"IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED..."

An essay on Creation and Evolution

INTRODUCTION

  "Where did I come from?" is a question that is common to all peoples but the
answer to such a question will vary according to ones beliefs. This paper will
discuss three schools of thought with regard to the origins and development of
life. In giving definitions for these views it should be understood that
within each field their are variations of beliefs. The first is Creation and
for the purposes of this essay Creation will refer to the belief that God
created the earth and all that is in it not by means of a gradual process but
by specific acts of creation as recorded in the book of Genesis. The second is
the theory of Evolution where life came about by chance and developed through
a process of natural selection, mutations and survival of the fittest from
simple organisms to complex organisms over millions of years and was not the
result of a creator. The third is the attempt to blend the two together. Those
who believe in  the God of the Bible and believe that it is from God that life
originated but who believe that there is enough scientific evidence to accept
that life developed by the process of evolution. That is, God created the
simplest life forms and then allowed them to evolve through an evolutionary
process guided by him. This essay will look at the origins of these views, the
evidence for them and examine whether or not evolution and Christianity can
exist together as they do in Theistic Evolutional theory. It should be noted
that the Bible is assumed to be the Word of God as the scope of this essay
does not allow the many proves for this to be presented.


ORIGINS OF CREATION, EVOLUTION AND THEISTIC EVOLUTION	

  It has long been assumed among the inhabitants of the earth that life
originated from a higher being. In fact the Bible tells us that the heavens
declare God's glory and display the work of his hands (Ps 19:1) and that all
men are without excuse because God has created things so that we know he
exists (Rom 1:18-20). To pick up the Bible just one hundred and fifty years
ago was to believe that God created life in the exact manner recorded in the
first few chapters of Genesis. That God could make every living thing in six
days was not disputed.

  Prior to the proposal of the evolutionary theory, the creation account for
the origin and history of the earth was an acceptable model adequately
explaining the observable evidence. The biblical account was then purposely
rejected in favour of the evolutionary theory (McLean, Oakland and McLean,
p. 92).

  When the theory of evolution began to formulate, it claimed scientific
backing for its beliefs. It became the educated explanation for life and
origins. The authors of The Evidence for Creation observe:

	One hundred and fifty years ago such a theory [ie evolution] for the
	origin and history of the earth and life would have been termed
	absurd. Today, however, those who reject the idea of random
	evolutionary processes being responsible for designing life and
	shaping geological features of the earth are termed religious,
	unscientific fanatics (Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean, p.91).

The idea behind the theory of evolution  was not to explain how a creator
could have created life as we know it but to explain how life could come about
without a creator. "The purpose of the evolution theory, as stated by several
of its founders, was to show an alternative explanation for the origin of life
could be made without giving credit to a Creator" (Mc Lean, Oakland and
Mc Lean, p. 93). Scientific evidences were brought forward to support the
theory of evolution and Christianity was pushed away in favour of atheistic
humanism. While many Christians held to the Biblical account of creation many
others felt forced by such evidences to concede that evolution was correct.
They did not want to give up their belief in God however so the Biblical
account had to be reevaluated and reinterpreted in the light of evolutionary
theory. The Biblical account was considered to be symbolic, figurative or just
man's account of what he thought happened rather than the Word of God to be
read literally and believed. For example, the six days of creation specified
in the Bible are expanded to the millions of years necessary for evolution.
Thus many adopted both an evolutionary and theistic view of the origins of
life. Such a view is not truly Creationist, as it implies that different life
forms evolved over a long period of time and were not the result of
instantaneous creation, nor is it truly evolutionist as it accepts the origin
of life to ultimately be God and that he was to some extent involved in the
process of evolution.


GENERAL ACCEPTANCE OF EVOLUTION

  The evidence presented on behalf of evolution includes transitional forms,
homologous structures, dating methods,vestigial organs,studies on peppered
moths and finches. All of which appears extremely convincing when left
unchallenged. In such a tide of scientific assertion it is not surprising that
many would be shaken and/or taken in by the theory of evolution. Add to this
the fact that evolution is taught in the majority of western schools as though
it were more fact than theory and it is not hard to see why so many Christians
are left to balance their belief in the Creator and the theory of evolution.


EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION OR CREATION?

  Since the initial wave of evolutionary theory many scientists have been able
to study the area and the evidences further. There are those who go on
believing in evolution without question and there are those who have looked
more closely at the supposed evidence. This we will do in this section if but
briefly.


THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

  Creationists have been accused many times of being unscientific and ignoring
clear evidences. It should be pointed out that it is actually the theory of
evolution that contradicts a known scientific law- the Second Law of
Thermodynamics (also known as the Law of Increasing Entropy). This law
basically teaches that "...all things change in the direction of increasing
entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of running down."
(Isaac Asmov, 1973, cited in Morris and Parker, p. 198). Morris and Parker
explain further:

	This principal is exceedingly important. Its operation is experienced
	in everyday human life, as well as in the most sophisticated machine
	and most complex process. If you let anything go, it deteriorates. If
	you let your desk go it becomes cluttered... if you let your
	automobile go, it runs down... And even if you don't let them go, but
	do your best to take care of them, they will eventually wear out
	anyhow! The Second Law inevitably triumphs, sooner or later. This
	experience is so universal and so common that it is surprising that
	anyone could ever believe in evolution at all." (Morris and Parker,
	p. 198-199)

Evolution teaches that organisms become more ordered and more complex as time
passes. Conversely the Biblical account of creation not only explains how
complex organisms came into being it also explains why the Second Law operates
ie. because of sin (Gen 3:16-19).


THE AGE OF THE EARTH

  Much of the evolutionary theory rests on the premise of an earth that is
millions of years old whereas most creationists believe in a young earth. Much
of the case for an old earth is supported by radiometric dating techniques.
However these are not as reliable as we have been led to believe. Morris and
Parker observe:

	When I first became interested in the subject of cosmology almost
	forty years ago, it was widely held that the universe was two billion
	years old. The most persuasive "proof" of this age was the convergence
	of several independent calculations on this date. The argument went
	like this: "Although questions can be raised about the reliability of
	any one method, the fact that several independent methods 'agree' must
	prove that they are all basically correct. The decay of lead into
	uranium, the expansion of the universe, and several other calculations
	all yield an age of two billion years, so this is undoubtedly the true
	age!"

	It is now known, of course, that all these calculations were wrong. In
	each of the methods, certain assumptions had been made which were
	later proved wrong.

 	However, the line of reasoning still has a familiar ring. Even though
	all currently popular geochronometers involve certain very
	questionable assumptions, the apparent agreement in their results (or,
	at least, in some of their results) is taken as proof that they are
	correct (Morris and Parker, p. 255).

Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean explain the problem further:

	The radiometric dating techniques are based on three assumptions:
	1. The system must have been initially made up of all parent elements
	   and no daughter elements.
	2. The rate of decay must have been constant from the moment the
	   process was started.
	3. The system must operate as a closed system. Nothing from the system
	   can be taken away; nothing from outside the system can be added.

	As we examine these basic assumptions, the highly speculative nature
	of the radiometric dating methods becomes apparent. None of these
	assumptions are testable or provable, and therefore not scientific.
	For example it is impossible for anyone to know the initial components
	of the system. To state that the system began as 100% parent element
	and 0% daughter element is an outright guess. Secondly, it is
	unreasonable to suggest the decay rate has always taken place in the
	past at the same rate it is observed today. Every process in nature
	operates at a rate influenced by numerous environmental factors. In
	the process of radiometric decay, for example, extreme temperature
	change alters the rate very significantly. Thirdly, there is no such
	thing as a closed system in nature. The whole concept of having a
	process taking place over long periods without any outside
	interference is purely hypothetical. It is totally impossible to make
	the claim that parent or daughter elements have neither been added to
	nor taken away from the system over millions of years of time
	(Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean, p. 34-35).

Certainly if we believe the Biblical account of early human history,
conditions were not static enough for the radiometric methods to apply.
Consider the impact Noah's flood would have had. It was only after the flood
that mans age was decreased by several hundred years.

  Even some "old earth evolutionists" such as William Stansfield admit that:

	It is obvious that radiometric methods may not be the reliable dating
	methods they are often claimed to be. Age estimates on a given
	geological stratum using different methods are often quite different
	(sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely
	reliable long-term radiological clock (Morris and Parker, p. 285).

  On a more philosophical level it should be noted that, one does not know how
old the earth was when it was created. This might best be explained by
applying the idea to man. Adam, according to the Biblical account was created
not as a baby but as a full grown man. If he were examined by a doctor at the
time of creation he would be given an age above say twenty years even though
he was only minutes old. The same way of thinking could be applied to the
earth. Although it may appear old to some it had to be created that way to
function as we know it. For example, if you don't believe God shaped the
mountains and the valleys at creation than you have to believe it took
millions of years for them to be carved out by the forces of nature.

