By Merle Hertzler
I recently received an email from Mike Purington, a Christian science-fiction writer, in which he repeats much of the material found at his blog. He writes that the earth may be millions of years old, and, if it is, that most of those millions of years occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. In other words, we have a perfect creation in Genesis 1:1, followed by millions of years and then a destruction of that world, which conveniently are never mentioned in Genesis. Then we are told that Genesis 1:2 picks up the story with the earth, having become void due to the destruction that occurred in the gap period, beginning a 6-day re-creation period that is familiar to all of us who grew up in Sunday School.
Mike's email can be found here. Below is my response.
Mike,
I checked out your blog and started reading the chapters of your book online. It looks like you take your faith very seriously, and have worked hard on this project. I congratulate you on your apparent enthusiasm for life. It is indeed nice to meet you.
I would like to respond to the arguments you presented in your email. For the record, I have posted your email here.
First, how can you deny evolution? What about the overwhelming evidence for it? For instance, there is a well established series of fossils that transition from a fox-sized creature that lived 50 million years ago up to the modern zebra, horse, and donkey. The best explanation for that evidence is that the horse and zebra evolved from earlier creatures. What is your explanation?
And what about the long series of mammal-like reptiles, that become increasingly more mammal-like as time progressed? There were no mammals living before or during the time when those mammal-like reptiles lived, but after the fossil record passes through a long series of intermediates, mammals are then found in more recent layers. The most likely explanation for this is that mammals evolved from earlier creatures. Do you have any explanation for this at all?
Now let's look at what you write:
|
What happened between [Genesis 1] verse one and two? It sounds to me like total destruction. |
Can you understand how some would say this view artificially creates a gap in the text that really isn't there?
If there is indeed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, in which the earth was destroyed and waiting to be re-created, when did that destruction occur? If you take the genealogies of the Bible literally, we find that Adam lived about 6000 years ago. And yet we find no break in the fossil record in or around 4000 BC.
In fact, we have studied the fossil record for years, and have found no evidence for the complete destruction required for this interpretation of Genesis anywhere. Surely a massive destruction of all (or almost all) creatures followed by a re-creation in 6 days would have left some trace in the fossil record. If it really happened, why isn't there evidence for it?
|
Here on earth we have evidence of massive destruction in Arizona and South America where giant asteroids hit. |
Well, yes there were events of mass destruction in the past, but nowhere do we find evidence of complete devastation, and a 6-day re-creation. There were always life forms that survived the occasional catastrophes.
|
So in that sense the earth may be timeless, and yes the dinosaurs they did exist, but not through theistic evolution or evolution as taught by science. |
If not by evolution, how exactly is it that each new creature came into existence? For there have been millions of species, and their originations are spread out over a period of hundreds of millions of years. Was there another miraculous creation of a new species from scratch every few years or so?
| Yet in the last 50 or so years we now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. |
Uh, excuse me, but can you tell me what irreducibly complex systems you are referring to? Can you name even one irreducibly complex system in a multi-cellular organism for which it can be proven that it could not possibly have come about by evolution?
|
I believe that the premise in which evolutionists base their beliefs on are
flawed, and here is why I say that H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the
University of Manchester wrote, "evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it" If, and I say if that is the case doesn't that put those that believe in evolution on the same plane as those that believe in a divine creation? |
Are you aware that, in real science, quoting an authority does not prove a point? Why do you turn to an argument from authority?.
The accusation that scientists bend their observations is a very serious one, for bending one's observations to fit one's expectations is the opposite of good science. Doing so deliberately would invariably destroy a scientist's career. Science is vehemently opposed to fraudulent reporting of data. So exactly what evidence is there that supports the claim that scientist are bending their data? Doesn't one need evidence before he accuses those of another occupation of massive fraud?
|
I think one thing that proves my point is this, when Einstein was working on his theory of relativity he put in an extra equation because he thought the universe was stable and not expanding, later he found he was wrong. Kind of makes me wonder if all the evidence the evolutionary biologists have put forth may be flawed because somewhere down the line someone miscalculated. |
Can you contend that a science must be wrong because some scientist in the past once made a mistake? It would surely seem to me that the fact that one scientist once made a mistake would not prove that all of a particular field of science is wrong.
| The current models of abiogenesis are still being scientifically tested. |
Of course the models of abiogeneesis are still being tested. The origin of the first living cell happened a long time ago, and there is very little evidence of what actually happened.
Why does much of your email dwell on abiogenesis, about which we know little, and ignore the overwhelming evidence that all existing creatures on earth evolved from early one-celled creatures?
|
Do they really believe that God took a pool of goo and said let there be life and a one cell animal crawled out to later become man? If that is the case than man is no better than the animals and that is what evolution is all about. |
Ah, but I know that men (and women) are better than animals in the essences that I value most, such as creative thinking, understanding the world, and working together to improve it. I don't need anybody to tell me about the greatness of being human. I can see it for myself. In fact, that is why I call myself a humanist, to show my respect for the greatness of humans. Exactly why would anybody tell a humanist that he needs to have more respect for the greatness of humanity? That's what our viewpoint is all about!
So no, evolution does not give me a low view of humanity.
|
If you wish to question evolution, by all means do so. Debate is healthy. However a useful debate requires that you make a good-faith effort to study and understand the breadth of accumulated evidence. |
I have indeed looked at the evidence, having first debated on the side of creation, then debated from the middle, and then debated on the side of evolution. I have indeed searched to understand both sides. Have you searched to understand the evidence for evolution?
I invite you to respond, either at your blog, or by writing to me. I would enjoy continuing a friendly debate on the topic if that interests you.
|
|
|
|