Brother Alan Hayward is no stranger to Christadelphian readers on scientific topics, with his books such as Planet Earth’s Last Hope and God Is. He has now written fairly comprehensively on the subject of creation and evolution in a 232-page paperback book published by a group outside the Truth. A single-page preface is included as an insert for Christadelphian readers.
His book is divided into three sections: the first deals with scientists’ objections to Darwinian evolution; the second stoutly defends the ‘ancient earth’ theory against ‘flood geology’ and the ‘recent earth’ theory; the third section considers Bible teaching about creation and strongly advocates a ‘six days of Divine fiats’ theory.
Brother Hayward’s first section is, in this reviewer’s opinion, the most useful and noncontroversial part for brethren and sisters. Those brethren who have to find material for evolution/ creation addresses will find in pages 13-65 an up-to-date summary of contemporary thinking about Darwinian evolution. Brother Hayward gives quotations from scientists of different kinds from many countries who are critical of evolution. He uses his acquaintance with scientists and the literature, and his ability to communicate, very well in this first section. He shows clearly that there are considerable reservations about traditional evolutionary ideas amongst scientists, and that they have been unable to find satisfactory alternatives.
The age of the earth
In section two he turns his attention to the age of the earth, and advances many arguments against ‘flood geology’ and the ‘young earth’ ideas. He alleges that the scientific proof for the great age of the earth is irrefutable, and in his conclusion on page 204 states that “despite many years of extensive reading. . . (he) has never come across a single example of an eminent geologist rejecting the geological evidence for an ancient earth: nor of an eminent astronomer rejecting the astronomical evidence for an ancient universe: nor of an eminent nuclear physicist rejecting the evidence from radioactive dating. Clearly the evidence for an ancient earth must be very much stronger than the evidence for evolution”.
Scripture, however, does not plainly tell us whether the earth is young or old, but that God created it “in the beginning”. That “beginning” may be only 6,000 years ago, or many millions of years ago; conclusive Scriptural proof either way is not available. The correct standpoint of a believer who is also by profession a scientist should therefore be: “I don’t know for certain”. We cannot take sides when God has not told us, and when the factual evidence is conflicting, as section two of Brother Hayward’s book indicates. Brother Hayward does not need reminding that scientific theories have a habit of changing and being discarded as new techniques and instrumentation are developed. Science is subject to fashions and changes of opinion because it is of human origin, and the next generation of’ experts’ may easily revise the old ideas.
This reviewer believes, therefore, that we should keep an open mind on the evidence about the age of the earth, whilst firmly advocating that what the Word of God says about creation is impregnable. It is regrettable, therefore, that Brother Hayward so strongly rejects ‘young earth’ and ‘flood geology’ theory in favour of the ‘ancient earth’ theory when it is clear that none of these ideas will ever be proved or disproved by scientific techniques. Only Divine revelation, in the age when we are made equal unto the angels, will settle this controversy.
The days of creation
The final section of the book deals with Bible teaching on creation. Five theories of dealing with the ‘problem’ of the days of creation are discussed. Brother Hayward dismisses the view that they were literal days of ( recent) creation, but provides little worthwhile Scriptural proof against it. This reviewer finds no difficulty in fitting all the events of the sixth day into twenty-four hours, and can find no justification for this statement: ” . . . the Hebrew (of the words “at last” in Gen. 2:23, RSV) indicates that Adam had been kept waiting a long time (reviewer’s italics) for his wife to appear”.
Next he deals with a second theory: ‘literal days of re-creation’ (also known as the ‘gap theory’). This was favoured by Brother Thomas in Elpis Israel. Brother Hayward concedes that this view provides a “delightfully simple solution to the problem” (of the days). Why then does he not accept it? His Scriptural objection to the theory is not clear, except for saying that Genesis 1:2 should be understood as “the earth was without form and void”, and not “the earth became without form and void”. This reviewer can accept either tense of the verb and still reconcile it with the ‘gap theory’. Moses could have been saying that at the time the Spirit of the Elohim brooded over the waters nearly 6,000 years ago the earth was without form and void; or he could have been saying that the earth became without form and void after a previous creation. It seems that Brother Hayward dismisses this theory without adequate reasons.
The ‘Divine fiat’ theory
Brother Hayward then deals with two other theories before presenting his own ( and the late Brother Peter Watkins’s) ‘days of Divine fiat’ theory. This theory about Genesis 1 is open to substantial criticism. Brother Hayward proposes that on seven successive days God issued ‘fiats’, such as “Let there be light”, but that the actual fulfilment of these fiats took long periods—millions of years. Now this concept is certainly not apparent in reading Genesis 1. Rather, instead of this long time for fulfilment, there is emphasis on rapid fulfilment. After the fiat “Let there be light” the next phrase is, “and there was light”. On other days after the fiat the next phrase is, “and it was so”. This phrase is repeated five times in the chapter. The theme is, “God said . . . and it was so”. The psalmist also emphasises this immediacy of fulfilment: “For He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Ps. 33:9). In Genesis 1 Brother Hayward hides the “and it was so” in a proposed parenthesis, altering the plain reading of the text.
