The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate (8 page)

11. The progressive creationist argument that the first three
days could not have been literal days because the sun was not
created until day four is not convincing. Indeed, young-earth
creationists believe the first three days were the same length
of time as the last four days. They point out that exactly the same kinds of descriptive words are used to describe all the
days-words like evening and morning. Some believe God
created a temporary localized source of light in heaven (see
Genesis 1:3) which, as the earth rotated, gave the appearance
of light for the day and darkness for the night, all within a
twenty-four-hour period. 15

12. As for the progressive creationist view that the flood of
Noah's day was only a local flood, the evidence points to a universal flood. The waters climbed so high on the earth that "all the
high mountains under the entire heavens were covered" (Genesis
7:19). They rose so greatly on the earth that they "covered the
mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet" (verse 20). The
flood lasted some 377 days (nearly 54 weeks), indicating more
than just local flooding.

The Bible also says that every living thing that moved on
the earth perished, "all the creatures that swarm over the earth,
and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath
of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the
earth was wiped out.... Only Noah was left, and those with him
in the ark" (verses 21-23, italics added).

The language of Genesis 6-9 seems to be that of a universal flood. Furthermore, the universal view best explains the
worldwide distribution of diluvian deposits. A universal flood
would also explain the sudden death of many woolly mammoths
frozen in Alaskan and Siberian ice. Investigation shows that
these animals died suddenly by choking or drowning and not
by freezing.

Still further, following this flood, God promised never to
destroy humankind by such a flood again (Genesis 8:21;
9:11,15). If the flood of Noah's time was only a local flood, then
God has broken His promise, for innumerable human beings
have been killed in multiple local floods. But another universal flood has never occurred.

One must also wonder why Noah would spend 120 years
building an ark at God's command for a local flood. Why
wouldn't God just instruct him to pack up his family, get two
of each of the animals, and go on a trek to a safe part of the
world?

Finally, many universal flood legends (over 270) exist among
people of various religions and cultural backgrounds all over
the world. These people attribute the descent of all races to
Noah.

Theistic evolutionists claim the Bible teaches that God
created the world and humanity, but it does not tell us how He
did it.36 Mixing their interpretation of Scripture with what they
consider to be scientific evidence for evolution, theistic evolutionists conclude that God initially began creation, and then
He directed and controlled the processes of naturalistic evolution to produce the universe as we know it today.37 God acted
as a kind of "impersonal life force inherent in the system."38 He
allegedly entered into the process of time on occasion to modify
what was developing. "God created the biological world, including all past and present life-forms, by using evolutionary mech-
anisms."39 Most theistic evolutionists hold to the day-age theory,
though some believe the "days" in Genesis are "revelatory days"
when God gave revelation about the creation. One theistic evolutionist argues that

accepting macroevolutionism as a scientific theory does
not endanger essential religious beliefs. Some evolutionary creationists interpret the biblical creation story
as "days of proclamation" at the beginning of time,
when God planned and proclaimed creative intentintentions carried out via the very natural mechanisms
God designed. Most evolutionary creationists see Genesis 1 as an example of God communicating
universal, eternal truths through the limited knowledge
and cultural images of the human author.4o

Theistic evolutionists typically deny the historicity of Adam
and Eve (as direct creations of God) in the book of Genesis.
They generally argue that at some point in the process of evolution, God took an already-existing higher primate (an ape),
modified it, put a soul within it, and transformed it into Adam,
in the "image of God." (God also transformed an existing female
higher primate into Eve.) In this view, then, God directly created
the spiritual nature of humanity, but the physical nature was a
product of evolution.

Theistic evolutionists recognize that this seems to disagree
with the statement in Genesis 2:7 that God created Adam from
the dust of the ground, so they reinterpret "dust of the ground"
metaphorically to refer to previously existing animals. By taking
a nonliteral approach to Genesis, theistic evolutionists are able
to fit their evolutionist views into it.

1. Evolutionists and creationists rarely agree on anything,
but most seem to agree that theistic evolution is an ill-informed
position regarding man's origins. Evolutionists do not like the
theory because they do not want to allow for God or the supernatural at any point in their theory (see chapter 2, "Evolutionism Rests On the Foundation of Naturalism"). As Charles
Darwin put it, "I would give absolutely nothing for the theory
of natural selection if it requires miraculous additions at any
one stage of descent. 114,

2. Creationists point to a number of serious theological problems with theistic evolution. For one thing, it must make a
complete allegory out of Genesis 1:1-2:3, for which there is
no warrant. Nothing in Genesis indicates it is to be taken as anything less than historical. If we start taking the approach that
we can simply allegorize any portion of Scripture that doesn't
agree with some aspect of modern science, we will not have
much of a literal Bible left.

3. The suggestion that humanity is derived from a nonhuman ancestor cannot be reconciled with a correct understanding of Genesis 2:7: "The LoRD God formed the man from the
dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life, and the man became a living being." Notice that God
created Adam's material nature from the dust of the ground.
This indicates that God formed Adam from inorganic material rather than obtaining it from some previously living form
(like an ape). God then created Adam's immaterial nature (the
breath of life).42

Many scholars have noted the significance of God creating
Adam as a "living being" in Genesis 2:7. The Hebrew words
translated "living being" (Hebrew: nephesh chayah) are exactly
the same words used to describe the other creatures God previously created (see Genesis 1:20,21,24). Genesis 2:7 indicates
that Adam became a living being just as other beasts became living
beings. In other words, Adam was not a living being until the
moment he was created as one; he did not exist previously as
a higher primate. Until God breathed the breath of life into
Adam, he was just inanimate, lifeless matter (dust of the ground).

