
power at work! As Reformed scholar Louis Berkhof put it, these
laws of nature are

God's usual method of working in nature. It is His
good pleasure to work in an orderly way and through secondary causes. But this does not mean that
He cannot depart from the established order, and
cannot produce an extraordinary effect, which does
not result from natural causes, by a single volition, if
He deems it desirable for the end in view. When God
works miracles, He produces extraordinary effects in
a supernatural way.26

2. Miracles do not violate the laws of nature. If one defines
a miracle as a violation of the absolute laws of nature, like David
Hume did, then the possibility of miracles occurring seems slim.
However, as theologian Charles Ryrie notes, a miracle does not
contradict nature because "nature is not a self-contained whole;
it is only a partial system within a total reality, and a miracle
is consistent within that greater system which includes the supernatural. "27

When a miracle occurs, the laws of nature are not violated
but are rather superseded by a higher (supernatural) manifestation of the will of God. The forces of nature are not obliterated or suspended but are only counteracted at a particular point
by a superior force.28 As the famous physicist Sir George Stokes
has said, "It may be that the event which we call a miracle was
brought on not by a suspension of the laws in ordinary operation, but by the super-addition of something not ordinarily
in operation."29 In other words, miracles do not go against the
regular laws of cause and effect, they simply have a cause that
transcends nature.30

Apologists Kenneth Boa and Larry Moody explain it this
way:

Since miracles, if they occur, are empowered by
something higher than nature, they must supersede the
ordinary processes or laws of nature. If you took a flying
leap off the edge of a sheer cliff, the phenomenon that we call the law of gravity would surely bring you to an
untimely end. But if you leaped off the same cliff in a
hang glider, the results would (hopefully!) be quite
different. The principle of aerodynamics in this case
overcomes the pull of gravity as long as the glider is in
the air. In a similar way, the occurrence of a miracle
means that a higher (supernatural) principle has overcome a lower (natural) principle for the duration of
the miracle. To claim that miracles violate or contradict natural laws is just as improper as to say that the
principle of aerodynamics violates the law of gravity."

Boa and Moody further illustrate their point with the
fictional story of a Martian who lands his spacecraft atop a
building in Chicago. The Martian looks over the edge of the
building and observes how people respond to traffic lights.
Green lights cause people to go; yellow lights cause people to
slow down; red lights cause people to stop. He observes this
consistent pattern for a solid hour. All the sudden, the Martian
witnesses a vehicle with flashing red lights and a siren, and
against all that he has thus far observed, the vehicle goes straight
through the red light. "`Aha!' he said, `there must be a higher
law! When you have a flashing light and a loud sound, you
can go through the crossing regardless of what color the light
may be.""'

This little story illustrates that the natural laws of the universe
can be (and are on occasion) overruled by a higher law. The
universe is not a closed system that prevents God from breaking in with the miraculous. God does not violate the laws of
nature but rather supersedes them with a higher law. God is
over, above, and outside natural law and is not bound by it.

Scientists may claim that such miracles would disrupt any
possibility of doing real science by removing constancy in the
world. But constancy is in the world because God created the world that way. Miracles are unusual events that involve only a
brief superseding of the natural laws. By definition, they are out
of the norm. If a norm did not exist, miracles would not be possible. As apologists Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli put it, "Unless
there are regularities, there can be no exceptions to them.";'
Miracles are unusual, not commonplace events. A miracle is a
unique event that stands out against the background of ordinary and regular occurrences. The possibility of miracles does
not disrupt the possibility of doing real science because God has
built constancy into the universe via the laws of nature.

3. David Hume's experience was greatly limited. As noted
previously, Hume argued that a "miracle is a violation of the
laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has
established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very
nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience
can possibly be imagined."34

The big problem with Hume's conclusion is that "experience" can never confirm his naturalistic viewpoint unless he has
access to all possible experiences in the universe, including those
of the past and the future. Since (finite) Hume does not have
access to this much broader (infinite) body of knowledge, his
conclusion is baseless."

The reality is that we could trust very little history if we were
to believe only those things which we have personally
observed and experienced! Sadly, though, this is the methodology modernistic critics still hold onto regarding miracles.

Apologists Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks have
noted that Hume essentially equates probability with evidence.
Since people who die typically stay dead, a so-called miracle of
resurrection is impossible. Geisler and Brooks counter, "That
is like saying that you shouldn't believe it if you won the lottery
because of all the thousands of people who lost. It equates
evidence with probability and says that you should never believe that long shots win. "I' A miracle may be a "long shot," and it
may not happen very often, but long shots make good sense
when God is involved in the picture. What is impossible with
man is possible with God (Matthew 19:26).

4. If God exists, then miracles are possible. The bottom line,
once you get rid of all the fancy philosophical arguments against
miracles, is this: If one admits God may exist, miracles are possible. Paul Little writes, "Once we assume the existence of God,
there is no problem with miracles, because God is by definition all-powerful. "37 Reformed scholar Charles Hodge, in his
Systematic Theology, similarly writes: "If theism [belief in a
personal Creator-God] be once admitted, then it must be admitted that the whole universe, with all that it contains and all the
laws by which it is controlled, must be subject to the will of
God."" As Norman Geisler put it so well, "If there is a God
who can act, then there can be acts of God. The only way to
show that miracles are impossible is to disprove the existence
of God."39 And that is something that naturalists cannot do!4o

What does all this mean for our present study? It means that
the assumptions that undergird naturalism-such as the idea
that the natural world is a closed system, the idea that we have
no God who can intervene, the idea that we can account for all
things in the universe by materialistic causes and effects, and so
forth-are false assumptions. And since naturalism undergirds
evolution, evolution too finds its foundational base collapsing.