  There are scientific evidences that point to a young earth. There is not
enough time here to discuss them all but we will look at a couple, keep in
mind that the theory of evolution is dependant on the old earth theory.
Firstly, the earths magnetic field is getting weaker and weaker. "If we draw a
graph using the data that has been collected, and make the assumption that the
rate of magnetic decay has been the same in the past as it is today
[evolutionists work with the concept of static behaviour in their radiometric
dating methods] , the strength of the earth's magnetic field would have been
equivalent to a magnetic star only 10,000 years ago. Obviously no life could
possibly exist under these conditions" (Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean, p. 27).
Secondly the cosmic dust on the moon supports a young earth:

	With the use of satellite technology, scientists are capable of
	measuring the amount of cosmic dust filtering into the earth's
	atmosphere each year. Scientists have speculated that over the
	estimated billions of years of earth history, fifty or more feet of
	cosmic dust may have fallen... Because of erosion created by the
	earth's environmental conditions, an accumulation of this depth could
	not possibly be found in any one location.

	The factor of acclimating cosmic dust caused a great deal of concern
	for the initial explorations that took place to the moon. Unlike the
	earth, the moon is not subject to erosional processes created by wind
	and water. Because most evolutionary scientists believe the earth and
	the moon are of similar age, it was expected lunar landing modules
	would encounter a problem trying to land in over fifty feet of cosmic
	dust. As a result of this projection, based upon the assumed millions
	of years of age for the earth and moon, engineers in charge of design
	of the lunar landing modules constructed large pads so the space
	probes would not sink deep into the dust.

	When the first landing on the moon was accomplished, scientists were
	shocked to find the expected accumulation of dust was not present. In
	fact, the dust was only a few inches thick indicating a period of
	accumulation less than 10,000 years" (Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean,
	p. 26-27).

Other evidences include; the shrinking of the sun, comets, continent erosion
and oil and gas deposits (see Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean p. 24-34 for
further information).


HOMOLOGOUS STRUCTURES

  Evolutionists point to the similarities in the bone structure of the limbs
of various animals to show that those animals must have developed from a
common ancestor. This similarity can be explained equally as well by
creationists who state that it is simply creation according to a common
design. The old adage "if it works why change it?" applies here. It makes
sense that a designer would use a good design for several different items if
they were to be used for similar functions. Homologous structures do not
necessarily mean "common ancestry" they could  alternatively mean "common
designer".


VESTIGIAL ORGANS

  Another evidence put forward for evolution is the belief that during human
embryonic development certain "extras" or "vestiges" appear for a time that
are reminders of where humans evolved from. There is no doubt that to look at
the human embryo one can identify the structures evolutionists refer to. There
are small wrinkles in the skin near the neck, a balloon like appendage near
the stomach and a tail like appendage at the base. Evolutionists identify them
respectively as "gill slits", a "yolk sac" and a "tail" detailing our fish and
reptilian ancestry.  The evolutionist argues "Look, if you're talking about
creation, then surely the creator must not be all that good at it, or else
there wouldn't be all these mistakes in human embryonic development" (Morris
and Parker, p.61). This is not the case, none of these organs are what they
are referred to as above nor are they mistakes or useless leftovers, they are
all quite vital to human development. Firstly, the "gill slits" have been
discovered to actually be where the throat pouches grow out. "The middle ear
canals come from the second pouches, and the parathyroid and thymus glands
come from the third and fourth" (Morris and Parker, p. 64). The "yolk sac"
does not provide food as it would for a chicken, it is actually where the baby
makes its first blood cells, not having any bone marrow yet to make it there.
The "tail" is the development of the coccyx at the base of the spine. It is
quite a necessary bone and it sticks out because it has to form first as
muscles and limbs don't develop until stimulated by the spine, as these
develop they enclose the "tail". Not only have evolutionists deemed vital
areas of embryonic development "useless leftovers" they have also impacted the
adult world:

	The concept of vestigial organs even resulted in cases of
	"evolutionary medical malpractice." Young children once had their
	healthy (and helpful, disease-fighting) tonsils removed because of the
	widespread belief that they were only useless vestiges. That idea
	actually slowed down scientific research for many years. If you
	believe something is a useless, nonfunctional leftover of evolution,
	then you don't bother to find out what it does.

	Fortunately, other scientists didn't take that view. Sure enough,
	studies have shown that essentially all 180 organs once listed as
	evolutionary vestiges have quite important functions in human beings
	(Morris and Parker, p. 62-63).


