What About Origins? (CreationPoints)
Page 7
Before the first act of creation, nothing of the physical realm existed—there was only God, who is spirit. The very first act was, therefore, to create matter—‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ (Gen. 1:1). As soon as God created matter, he created time, because, as we have already seen, many of the properties of matter can only be explained in terms of time. Hence the Bible gives an account not only of the origin of matter, but also of the origin of time—‘the beginning’ is time zero, at which God began to create. The first chapter of Genesis teaches the order of creation; we have already seen that there are twenty-three contradictions concerning this order compared with that taught by evolutionists. Another example of how the ideas of evolutionists (whether theistic or otherwise) and the biblical accounts are in opposition to each other concerns the origin of species. Evolution maintains that, millions of years ago, inorganic matter acted upon by natural processes gave rise to one or more self-replicating organisms. Over time, these organisms are supposed to have evolved into all the plants and animals that we find on earth today, as well as those found fossilized in the sedimentary rocks. Evolution teaches that the origin of species is the product of chance, natural selection, time and death—a combination of Lady Luck and Father Time, as I once heard someone say. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that on the third creation day, God created all the basic kinds of land plants; on the fifth creation day he created all the different bird and marine animal kinds; and on the sixth creation day he created all the kinds of land animals and insects, and finally Adam and Eve, the first humans.
The contrast between the evolutionists’ ideas and the creation account is great. Evolution demands that one life form evolved into another and so on—that the origin of the animal species followed the pattern of unicellular organisms multi-cellular organisms invertebrates fish amphibians reptiles mammals humans. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that the distinct life forms are only variable within their kind. This begs the question: What is a biblical kind? For years, creationists have argued that the varieties of dogs, including wolves, coyotes and dingoes, help us to understand what a kind is. We will look at this in detail in Chapter 8.
In addition to the origin of species, the biblical account of the creation and early history of humankind gives the answers to the origins of a number of other things that puzzle evolutionists. It is obvious from reading Genesis 2–3 that the reason why God gave people speech was so that we are able to communicate—talk or pray (call it what you will)—with God. Man’s duty towards God is summed up in what the Lord Jesus Christ called the first and great commandment, as recorded in Matthew 22:37: ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ Oh that everyone, everywhere, were like David, who said, ‘I will bless the LORD at all times; His praise shall continually be in my mouth’ (Ps. 34:1)! Not only is the origin of speech recorded in Genesis, the origin of languages is there too—see Genesis 11:1–9.
The origin of sin is clearly taught in Genesis 3, where we read how Adam disobeyed God by eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God had warned Adam in Genesis 2:17 that ‘… of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’. Paul, writing to the Christians in Rome, showed that he clearly understood death to be the result of sin: ‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin …’ (Rom. 5:12); ‘For the wages of sin is death’ (Rom. 6:23). The great mystery of why creatures die is explained by Adam’s sin. Hence the early chapters of the book of Genesis give an account of the origin of death.
The origin of clothes is also described in Genesis 3—clothes were worn because of sin. After disobeying God and eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve ‘… knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings’ (Gen. 3:7). This covering for sin was not acceptable, for later in the same chapter it is recorded that ‘… for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them’ (v. 21). It is obvious that God had killed an animal as a sacrifice for sin—‘without shedding of blood there is no remission’ (Heb. 9:22). This slaughtered animal provided a covering not only for Adam and Eve’s sin, but also for their nakedness. This sacrifice was also a pointer to the time when the Lamb of God would be sacrificed for our sins.
Adam’s sin also caused a profound effect on the eating habits of some of the animals. When God created the animals, he created them to be herbivorous—that is, plant-eating—as we can see from the command he gave first to man and then to all the other creatures in Genesis 1:29–30:
See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food.
Now, in the sedimentary rocks that are found on the earth, many of which were laid down as a result of the Flood, we find the remains of animals that were omnivorous (they ate both plants and animals) and carnivorous (they ate other animals). How can we tell? Sometimes fossilized animals are found actually in the process of eating other animals. In other cases, fossilized animal dung (called coprolites) gives evidence of the diet of the animals—what they ate. In order to account for these types of animals that are found in the geological record of the Flood, it must be assumed that some animals became carnivorous and omnivorous after the Fall but before the Flood.
It is safe to argue, however, that most, if not all, of mankind remained faithful to God’s command to be herbivorous from the Fall to the time of the Flood. After the Fall, God commanded man to ‘eat the herb of the field’ (Gen. 3:18), and it was not until after the Flood that God told man that he could be omnivorous: ‘Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs’ (Gen. 9:3). The early chapters of Genesis therefore give us an account of the origin of omnivores and carnivores.
In fact, the early chapters of Genesis give us an account of the origin of everything; this is borne out by the apostle John in the first verses of his Gospel: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made’ (John 1:1–3).