Further, the idea that "dust of the ground" metaphorically
refers to animals is not persuasive. Consider the fact that God
later informs Adam what would happen to him when he dies:
"For dust you are and to dust you will return" (Genesis 3:19).
If "dust of the earth" refers to animals, then we must interpret
this verse to mean that when Adam dies, he returns to an animal
form, a conclusion no one would agree with. 13

4. Christ's comment about Adam and Eve's creation is particularly worthy of note (Matthew 19:4). Christ, as God, is allknowing. Christ, as God, is also the creator of the universe (see John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2,10). Jesus the Creator
affirmed that Adam was created not only in the image and likeness of God (spiritually) but also male and female (physically).
This affirmation from Christ would be quite misleading if in
fact the physical nature of man were actually derived from evolution (that is, a higher primate that was "modified"). If Christ's
words cannot be trusted in these particulars about Adam, how
can anyone be sure His words can be trusted in other matters?44

5. To simply deny the historicity of Adam is to call into question the salvific work of the "last Adam" (Jesus Christ) (see
Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:22,45-49). If Adam never
existed and fell into sin, then what need do we have for a last
Adam (the Savior) to die on the cross for us?

6. Young-earth creationists criticize theistic evolution as
violating a key New Testament teaching in 1 Corinthians
11:8,12: "For man did not come from woman, but woman from
man.... For as woman came from man, so also man is born of
woman." The apostle Paul here teaches that while men today
are born of women, women had their first origin in man. The
theistic evolutionist idea that woman came from a female higher
primate, as man came from a male higher primate, is incompatible with this teaching.45

7. The apostle Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:39 that "all
flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have
another, birds another and fish another." Man was not created
from an ape. Rather, humans and apes have an entirely different "flesh." This verse cannot be made to agree with theistic
evolution.

8. One must ask why God would use mutations-which are
generally harmful to the creature-as His means of bringing
various species into being. As one scholar put it, "Why should
the omniscient God, who knows precisely what He wants, set
nature groping her way forward as if she were blind, to find the path of least resistance? Why should the omnipotent God choose
such a wasteful and cruel method to `create' life?"46

9. Young-earth creationists also bring up the issue of death
before the fall. They argue that Scripture asserts sin and death
did not exist before the fall (Romans 5:12-14). If theistic evolution is correct, this would mean death and suffering existed for
a long time prior to the time Adam ever came on the scene.
This is unacceptable to those who read Genesis in a straightforward, literal fashion.

Young-earth creationism holds that the universe was
created-mature and fully functioning-during six literal days
10,000 or fewer years ago.47 This view is held by Henry Morris,
John Whitcomb, A.E. Wilder Smith, Weston Fields, John Klotz,
Robert Kofahl, Kelly Segraves, and many others.4S

Young-earth creationism disagrees with evolution and
theistic evolution in that it denies that macroevolution (evolution of one species into another) had anything to do with origins.
It disagrees with progressive creationism by affirming that the
days of Genesis were not long periods of time but literal twentyfour-hour days.

This view holds that when God engaged in the work of
creation, He did so instantaneously. Psalm 33 tells us, "By the
word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by
the breath of his mouth.... For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm" (verses 6,9; compare with
Genesis 1:3,6,9,14,20,24). Hebrews 11:3 likewise tells us that
"the universe was formed at God's command." No time interval lapsed between God's commanding words and creation leaping into existence. No slow process of evolution was involved
in any way.

Genesis uses three Hebrew words to describe God's work of
creation. These are bard ("to create"), asah ("to make"), and yatsar ("to form"). God alone was responsible for creating, making,
and forming all that is in the universe. And He did so without
using preexisting materials. One moment, nothing existed
anywhere in the universe. The next moment, after God gave
the command, the universe leaped into existence. This is known
among theologians as creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing).
Instantaneously, God brought forth each "kind" of animal and
plant, and each then reproduced "after its kind."

This reproduction "after its kind" is consistent with what
we learn in 1 Corinthians 15:39 (KJv): "All flesh is not the same
flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of man, another flesh of
beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." The Hebrew
word for "kind" (min) is probably more flexible than our present "species,"49 but the word prohibits macroevolution-the idea
that one "kind" can evolve into another. Humans always reproduce as humans, dogs always reproduce as dogs, and cats always
reproduce as cats. Reproducing "after its kind" does, however,
allow for microevolution, involving minor changes within
species. As Duane Gish points out, "each kind was created with
sufficient genetic potential, or gene pool, to give rise to all the
varieties within that kind that have existed in the past and those
that are yet in existence today."50

Young-earth creationism is the viewpoint that most consistently interprets the Genesis account in a plain, straightforward,
literal fashion. Sometimes young-earth creationists are caricatured
as wooden literalists, but this is an unfair charge. Young-earth
creationists do not hold to a wooden literalism-the kind that
interprets biblical figures of speech literally. They believe that what
is understood to be symbolic and what is taken literally should
be based on the biblical context itself. For example, Jesus used
obviously figurative parables to communicate spiritual truth.

A literal approach to Scripture recognizes that the Bible
contains a variety of literary genres, and each has certain
peculiar characteristics that must be recognized in order to interpret the text properly. Biblical genres include history (Acts),
the dramatic epic (Job), poetry (Psalms), wise sayings (Proverbs), apocalyptic writings (Revelation), and many others. An
incorrect genre judgment will lead one far astray in interpreting
Scripture.

Even though the Bible contains a variety of literary genres
and many figures of speech, the biblical authors most often
conveyed their ideas literally. And where they express their ideas
literally, the Bible expositor must explain these ideas literally.
Such an approach gives to each word the same basic meaning
it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage in writing,
speaking, or thinking. Without such a method, communication between God and humankind is impossible.