The Revolution Against Evolution
© 1994
IV. WHICH MODEL IS BEST?
I believe Christians need to have a world view, a model of origins, where they can reconcile science and scripture. Some people do not think they have the need to make this reconciliation. I agree that God does not give a "creation test" as a prerequisite for salvation. Being born again involves the spirit, primarily. But, to receive Christ, a person needs to be convinced that the Bible is true and is the word of God.
Anyone who studies science soon finds out that there is conflict between the theory of evolution and the Bible. Unless he is willing to live with this conflict, he has a definite need to have these questions resolved. Some people in this position don't bother to resolve the question, and compartmentalize their thinking, believing in God and in evolution. I feel that this is a dangerous position to take, since if we take it to its ultimate conclusion, it leads to the compromise and confusion of deciding which portions of Genesis are true.
Others put on spiritual blinders when it comes to the evolution question. They become masters at artfully dodging the study of science. To them, the question is simple: God created the universe and they believe it. I don't have much problem with that except that it is no help to those who struggle with the question. It is difficult to have answers if we avoid the question altogether. Evolution is not a side issue to those who stumble over it. If a parent avoids finding answers to the question of evolution, they risk losing their children to unbelief when they go to college and are confronted by this issue.
Regarding a model for the origin of the universe and the earth, there are only two possibilities: either God created it or everything happened by chance. If you reject the first model, you have no choice but to believe the second.
To believe the Biblical account of creation, we need to examine where scripture is very specific and certain. We also should point out where scripture does not contain clear information, and where we cannot establish certainty based upon scripture. It is important for us to know the word of God, what it specifically says, what it does not say, and to have the wisdom to know the difference. It is not a wise idea to argue our pet theories, trying to establish them as doctrines without a solid foundation in God's Word.
I believe that if we use the law of "least scripture twisting" we will have the best chance of being correct. One way to know the correct translation is to give the Word of God to a child. Have him interpret what it says, not some professor who may be confused by too many opinions. I have to believe that God didn't write his Word with tricky language to confuse us. Instead, He made His Word plain and simple, so that all could understand and believe. If we are to be "full gospel" believers, Genesis should be taken at its plain natural reading.
Most Creationists will hold to the following ideas as certainties, well
established from many different passages from scripture: 1
1. God created all things, and continues to uphold and govern all things. God is absolutely sovereign and nothing is impossible with Him. God reveals to man only what He chooses to reveal.
2. The Genesis account of origins is to be taken as a straightforward account.
3. God created Adam and he descended from no creature.
4. Adam transgressed and the human race fell into sin, bringing vanity, misery, decay and death. Had Adam not sinned, there would have been no death for the human race.
5. Creation occurred in six distinct steps.
6. God appointed the heavenly bodies to be lights, signs, and to mark seasons, days and years.
7. God created during six sequential days and rested on the seventh.
8. The earth will perish and wear out like a garment, to be changed at the return of Christ.
9. God judged and destroyed mankind with a massive global flood.
Other points we cannot be as certain about because scripture does not discuss them. They may be briefly mentioned, or the meaning can be interpreted several different ways. The following points are logical conclusions based on the whole scripture. We can draw these conclusions based upon a natural reading of scripture and a utilization of the best principles of interpretation. Often, a scripture can be interpreted two different ways, and there can be two possible creationist models that result. Here is a list of these conclusions and their significance.
1. The time span mentioned in the Genesis account is days. Some hold to the idea that these were not 24 hour days, but were "ages" or long periods of time, corresponding to uniformitarian ages as in the fossil record. My strong conviction is that the "day" does refer to the literal 24 hour period, since it is the most natural reading of the scripture. Also, after each "day" comes the description "and there was the evening and the morning." This is hard to reconcile with the dayage theory.
2. God did not mark the seasons, days, and years until the fourth day.
3. There is some uncertainty whether God created the sun, moon, stars and planets on the fourth day, or whether He simply appointed them to govern the day and night, and they existed as part of a vast eternal past. This "appointing" could have happened simply by removing a cloud cover. If "heaven" means "firmament" or atmosphere, this explanation is a possibility. The alternatives are to challenge the distances of stars estimated by astronomers, or question assumptions of physics, relativity and the speed of light. Not many creationists nowadays dispute the distances of stars, but two scientists, D. Russell Humphreys and Barry Setterfield are developing two different working proposals that may explain a young universe. Dr. Humphreys believes that time dilation explains the distant starlight; Setterfield believes that the speed of light was much higher in the past.