Conclusion
It can be seen that, contrary to the views of theistic evolutionists, the early chapters of Genesis are in no way poetic, symbolic or mythical. These chapters, inspired by Almighty God, give a true, accurate and historical account of the creation and early history of the earth, and are in no way evolutionary. The historical nature of the accounts lays the foundation for the plan of redemption through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The book of Genesis provides, as its name implies, answers to all the important questions of origins—questions which perplex those who do not believe what God has said in his Word.
Notes
1 Since September 2007, evolution has had to be taught as fact in all English schools in order for them to conform to the Science National Curriculum.
2 Richard Harries, ‘Science Does not Challenge My Faith—It Strengthens It’, 16 April 2006, at: guardian.co.uk.
3 ‘New Christian Academy Rejects Creationism as “Rubbish”’, 14 July 2004, at: ekklesia.co.uk.
4 ‘Our Beliefs’, under ‘About Us’, at: reasons.org.
5 John MacArthur, The Battle for the Beginning (Nashville, TN: W Publishing Group, 2001), p. 26.
6 See Russell Grigg, ‘Should Genesis be Taken Literally?’, at: creation.com. When I was CEO of AiG UK, I contacted David Watson before he died and had confirmation of the contents of this letter.
7 Dr Milner used the lecture as the basis of a booklet entitled Evolution and the Bible: The Inevitable Conflict (Sheffield: Gospel Tidings, 1971).
8 E. J. Young, Studies in Genesis One (International Library of Philosophy and Theology: Biblical & Theological Studies; Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), p. 105.
9 Dr Terry Mortensen, ‘Evolution vs. Creation: The Order of Events Matters!’, 4 April 2006, at: answersingenesis.org.
10 Henry M. Morris, ‘The Day–Age Theory’, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, 8/1 (June 1971), p. 72.
11 Ibid.
12 J. C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth (rev. edn.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1986), p. 31.
13 E. K. Victor Pearce, Who Was Adam? (Exeter: Paternoster, 1969), fly-leaf.
14 R. J. Berry, ‘I Believe in God … Maker of Heaven and Earth’, in Derek Burke, (ed.), Creation and Evolution (Leicester: IVP, 1985), p. 99.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.p. 101.
17 The term ‘hominid’ includes the extinct australopithecines (see Chapter 9 for a detailed description of these creatures) and humans (both fossilized and living).
18 J. G. Vos, quoted in The Bible League Quarterly (October–December 1974), p. 284.
19 Richard Dawkins, The Root of Evil, Part 2, 16 January 2006, Channel 4 TV.
20 G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, in American Atheist, 20 September 1979, p. 30.
Chapter 3
Mind the gap!
We shall now consider the teaching of what is commonly referred to as the ‘Gap Theory’—an idea of which Christians should be very wary. This is the theory that there is a great time gap between the first two verses of the Bible—that is, between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. This idea, as we shall see, is not, strictly speaking, a theistic evolutionary interpretation of Genesis, although it does try to reconcile the biblical account of origins with what evolutionists teach. When the first edition of this book was published, this interpretation of Genesis seemed to be going out of fashion, so I relegated a very short consideration of the errors of the basic tenets of the Gap Theory to an appendix. Today, however, the Gap Theory seems to be gaining ground again, hence I have devoted a whole chapter to it.
Although the idea behind the Gap Theory had its origins in the writings of the Dutchman Episcopius, who lived from1583 to 1643, it was not until 200 years later that it gradually gained acceptance after it was propagated in lectures given in the early part of the nineteenth century by the famous theologian and preacher Dr Thomas Chalmers, who was one of the founders of the Free Church of Scotland and its first moderator. The reason why Dr Chalmers accepted the Gap Theory idea was not theological but geological. By interpreting the first two verses of the Bible in such a way, Dr Chalmers felt that he could accommodate the views of the geologists of his day, who were demanding vast periods of time, while at the same time maintaining a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. Dr Chalmers was, I believe, a well-meaning Christian, but I do not think that he fully understood the sinister implications of taking such a compromise position.
The Gap Theory was further elaborated in the latter part of the nineteenth century by George H. Pember in his book Earth’s Earliest Ages, which was first published in 1884, and it was then made enormously popular by the footnotes in the Scofield Reference Bible, which was first published in 1909. The popularity of this theory was further enhanced by the publication in 1970 of Without Form and Void by Arthur C. Custance.
What does the Gap Theory teach?
It is my experience that Christians are not always sure exactly what the Gap Theory teaches, or they are unaware of the problems with this teaching. In order to rectify this, we will first of all look at what the Gap Theory basically teaches. This can be summarized as follows:
God created the universe billions of years ago.
The geological ages proposed by evolutionists took place over billions of years of earth’s history.
The life forms that arose during that time are now preserved in the fossil record. These fossils verify that the geological ages took place.
These life forms found in the fossil record include pre-Adamic ‘people’ without any souls.