EVOLUTION TODAY

  Sceptics of the evolution theory may well ask "If evolution is true, why
can't we see it happening today?" At this point the well schooled evolutionist
will reply "Evolution has been and can be observed today." He will then
proceed to detail observations made on the peppered moth population, the
finches of the Galapagos Islands and experiments with fruit flys. The peppered
moth account goes like this there were a population of moths in a community
that were observed undergoing natural selection. Natural selection is the name
of a process where the organisms that are best suited to their environment are
more likely to survive and hence reproduce. This process is also known as
survival of the fittest. Evolutionists believe that natural selection is
involved in the process of evolution. In the peppered moth population there
were both dark and light moths. The light moths were more camouflaged as they
blended with the lichen that covered the tree trunk. This made the dark moths
easier for the birds to see and they were easier prey. The population was
approximately 98% light moths. Over a period of time the population ratio was
reversed and there were 98% dark moths. The industrial pollution nearby had
caused the lichen to die exposing the dark coloured bark underneath. The dark
moths were therefore more suited to the environment and hence they became the
dominant colour as more light moths were eaten. This is clear evidence that
natural selection is a true scientific fact. It does not, however, prove
anything about evolution. Creation scientists believe in the process of
natural selection:

	As a matter of fact, 24 years before Darwin's publication, a scientist
	named Edward Blyth published the concept of natural selection in the
	context of creation. He saw it as a process that adapted varieties of
	the created types to changing environments. A book reviewer once
	asked, rather naively, if creationists could accept the concept of
	natural selection. The answer is, "Of course. We thought of it first"
	(See Leslie, 1984) (Morris and Parker, p. 82).

The creation model could be summarised as starting with a large gene pool
which divides by migration and selection and allows change within types or
kinds (ie. a bird will always be a bird and will not change into another kind
of animal). This is exactly what we observe with the peppered moth:

	What did we start with? Dark and light varieties of the peppered moth,
	species Biston betularia. After 100 years of natural selection, what
	did we end up with? Dark and light varieties of the peppered moth,
	species Biston betularia. All that changed was the percentage of moths
	in the two categories - that is, just variation within type. According
	to creationists, natural selection is just one of the processes that
	operate in our present world to insure that the created types can
	indeed spread throughout the earth in all its ecological and
	geographic variety (Morris and Parker, p. 82).

Evolution teaches that a small gene pool expanded by mutation and natural
selection to allow change between types or kinds (ie. a reptile could become
a bird over thousands or millions of years). So we see that the peppered moth
illustration is evidence of natural selection only not evolution. The same can
be said of the finches and fruit flys. In fact:

	Darwin explained the location of finches with different beak types on
	the Galapagos Islands the same way a creationist would - by starting
	with a population of finches with variation in beak type (Morris and
	Parker, p. 90).

	Lewontin is an evolutionist and outspoken anti-creationist, but he
	honestly recognises the same limitations of natural selection that
	creation scientists do: . . . . natural selection operates essentially
	to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather
	than to improve it.

	Natural selection does not lead to continual improvement (evolution);
	it only maintains features organisms already have (creation). . . . It
	seems to me that natural selection works only because each type was
	created with sufficient variety to migrate over the earth in all its
	ecological and geographic variety. Without realising it at the time,
	Darwin actually discovered important evidence pointing to creation
	(Morris and Parker, p. 91).


THE FOSSIL RECORD

  A belief and interest in fossils is often linked with as strong belief in
evolution. The fossil record is, however, one of the strongest arguments
against evolution. "Darwin thought that the fossil evidence was '...perhaps
the most obvious and serious objection which could be urged against the
theory [of evolution]'" (Morris and Parker p. 130). Even the father of the
modern concept of evolution acknowledged the problem here. He had a reason
though, to stay his judgement on this because paleontology (fossil study) was
a relatively new area. Darwin blamed the conflict between fact and theory on,
in his own words, "the imperfection of the geological record" (Morris and
Parker, p. 130). Only time would reveal the true story and thus the search for
fossil evidence began. Morris and Parker relate what exactly was sort after:

	When the modern version of creation-evolution dialogue got started in
	the middle of the last century, creationists and evolutionists had
	radically different ideas of the types of life they expected to find
	as fossils.

	The evolutionist, of course, expected to find fossils that showed
	stages through which one type of animal or plant changed into a
	different type. According to evolution, the boundaries between types
	should blur as we look back at their fossil history. It should get
	more and more difficult, for example, to tell cats from dogs and then
	mammals from reptiles, land animals from water animals, and finally
	life from nonlife. They expected also that the criteria we use to
	classify plants and animals today would be less and less useful as
	older and older fossils show the in-between characteristics of
	presumed common ancestors for different groups.