Later in the book, I demonstrate substantial evidence that
a transcendent and powerful God-an intelligent Designercreated the universe and left His fingerprints all over it.41 This
evidence, many believe, deals a philosophical deathblow to naturalism.

A book like this would be easier to write if all Christians
uniformly believed the same thing on the issue of man's origin.
But they do not.' All Christians believe in God, but they hold
to a variety of interpretations regarding His role in man's origin.

Among the views Christians have held on this issue are the
gap theory, progressive creationism, theistic evolution, and youngearth creationism. A basic working knowledge of these diverse
viewpoints will help you understand the creation-evolution
debate. In what follows, then, I will present summaries of each
position followed by objections raised against them.

The gap theory teaches that God created the world perhaps
billions of years ago, and it was perfect and beautiful in every
way. This is the creation described in Genesis 1:1. This creation
was populated with plants and animals and perhaps even with
a race of pre-Adamic men who had no souls. Then, as a result
of Lucifer's rebellion and fall (Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28), the earthLucifer's domain-became chaos. The picture of formlessness,
emptiness, and darkness in Genesis 1:2 is allegedly a picture of divine judgment, for God could not have originally created the
earth this way (see Isaiah 24:1; 45:18; Jeremiah 4:23-26).2
Darkness is often used as a symbol of judgment and sin in
Scripture (John 3:19; Jude 13). The original creation in Genesis
1:1 was one of light, but after God judged the earth, it was characterized by darkness (verse 2). Millions of years-perhaps even
billions of years-are said to have taken place between verses
1 and 2.' Hence the "gap" theory.

Gap proponents typically translate Genesis 1:2 this way: "But
the earth became without form and empty" (italics added).
Traditional translations render it, "But the earth was without
form and empty" (italics added). Gap proponents argue that
the earth "became" (Hebrew: hayetha) without form and empty
when God judged the world as a result of Lucifer's sin. The
words "without form and void" (Hebrew: tohu wa-bohu) appear
elsewhere only in Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23, and in these
verses "formless" and "void" speak of judgment and destruction. Therefore, the words must have the same meaning in
Genesis 1:2.

In this view, God's judgment on the earth involved a devastating global flood followed by an Ice Age. All life on planet
earth was apparently extinguished. The apparent old age of the
earth and the extensive fossils showing development over long
periods of time relate to this first creation.' The six days of
creation discussed throughout the rest of Genesis 1 (verse 2 and
following) relate to God's re-creation or restoration of the earth,
not the original creation.5 This reconstruction probably took
place around 4000 B.C.

The gap theory has been held by such notable scholars as
John Eadie, F. Delitzsch, Arthur Custance, C.I. Scofield (of the
famous Scofield Study Bible), G.H. Pember, Arthur W. Pink, and
Donald Grey Barnhouse. Out of all the "gap" proponents I have
read, Barnhouse's explanation is the most lucid. Following are
a few distinctive highlights of his version:

Barnhouse argues that one of the big mistakes Christians
make in Bible interpretation is that they have a tendency to see
the events in Genesis 1:1 as closely connected in time to verse
2. He argues for a great gulf (or "gap") between the two, perhaps
involving millions of .6

The first creation was perfect. Barnhouse makes much of
Isaiah 45:18 in support of the theory. This verse reads, "For this
is what the Lord says-he who created the heavens, he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did
not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited" (italics
added). Clearly, God did not create the original earth as "empty."
The original creation was perfect in every way.

Barnhouse says that following the original perfect creation,
God placed a magnificent being on the earth to govern it, and
his name was Lucifer. But after a time, this magnificent being
rebelled against God and sought to take God's place. God was
therefore forced to judge his domain, planet earth.

That something tremendous and terrible happened
to the first, perfect creation is certain.... Somewhere
back before the chaos of the second verse of Genesis
there is a great tragedy and a terrible catastrophe....
We know that it was the hand of a holy God which
struck the earth into ruin because of a great outbreak
of rebellion.'

Barnhouse then explains the gap:

The judgment of God on Satan's rebellion turned
out the lights on this world. We do not know how long
this period of judgment lasted. It may have been long
ages. The geologists tell us of the scars of the travail
of earlier years, and they believe that millions of years
must have been necessary to have brought about some of the phenomena which are found in the earth. Let
it be millions of years. Whatever the theory as to
primeval time, it can be dropped into the vastness of
Genesis.'

Lucifer thus witnessed his domain demolished. He could do
nothing to prevent it. Lucifer sinned against God, and God
blasted the earth in judgment. At this time, "the earth became
without form and void, a wreck and a ruin, a chaos, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." Later, "on the occasion of
the creation of Adam, God moved to re-form, to refashion, this
earth."'