4. It is certain from scripture that the earth will wear out like a garment and perish. It is probable we can carry out the same assumption for the universe, that it also will wear out and perish, to be changed to give way to the new creation in Christ.
5. If we read the Bible in a straightforward manner, it is difficult to imagine gaps taking place in the creation narrative which would allow for an evolutionary scale of time. Many believe there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, where God destroyed a kingdom on the earth set up by Satan, allowing for millions of years of fossil accumulation. Others believe that there are gaps in the genealogies. Theologians proposed the Gap Theory as a compromise between evolution and the Bible. But, assuming a gap is an argument from silence. It seems unlikely that God would fail to mention millions of years of earth history in His word if it really happened. The biggest problem with the gap theory is that it assumes a great extinction and dying out of an evolutionary pre-world long before death came into the world at the fall of man. Believers in a recent creation place the date of creation between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.
6. During creation, afterward, and even now, God exercises his supernatural power in the earth through altering of natural processes, which would affect what scientists observe. The flood of Noah is the primary example.
7. The flood of Noah accounts for most of the sedimentary geology we find in the strata, and the fossils found in the strata represent antediluvian creatures buried in the sequence corresponding to their environment. Other pre-flood and post-flood catastrophes could account for other burials of creatures and geological landforms.
8. The antediluvian world was a special tropical environment that allowed people (and animals) to live more than 900 years.
9. Biblical "kinds" (after their kind) probably do not correspond to evolutionary species.
Theistic Evolution
There are three major creationist viewpoints, the Day-Age Theory, the Gap Theory, and the Flood Geology model (or Recent Creation model). I do not consider theistic evolution to be a creationist framework, since it is not an attempt to reconcile scripture, but is simply saying, "evolution occurred, but God helped it along."
Theistic evolution is an embarrassment to Christianity, a "cop out." The theistic evolutionist believes that Genesis is only an allegory about how things came about, not how it really happened. Those who take that stand are ultimately questioning the authority of scripture. If Genesis cannot be taken as truth, do we now select parts of scripture we can believe and those we cannot? Would God allow His word to be confused by human ideas, or would He give us false information? God did not write Genesis in an allegorical style. It is matter-of-fact, as if it were a news report. It is a mistake to try to read into scripture interpretations that are beyond its plain, natural reading.
Theistic evolutionists place more faith on human reasoning than on Biblical revelation, without considering the scientific or theological implications. Consider the origin of the theory of evolution. Were the original promoters of evolution men of faith in God? How can we reconcile a humanistic philosophy to the Bible when evolution is by design an atheistic philosophy?
When you study any philosophy or religion to see if it is the truth, examine its roots and its fruits. What kind of people originated it? What kind of people are involved in it today? What difference does it make in their lives? Another hint is to examine the spirit behind it. For example, the occult atmosphere surrounding UFO's generates a deep spirit of fear. This spirit is definitely not of God. Another indicator of error is an argumentative and intimidating spirit.
The Day-Age Theory
This theory resembles theistic evolution, but proponents attempt to reconcile scripture with the theory of evolution by claiming that the Biblical word "day" really means millions of years, and "created" really means "evolved," and so forth. This framework involves the least amount of challenge to the theory of evolution. It says that God gave the initial creative impulse to each era, and supervised the gradual development of each species.
The Day-Age theory does not fit a plain and natural reading of the first chapter of Genesis. Nevertheless, many people seem satisfied with this explanation, and attempt to retain a literal view of scripture elsewhere. I believe that we do not need this compromise with evolution. I think it is dangerous and that better models are available. The phrase, "and the evening and the morning" follows the description of each day's creation activity. Such a phrase would hardly fit a description of long periods of millions of years.