	But if the different types of life we see today are the descendants
	of types created, as the creationist says, then all we ought to find
	as fossils are just variations of these types, with extinction evident
	among prehistoric life as it is among historic forms. The same kind of
	criteria we use to classify plants and animals today ought to work
	just as well with fossils (Morris and Parker, p. 125-126).

Fossils of organisms undergoing transition from one type to another are known
as transitional forms or "missing links". If a great number of these were
found it would prove evolutionary theory. Only a few fossils that have been
found can even be considered as "missing links" . The prize fossil for
evolutionists is the Archaeopteryx. This animal is supposed to show the
transition between reptiles and birds. It possessed teeth, claws and a tail as
well as wings, feathers and a wishbone. Let's take a closer look:

	What's a creationist going to say to a "perfect example of evolution"
	like Archaeopteryx?

	Well, first of all, the reptile-like features are not really so
	reptile-like as you might suppose. The familiar ostrich, for example,
	has claws on its wings that are even more "reptile-like than those of
	Archaeopteryx. Several birds, such as the hoatzin, don't have much of
	a keel. No living birds have socketed teeth, but some fossil birds
	did. Besides, some reptiles have teeth and some don't, so presence or
	absence of teeth is not particularly important in distinguishing the
	two groups.

	More importantly, take a look at the individual features of
	Archaeopteryx. Is there any clue as to how legs evolved into wings?
	No, none at all. When we find wings as fossils, we find completely
	developed, fully functional wings. That's true of Archaeopteryx, and
	it's also true of the flying insects and the flying mammals (bats).

	Is there any clue in Archaeopteryx as to how the reptilian scales
	evolved into feathers? No, none at all. When we find feathers as
	fossils, we find fully developed and functional feathers. Feathers are
	quite complex structures, with little hooks and eyelets for zippering
	and unzippering them. Archaeopteryx not only had complete and complex
	feathers, but feathers of several different types. As a matter of
	fact, it had the asymmetric feather characteristic of strong flyers.

	What about a lack of a keel? Actually, muscles for the power stroke in
	flight attach to the wishbone or furcula, and Archaeopteryx had "an
	extremely robust furcula." As a matter of fact, a growing number of
	evolutionists, perhaps a consensus, now believe that Archaeopteryx was
	a strong flyer. Many now consider Archaeopteryx the first bird, and
	not a missing link between reptiles and birds (See Denton, 1985).

	Actually the final piece in the Archaeopteryx puzzle (for the time
	being, anyway) has been put into place with the discovery in Texas of
	a quarry full of bird bones ("poroto-avis"), entombed in rock layers
	"deeper" than those which contain Archaeopteryx remains (Beardsley,
	1986). What does that mean? It simply means that the Archaeopteryx
	specimens we have cannot have been the ancestors of birds, because
	birds always existed (Morris and Parker, p. 135, 137).

  So the result of the search for fossil evidence to support evolution has
actually supported creation by what was not found. "It used to be claimed that
the best evidence for evolution was the fossil record, but the fact is that
the billions of fossils have not yet yielded a single unequivocal transitional
form with transitional structures in the process of evolving" (Morris and
Parker, p. 3). David Raup curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in
Chicago and evolutionist states:

	Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the
	fossil record has been greatly expanded. . . ironically, we have even
	fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's
	time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian
	change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in
	North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of
	more detailed information. (Morris and Parker, p. 131-132).


MUTATIONS

  How do evolutionists explain the transition from one kind of organism to
another? It has been observed that genes are subject to mutations. For
example, exposure to radiation can cause mutation (or change) in the genes
that may result in a physical change in the organism. Mutations have never
been observed changing an organism from on kind into another. Evolutionists
teach that organisms undergo mutations and this coupled with natural selection
over millions of years results in new kinds of organisms. For example, a
reptile through a series of mutations and natural selection over a long period
of time can become a bird. This is how evolutionists believe all different
kinds of organisms evolved. If this were the case millions of fossils would
be found in the transitional phases but as we have seen there are no clear
evidences of this, however, for the moment we will leave this aside and look
at mutations themselves - "the raw material for evolution".

  Creationists believe that mutations take place but they do not believe that
they result in true evolution. Morris and Parker explain why:

	In the last analysis, mutations really don't help evolutionary theory
	at all, for three major reasons.