At the end of the geological ages, Satan rebelled in heaven and many angels followed him. God then cast Satan out of heaven and down to earth. By way of judgement, the earth underwent a huge cataclysmic flood (often referred to as ‘Lucifer’s Flood’). As a result, the earth was left without form and void, with darkness on the face of the deep, as described in Genesis 1:2.
God then recreated the earth in the six literal days of creation (or recreation) described in Genesis 1:3–31.
The Gap Theory gets acceptance because, on the face of it, it seems to offer rather impressive biblical support for a position that does not radically challenge the evolutionary geological timetable. However, with the advent of the modern creationist movement, especially with groups such as the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, the Creation Science Movement (formerly the Evolution Protest Movement) and many others, support for this compromise position has come under more scrutiny, and its interpretation of the Genesis account has been shown to be weak. Both scientific and theological scholars have shown that, not only is the Gap Theory unnecessary (because it is possible to believe the Bible’s young-earth position), but it is also theologically unsound. Two books which have helped put nails in the coffin of the Gap Theory are Unformed and Unfilled by Weston W. Fields,1 which was published in 1976 and The Genesis ‘Gap Theory’ by M. W. J. Phelan, which was published in 2005.2 With these books as our guide, and with the help of what others have written, let us look more closely at the Gap Theory and compare its teachings with those of Scripture.
Problems with the Gap Theory
There are a number of problems with the Gap Theory. The first major one is the idea that the geological ages took place between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, which is plainly proved false by what God said in the fourth commandment: ‘For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them’ (Exod. 20:11). Here God is telling mankind that the pattern he set at creation (of six days of work followed by a day of rest) is to be the pattern for our working week. It needs to be noted that Exodus 20:11 covers both Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. In six days God made ‘the heavens and the earth’ (Gen. 1:1) and ‘… the sea, and all that is in them’ (Gen. 1:2 onwards). There is no room for a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 because the statement in Exodus 20:11 covers what God did in Genesis 1:1 and in the verses after it … and he did all this in the six days—without any gaps!
Another problem for those who support the Gap Theory is the fact that the Bible clearly teaches that there was no sin, death, disease or suffering in the world until Adam disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit—the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Gap Theory, however, would have us believe that there were billions of years of death, disease and suffering, and that this is represented by the fossils and rock layers in the earth’s crust, which are supposed to identify the geological ages.
A further problem for the proponents of the Gap Theory is the fact that the Gap Theory proposes that, at the end of the geological ages, Satan sinned and, as a result, was cast down to earth, and that there was then a great cataclysm. This would mean that the geological ages with countless deaths recorded in them (in the fossil record) must have occurred before either Satan was cast out of heaven or humans sinned. This is contrary to what the Bible clearly teaches about death being the result of Adam’s sin.
These are just a few of the problems with the Gap Theory, which is another compromise position taken by those who either do not understand the implications of the idea of putting a gap between the first two verses of Scripture, or do not understand what the Bible clearly teaches about origins.
The Gap Theory is both unscientific and unscriptural, as Dr John Whitcomb has pointed out: ‘Nevertheless, this theory, on closer inspection, compromises the unity and completeness of the creation account, the original perfection of the world, the genetic continuity of foss
il and living forms, the totality of Adam’s dominion, and the uniqueness of both the Edenic Curse and the global catastrophism of Noah’s Flood.’3 We have already seen that the Gap Theory compromises the unity and completeness of the Genesis account of the creation, and that it also compromises the teaching of the original perfection of the created world. Let us now take up the other four points made by Dr Whitcomb to elaborate further the problems of accepting this compromise position: the genetic continuity of fossil and living forms; Adam’s dominion; the Edenic curse; and the Flood in the days of Noah.
The point about the genetic continuity of fossil and living forms is very interesting. The Gap Theory maintains that all the animals and plants in the original created world were destroyed and fossilized, so they should have no genetic relationship with the living things on the present ‘recreated’ earth. Yet many of the plants and animals on the earth today are identical in form with those found in the fossil record. Indeed, some animals are referred to as ‘living fossils’ because they are identical with those found in the fossil record. The coelacanth fish is probably the most famous example, although other examples abound.
One example of so-called living fossils that gives rise to a problem of epic proportions is the existence of humans found fossilized in the fossil record—Cro-Magnon Man is probably the best example. From drawings these humans made of one another, we can see that they looked identical to modern humans living today.4 Furthermore, their skeletal remains show that they were the same as modern human beings—Homo sapiens sapiens. This means that humans can therefore also be called living fossils! Those who accept the Gap Theory have to believe that people like Cro-Magnon Man were pre-Adamic and were part of the world that was destroyed by ‘Lucifer’s flood’. They have to believe that such people did not possess an eternal soul because they were not descended from Adam. They also have to believe that these pre-Adamic people did not die because of Adam’s sin—something which is clearly taught in the Bible. Furthermore, they have to believe that such people were not made in the image and likeness of God. Finally, they also have to believe that these people died before sin entered the world via Adam—something incompatible with the clear teachings of Scripture.