The Gap Theory
The Schofield Bible and Dake's Commentary are examples of works in contemporary use that promote the Gap Theory. Also known as the ruin-reconstruction theory, the Gap theory proposes that the original creation took place millions of years ago, and there was a "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 where a cataclysmic destruction took place connected with the fall of Satan and the dark angels. The reasoning here was that the world in Genesis 1:2 "became without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." The words for "without form" (tohu) and "void" (bohu) mean desolation, confusion and an indistinguishable ruin. From this point on, according to this theory, God began a new creation work, which took place over six literal days.
The Gap Theory places the dinosaurs and millions of years of evolution in this gap, leaving mammals and men as part of the new creation. Gap theorists give Isaiah 14:12 as proof that the fall of Satan took place in this gap.
Similar problems crop up with the gap theory as they do with the Day-Age theory. It is a compromise with evolution that is unnecessary. Unlike the day-age model, the gap theory is catastrophic, and in that sense it is a lot more like the recent creation model that will be discussed next. But, gap theorists are unwilling to challenge evolutionists on the issue of time and long ages. We need to ask the question: would we come to this conclusion based upon a natural reading of scripture if we did not have evolutionary bias? Did this interpretation of scripture exist before Darwinism?
Certainly, theologians can come up with clever ways to make scripture sound like it fits the idea of long ages. Redefine the meaning of a word here, make another assumption there, and a compromise that will satisfy some people can be made. But, the basic problem with the theory of evolution is not reconciling it with theology, because the scientific evidence is against it.
Problems with the Day-Age and Gap
Theories
Although I'd prefer that someone believe in either the Day-Age or Gap theory than be an atheistic evolutionist, there are enough problems with both models from both a scientific and theological perspective to generate erroneous teaching.
Exodus 20:11 tells us that "in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth." That statement alone confounds the idea of long ages or gaps. This verse is used in the same context as the six days of the week, referring to the Sabbath day in the Ten Commandments. The scripture wouldn't talk about a literal day of the week in one sentence, and then tie it with six "indefinite periods of time" in the next. Instead, Exodus 20:8-11 ties together the seventh day of the Sabbath to the seventh day of creation. The statement after each creation day about "an evening and a morning" gives definite confirmation that the scriptures are talking about a literal 24-hour day, not an indefinite period of time.
Exodus 20:11 also ties the creation of the heaven with the creation of the earth in the six days, ruling out the possibility of a gap. If the writer of Genesis wanted to convey a long period of time for the creation, he could have used the Hebrew word olam instead of the word yom. Exodus 31:15-17 repeats this assertion.
The Day-Age and Gap theories utterly fail in their attempt to reconcile scripture with the theory of evolution. The order of creation in Genesis doesn't fit the imagined evolutionary scheme at all; in fact the first creatures mentioned specifically in the creation account were birds and whales! There are not six distinct evolutionary ages corresponding to six "creation periods" in the Bible.
The Gap theory crams the entire evolutionary history of decay, death and struggle between the first two verses of the Bible, but death never occurred until after the fall of man. There is no indication that the fall of Satan from heaven produced a cataclysm here on earth. God cast Satan to the earth only after his rebellion and fall. This is the overriding objection to these theories; if we take them to their ultimate conclusion, they make God out to be the author of evil and confusion!2
Since God created the world and called it good, Satan could not have rebelled and occupied the garden until some time after creation. Gap theorists use Ezekiel 28 to prove their theory, but ignore verse 13-17 where Satan (who was the spirit behind the King of Tyre in the prophecy) was in Eden when his heart was turned against God to be subsequently cast out of God's presence. Therefore, his fall could not have occurred before the six-day creation of Eden.
One Gap theorists concluded that there must have been two gardens of Eden, one of mineral beauty ruled by Satan for millions of years, and the other created or restored by God!3 But comparing Ezekiel 28:13 with Genesis 2:12 shows that the Eden of Genesis was one of mineral beauty also. We need not strain the scriptures to include an evolutionary explanation.
Unfortunately, most theologians find that challenging evolution is too big of a task for them to take on. Overwhelmed by complex arguments and buried in scientific jargon, they are intimidated and forced into compromise.
Once we understand the magnitude of the error of evolution and how much it lacks observational support, we realize the foolishness of trying to compromise with it.
The Recent Creation Model
The recent creation model directly challenges evolution from a scientific point of view, and examines the assumptions involved in the scientific methods used in establishing "dates" of rocks and fossils. According to this model the earth is young, and there are no gaps in the Biblical record. The flood is an explanation for the strata sequence.