	(1) Mathematical Challenges...Back in 1967, a prestigious group of
	internationally known biologists and mathematicians gathered at the
	Wistar Institute to consider Mathematical Challenges to the
	Neo-Dawinian Interpretation of Evolution. (See Moorhead and Kaplan,
	1967.) All present were evolutionists, and they agreed, as the preface
	clearly states, that no one would be questioning evolution itself. The
	only question was, could mutations serve as a basis- with natural
	selection- as a mechanism for evolutionary change? The answer of the
	mathematicians: No. Just plain no." ...

	(2) Upward or downward? Even more serious is the fact that mutations
	are "going the wrong way" as far as evolution is concerned. Almost
	every mutation we know of is identified by the disease or abnormality
	it causes. Creationists use mutations to explain the origin of
	parasites and disease, the origin of hereditary defects, and the loss
	of traits. In other words, time, chance, and random changes do just
	what we normally expect: tear things up and make matters worse. Using
	mutations to explain the breakdown of existing genetic order
	(creation) is quite the opposite of using mutations to explain the
	build up of genetic order (evolution). Clearly creation is the most
	direct inference from the effects of mutations that scientists
	actually observe" (Morris and Parker, p. 95,98,100).

  It is worthwhile expanding this point. Evolutionists are quick to point out
what they believe to be a positive mutation. The one often used is the
sickle-cell anemia example which is as follows. In certain parts of Africa
malaria kills about 30% of the population. In that area a mutation of the red
blood cells known as sickle-cell anemia has become a fairly common trait. When
a person caries one normal red blood cell gene and one sickle-cell gene the
person is resistant to malaria. However about 25% of all children where the
parents carry the sickle-cell gene die from sickle-cell anemia. Many would
agree that this is not really a positive upward movement.

  Mutations are " ...harmful at least 1,000 times more often than they are
helpful" (Morris and Parker, p. 102). It is extremely hard to believe that
mutations could result in simple organisms evolving into more complex
organisms. To return to Morris and Parker's three reasons why mutations are
not acceptable as a means for evolution:

	(3) Mutations point back to creation...the biggest reason mutations
	cannot lead to evolution is an extremely simple one. It's so simple,
	I'm almost afraid to say it. But really, mutations presuppose
	creation. After all, mutations are only changes in already existing
	genes (Morris and Parker, p. 108).

  It does not appear that mutations provide the raw material for evolution
after all. In fact many leading evolutionists also agree (see Morris and
Parker, p. 109). One such evolutionist is Stephen Gould:

	Gould (1980a) simply says, "The theory [orthodox neo-Dawinian
	extrapolationalism], as a general proposition is effectively dead,
	despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."

	Gould believes our knowledge of genetics is now sufficient to
	completely reject the explanation of evolution as the slow, gradual
	selection of small mutational changes. He prefers to believe instead
	that evolution occurs in giant steps, radical restructuring of whole
	DNA sets producing what he himself calls "hopeful monsters." But he
	admits that no such hopeful monster has ever been observed. His new
	theory, then, is not any sort of logical inference from observations,
	but a fantastic faith in the future of a theory that the facts have
	failed" (Morris and Parker, p. 109).


THE CASE SUMMARISED

Morris and Parker summarise the case against evolution:

	No evolution at present...
	No new species...
	No known mechanism of evolution...
	No fossil evidence...
	No evidence that evolution is possible...
	No evidence from similarities...
	No recaplutation or vestigial organs (Morris and Parker, p. 2-7).

As we have seen the evidence for evolution doesn't really stack up. In fact
much of the "evidence" points more toward creation.

	If one wishes to believe in evolution, it is a free country, but he
	must believe it strictly as a matter of faith; there is no scientific
	evidence for evolution that cannot be explained at least as well, and
	usually better, by creation" (Morris and Parker, p. 1).


EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIANITY

  It was mentioned earlier in this paper that many Christians have tried to
couple their believe in God with the theory of evolution. People do this in
different ways. Some just believe that the Bible is merely a book written by
men and so they take no notice of the account of creation (such people should
consider what the foundations of their faith are and find some material on the
proofs for the Bible being the word of God as well as seek God on the
matter). Others believe the Bible is the word of God but have understood the
Genesis account to be figurative or symbolic and not an actual literal
account of creation. Many in this category, for example, take the six days to
be symbolic of millions of years, this way they can allow the theory of
evolution "somehow" fit with the Biblical account. There are a number of
problems that are encountered when people try to do this. The first and most
obvious question is "how far into the Bible does the symbolic interpretation
go?" If chapter one is symbolic than chapter two must be also to fit with the
method of interpretation and the theory of evolution. If chapter two is
symbolic what about chapter three and so forth. Each chapter is really reliant
on the previous chapter being true. God makes no clear break in the telling of
early humanities history and there is nothing to indicate that the account is
symbolic, in fact there is much evidence to the contrary. If we do take these
verses in a symbolic manner we have created later problems in our reading of
Scripture because other books in the Bible refer to the account in a way that
indicates the truthfulness and reality of the account. Before looking at these
Scriptures it should be noted that a. "...it is impossible for God to lie..."
(Heb 6:18), b. There is no reason why God would not tell us about evolution
had he used this means to create and c. Without the theory of evolution there
are no reasons to doubt or interpret symbolically, the account given us by
God.


THE TIME QUESTION

  The Bible says that "A matter must be established by the testimony of two or
three witnesses" (Deut 19:15). How long did it take Almighty God to create the
heavens and the earth and everything in them?

	God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was
	evening and there was morning- the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the
	earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God
	had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he
	rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it
	holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he
	had done (Gen 1:31-2:2).

	Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy... For in six days the
	LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,
	but he rested on the seventh day. (Ex 20:8,11).

	The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the
	generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between
	me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the
	heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work
	and rested (Ex 31:16-17).

The word of God clearly states that it took God six days to create everything.
This should definitely be taken literally. First of all both Scriptures from
Exodus are the words spoken from the mouth of the Lord not just a written
record as those that are in Genesis. The Scripture from Exodus chapter twenty
is taken out of the ten commandments and the reason God gives to the
Israelites for keeping the Sabbath is the fact that he created everything in
six days and rested on the seventh, a fact that must be true. The Scripture
from Exodus chapter thirty -one tells us that the Sabbath is a covenant and a
sign to the Israelites for God made everything in six days and rested on the
seventh. So we see God made a commandment and covenant sign on the basis of
this truth.

  Some theistic evolutionists say that the six days were not days as we know
them, they were days of indefinite length and others say that their were
indefinite time periods between the days. Are these two interpretations
valid? The word of God makes it clear that the creation day is analogous with
the normal work day as we have seen from the above Scriptures. As we will see
later, it is no real help to stretch the length of the day anyway because the
theory of evolution does not fit the account of each day.

  The word of God is very repetitive in stressing the passing of time "And
there was evening, and there was morning- the first day" (Gen 1:5), evening
and morning the second day and so forth (Gen 1:8,13, 19, 23, 31). The day and
nights had to be literal for several reasons. Firstly we have already seen
that the days were real days so we can assume that the nights were real
nights. Many have made the comment that Adam must have been very busy that day
naming all the animals and they imply that the day had to be longer than 24
hours. Adam did not name each individual animal he only named each kind of
animal. Humans can speak at a pretty fast rate and Adam was probably an
intelligent fellow not to mention God was present with him. You do not have to
stretch the day very far anyway because it only took Noah seven days to load
all the kinds of animals onto the ark (Gen 7). Besides sitting around naming
animals for days and days does not appeal to most people. Add to this the fact
that Adam was only 130 years old when he had his third son, Seth, which he had
after the fall and hence after the seventh day and that Adam only lived a
total of 930 years (Gen 5:3), then we see it is impossible for that sixth day
to be greater than the length of 130 years.

  Even if on insists that the days were longer Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean
list several reasons why the Day- Age theory, as it is called, is
incompatible with the theory of evolution anyway:

	1. The Bible states all plant life came into existence on the third
	   day of creation, but the fish and marine organisms were created on
	   the fifth day. The geological theory for the origin and progression
	   of life reverses this order.

	2. The Bible states God made the sun, the moon, and the stars on the
	   fourth day of creation. This is the day following the creation of
	   the plant kingdom. Obviously, vegetation could not exist for long
	   periods of time without sunlight, therefore the suggestion that a
	   day of creation could be equivalent to millions of years would not
	   be possible.

	3. The Bible states the birds were created on the same day as the fish
	   and other marine organisms [the day before land animals].
	   Geological theory maintains that birds evolved from reptiles at a
	   period of time millions of years after the time period when fish
	   appeared.

	4. The Bible indicates insects were among the last things created,
	   coming on the scene at the same time as land animals and reptiles.
	   According to evolutionary geology, insects appeared early in the
	   geological record preceding the appearance of reptiles and land
	   animals (Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean, p. 21-22).