Scientists and Christian scholars who believe this model have assembled much information challenging the idea of a four billion year old earth. Because of this evidence, we do not have to fit long ages into a creation model. These scientists have developed a theoretical model of the earth that describes the conditions that existed prior to the flood and creation.
According to this framework, the earth at the time of the flood was vastly different from today. A "firmament" or atmospheric canopy made up of water vapor provided a favorable environment caused by the greenhouse effect. Plants and animals grew to very large sizes, and had life spans that exceeded 900 years. This canopy filtered out the radiation that now penetrates to the earth from outer space. It was in three layers, an outer ozone layer thicker than it is today, a central water vapor layer trapping long wave earth rays, and an inner atmosphere with a higher concentration of carbon dioxide and water vapor. This inner atmosphere covered the earth like a warm blanket, and watered the earth with dew.4
The Biblical Flood could have been the result of a combination of the fall of the water vapor canopy and bursting forth of subterranean reservoirs underneath the earth’s crust. Some believe that ice particles or asteroids from outer space were directed onto the poles by the earth's magnetic field. This may have disrupted the water vapor canopy. Others believe volcanic activity could have condensed the canopy as a result of the breaking up of the fountains of the deep.
Either model would have caused an instantaneous blizzard at the poles, with temperatures plummeting to 150° F, quick-freezing all life there. This would help to explain the quick-frozen mammoths found in the Arctic, and ice sheets in Antarctica that go as much as 5,000 feet below sea level.
Others believe an "ice age" was a result of the cooling effect of the wind God sent after the flood causing the waters to recede, or a result of centrifugal force bulging the earth with the flood waters at the equator, leaving vast ice masses at the poles.
During the flood, the creatures with the highest density would be buried first such as shellfish, followed by sea creatures, amphibians, reptiles, then land animals, which would escape to higher ground before burial took place. The moving water also provides a mechanism for sorting and selecting deposits. The settling velocity of large particles is directly related to their size, density, and spherical shape. With tides of 5,000 to 10,000 feet, there would be much displacement of soil. Tremendous pressures were placed upon all the buried matter, petrifying wood and preserving everything in a matter of hours, forming the conditions under which fossilization can occur. The sedimentary sequence represents this order: successive layers laid down in massive tidal depositions of sediment.
Every continent is covered with thick layers of strata, which shows that the flooding took place on a massive, global scale. Strata are not being formed today, except at a very small scale at the mouth of rivers or catastrophically as a result of volcanic activity.
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics is a proposal explaining the continental
"plates" is that with the breaking up of the fountains of the deep
came the separation of the continents. This provided an ocean floor for the
water to drain into after the flood. This concept has become more popular in
recent years. The earth's crust rides upon a layer of molten rock underneath
it. The pressure of additional weight of water would have caused the earth's
crust to split and spread apart. Proponents of this theory believe that a
massive crack in the earth's crust resulted in the release of superheated steam
under pressure that erupted miles into the atmosphere. Dr. Walt Brown proposes
that the continental plates of the earth's crust began to move, and reached a
speed of about 45 miles an hour. The idea that most of the waters for the flood
came from subterranean sources solves many of the problems with previous
creation models. For example, it minimizes the need to rely solely upon a water
vapor canopy for the source of the flood waters.5
Dr. John Baumgardner has developed a computer model that simulates how rapid subduction of continental plates could have caused the entire earth’s crust to be resurfaced. His model provides a possible driving force for catastrophic continental movement. He points out that both Venus and Mars exhibit similar evidence for resurfacing.
Much research in creation science is continuing under the recent creation framework. Though there are many versions of this model and plenty of room for speculation, a young earth explanation is most satisfying from both a scientific and scriptural point of view.
Young Earth, Ancient Cosmos
Some creationists believe that God created the earth, the solar system and visible stars during the creation week in Genesis, but believe the rest of the universe existed before the creation. This scenario dismisses the problem of an old universe based upon the apparent vast distance of stars without having to challenge contemporary physical light theories.
This model is based upon the definition of the word "heaven" found in Genesis 1:1 and Exodus 20:11. In Genesis 1:8, God called the created firmament heaven. It is likely that the firmament refers to the atmospheric canopy that offered protection to the pre-flood world. If that is the case, God could have created the cosmos much earlier, not necessarily during the seven-day creation week.
An argument against this viewpoint is the statement "and He made the
stars also" found in the account of the fourth day. A counter argument
would be that God created the stars visible from the earth on that day, or that
He simply revealed them by removing a cloud cover.6
Since God is eternal, the possibility exists that the universe also may be eternal, unless of course God created time itself at the beginning and God resides out of our time-space realm. But much of physical light theory taught today is based upon assumptions of the big-bang theory. Several creationist physicists have proposed light theory models based upon different assumptions that would allow for a young universe. These models are discussed in the chapter on stars and planets.
The summary of the creation work found in Genesis 2:1 and 2:4 poses a problem for the idea of an ancient cosmos.
"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." (verse 1).
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." (verse 4).
Both verses refer to the heavens in the plural, and verse 1 refers to "all the host of them." If the writers were trying to convey that God finished all the heavens during the creation week, this would be a good description. There still may be an outside chance that part of the distant cosmos visible to us through our telescopes may be outside the realm of space and time, part of the eternal past. This is an argument from a scripture vacuum, and it would have to be beyond the "heavens" described in these verses.
A young earth-ancient cosmos model would present fewer major theological implications than the Day-Age or Gap theories, which conclude that there was a long period of death and struggle before Adam. Those who want to remain scriptural, but don't buy the idea of a young universe may find some refuge with this model.
Many other models have been proposed for the origin of the earth as it relates to Genesis. That is the challenge of the creation scientist: to take the evidence and formulate the best picture of what happened in the past.
Advantages of Creation Viewpoints
1. God could have created the earth in any time frame he chose to. Evolutionists, stuck with long ages, have to contend with the laws of thermodynamics, and the fact that time is an enemy to evolution.
2. Creation provides a simple explanation for the origin of life.
3. The Biblical flood explains the geological puzzles found in the fossils.
4. The Biblical record directly explains the apparent young age of man.
5. The creation model is more consistent with the laws of thermodynamics, and explains the universal degradation we can see in the universe. Evolution is directly contrary to these laws.
6. Creation is more satisfying from a philosophical point of view. If one assumes an evolutionary viewpoint, he must conclude that he is a product of blind chance and life is meaningless. Man's existence is meaningless under such a worldview.
SCRIPTURE REFERENCES
Genesis 1
Exodus 20:811
Exodus 31:1718
Genesis 1:31
Romans 5:12
I Corinthians 15:21
Genesis 3:17
Romans 8:2022
QUESTIONS FOR STUDY
1. Give a critique of each Creationist viewpoint, and decide how much they agree with scripture.
2. What problem does Exodus 20:811 and Exodus 31:1718 cause for the Day-Age Theory?
3. Can we reconcile the idea of millions of years to the Bible? Why?
4. What evidence is there in the fossils of a flood and a recent creation?
5. If a person lacked knowledge of the theory of evolution or uniformitarianism, would he propose the Gap Theory from a strict reading of scripture? Why?
REFERENCES
1Nielson, Lewis. "Certainties, Less Than Certainties, and Evolution" Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1977. pp. 180-82.
2Morris, Henry M. 1970. Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, NJ. p. 65.- Note: this book contains an excellent refutation of both the day-age and gap theories and is highly recommended reading.
3Trombley, Charles. 1979. Released To Reign. New Leaf Press, P.O. Box 311, Green Forest, AR 72638. p. 54.
4Morris, Henry M. 1974. Scientific Creationism. Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, CA 92115 pp. 123-130. This book is a good overview of the recent creation theory.
5Brown, Walt. In The Beginning, 6th Edition.
Back to the Revolution Against Evolution home
page
The Creation Bookstore
Shopping
Cart
Revolution Against Evolution TV Show
Creation Essays
Seminars and Class Schedule
Online Books
Other online resources
Frequently Asked Questions
The Amy Foundation Website
Mount Hope Church
The Revolution Against Evolution has had over one million visitors since 4/28/97.
. Contact rae.org or send comments
about this page HERE.