EVOLUTION OR SPECIAL CREATION

  The word of God makes it clear that each animal was made according to its
kind (Gen 1:12, 21,24-25). Not only is this so but each kind was made from the
dust of the earth "Now the LORD had formed out of the ground all the beasts of
the field and all the birds of the air" (Gen 2:19). The word of God shows that
God created each kind of animal and plant separately. Each kind can only
reproduce after its own kind. Evolution teaches that different kinds evolved
from common ancestors. That is a reptile over a period of time evolved into a
bird.

  God also reveals that man was made not by a process of evolution but by a
special and deliberate creative act from the dust of the earth.

	...the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and
	breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a
	living being (Gen 2:7).

	The first man was of the dust of the earth...(1 Cor 15:47).

Notice the second Scripture is taken from the New Testament.


EVOLUTION AND DOCTRINE

  The most important reason evolution and Christianity can't mix is that to
accept evolution is to accept huge changes in ones whole doctrinal system!
McLean, Oakland and Mc Lean explain:

	A further objection to the day-age theory and the idea of evolution
	involves the problem of trying to explain the existence of death prior
	to the curse or fall. Obviously, if millions of years of time were
	involved in the development of life in an evolutionary process, death
	would occur over and over again. The theory of evolution on which the
	geological time scale is based suggests death is a natural phenomenon
	which has occurred from the moment life began. The whole concept of
	evolution is based on the suggestion that disease and death work in a
	process of natural selection, which ultimately brings about the
	existence of man. The Bible makes it clear that death entered this
	world through Adam's sin. Romans 5:12 states:

	Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and
	death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all
	sinned- NASB (Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean p.22-23)

If you really think about this you will realise what huge implications the
theory of evolution has on the doctrines of the Bible. It is just impossible
to hold on to both Creation by the hand of God and to the theory of evolution
without making ridiculous adjustments to both of them.


SOLID GROUND OR SINKING SAND

  The word of God is truth! It has been proven archeologically, for example,
many believed the Hittites mentioned in the Bible never existed but it has
since been discovered that they not only existed but they were a very
influential force in ancient times. It has been proven correct geographically.
It has been proven correct historically. It is awesome in its prophetical
accuracy, for example more than four hundred years before the birth of Jesus
the Bible told the story of his life including the place where he would be
born (Micah 5:2). Christians around the world can witness to the truthfulness
and reliability of the word of God in their own lives. (See any number of
books on the authority of Scripture). The theory of evolution has come and it
will go but the word of the Lord abides forever!


CONCLUSION

	To the intellectual giants who founded the experimental sciences in
	the 17th and 18th centuries, the evidence of creation seemed clear
	and convincing. But in 1859 came the publication of Charles Darwin's
	Origin of Species. After biologist Michael Denton identified himself
	on television (Kelly, 1981) as a sceptic regarding both creation and
	evolution, the interviewer asked him what he thought the chief impact
	of Darwin's book had been. After a pause, Denton replied that its
	chief impact had been to make atheism possible, or at least
	respectable (Morris and Parker, p 77).

  Many people believe the theory of evolution simply because it has been
presented to them as the truth but on closer investigation the flaws in the
theory are obvious. Hopefully this paper has made you think carefully about
what you believe and why. Although a growing number of scientists now accept
the creation model as being equally valid as the evolution model many others
hold unswervingly to the theory of evolution unwilling even to investigate
what creationists are saying. To many, evolution is the thing they are looking
for to suppress their knowledge of God and to deny the truth of his word and
this is one reason for its wide spread popularity and stickabiltity.
Christians have often been accused of looking at origins unscientifically
because they already hold to a belief in the Creator God. It can be said of
evolutionists after examining the evidence that perhaps it is they who are
looking at things unscientifically so as to avoid the demise of a theory that
can leave only one alternative- the existence of God, the creator. God is not
the one glorified in evolution but "mother nature" and man himself.

	The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the
	godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their
	wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them,
	because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the
	world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature
	have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so
	that men are without excuse.

	For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor
	gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their
	foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they
	became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images
	made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles...

	They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served
	created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
	(Rom 1:18-23,25)

God knows that man asks "Where did I come from, why am I here and where am I
going?" that is why he tells us the answer to these questions in his word -
why not read it today?


WORKS CITED

NIV Study Bible

Mc Lean, Oakland and Mc Lean, 1989, The evidence for creation-Examining the
origin of the planet Earth, Whitikar House, Pennsylvania.

Morris and Parker, 1987, What is creation science?, Master Books, California.

davidmwilliams@oocities.com