The author illustrates his parentheses. For the first day, after “Let there be light”, the parenthesis is: “and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night” (RSV). In explanation of this parenthesis Brother Hayward adds: “Had there been an observer present ( after the fiat—J. N.) he might have had to wait millions of years for the gases to thin sufficiently for the first gleams of light to penetrate the liquid surface” (p. 174). So “Let there be light” took millions of years to be fulfilled. He has similar parentheses for the rest of the chapter: “And so for each succeeding day”. In this way the writer allows millions of years for animal life, etc., as required by ‘scientists’.
A baffling feature of this theory is that clearly the fiats were brief, and, as Brother Hayward says, they were “uttered swiftly”. But why did God say a few words one day and then wait another twenty-four hours before giving a few more words? It is a most unlikely happening. Further, why tell us of this strange few minutes a day every twenty-four hours in so important a record as the opening chapter of the Word of God? It is of no particular profit for us to know this. It mystifies rather than enlightens us. Far more informative, if Brother Hayward’s ideas are right, that the text should tell us plainly that vast periods of time were involved in making the present state of the earth and life upon it. This parenthesis device in Genesis 1, in order to accommodate ‘science’, does not fit the plain reading of the text.
Later Scriptures are against this parenthesis idea. To the present reviewer nothing can get round this inspired comment, twice repeated: “in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Ex. 20:11; 31:17).
Are there gaps in Biblical genealogies?
To this reviewer, however, the most serious objection to this theory and indeed to the whole book, lies in the section on pages 187-8: “Is it possible to date Noah and Adam?”. Brother Hayward says that Biblical genealogies “have unknown gaps in them”, and that there ” is no way that we can calculate the dates of Noah and Adam”. One appreciates that this assertion is important for Brother Hayward, since it allows him to assume that Adam lived long before the 6,000 years calculated from Biblical chronology. Adam, as the first Homo sapiens, can be placed way back in time where anthropologists claim he first existed. As Brother Hayward writes (p. 197): “To the creationist, Adam was in every sense the first member of the human race. Because, as we saw in chapter 11, the Bible does not tell us how long ago Adam lived, we have no idea where to fit him into the succession of fossils unearthed by the anthropologists”.
This vagueness about when Adam lived is not reflected in the Scripture record. There is a precision about “the book of the generations of Adam” set out in Genesis 5. Thus Adam begat Seth ( v. 3); all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died ( v. 5); Seth begat Enos ( v. 6) ; all the days Seth lived were 912 years, and he died( v. 8) ; Enos begat Cainan ( v. 9) ; all the days of Enos were 905 years, and he died ( v. 11); and so on through the chapter. Despite the precision, Brother Hayward expects us to believe that there are unknown gaps in this record, so that in fact the sequence of dates has no meaning. We ask, Why, when the record in Genesis 1-6 is so brief, space is taken to tell us details that can be of no use to us because of the alleged missing links? Surely God does not deceive us by missing out essential names and dates in what are stated to be Adam’s generations. If Adam had lived many thousands of years ago, the record would say so.
Brother Hayward provides no real evidence for his alleged ‘unknown gaps’. He cites the three well-known Scriptures: Matthew 1, Ezra 7 and Luke 3. In Matthew’s genealogy of Christ three names are omitted. But the very fact that we know that three are omitted shows that a full record does exist. The reason why they were omitted need not concern us here; the point is that the knowledge of the gaps shows there is a full record, and we find it where we would expect to. In the historical records in Kings and Chronicles we can find the complete sequence and dates.
The same answer applies to his second attempt to demonstrate that there are unknown gaps in the Bible record. In Ezra 7:1-6 Ezra’s genealogy back to Aaron is given, and again some generations are missed out. How do we know they were missed out? Because in the parallel record in 1 Chronicles 6:3-15 we have the complete list. This is hardly evidence of missing gaps in Genesis 5 and 11. We may speculate why certain names were missed out; as Brother Hayward suggests, perhaps they were not considered worthy of mention. The important matter is that these gaps emphasise that there is a complete record.
Cainan in Luke 3
Thirdly, as further evidence—” most relevant of all”—Luke 3:35,36 is referred to, where the ‘extra’ name of Cainan occurs between Arphaxad and Salah. If we look into this we find that in the early records four times the sequence is given as Arphaxad—Salah—Eber (Gen. 10:24; 11:13; 1 Chron. 1:18,24). Four times! How can we doubt that this is the correct record? As to the insertion of a second Cainan in Luke’s record (the first Cainan is back in the time of Seth and Enos), the usual explanation is that in an edition of the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew (not the original edition, as evidence shows) Cainan had been inserted between Arphaxad and Salah; that the original of Luke’s Gospel did not contain the name Cainan in Luke 3:36; that the word Cainan was put as a marginal note as a reminder of the LXX; and that a later copyist moved the marginal note into the text Whether this is the right explanation does not matter. The important point is that the Hebrew manuscripts have the sequence Arphaxad—Salah—Eber in four places.
These alleged discrepancies only highlight the fact that we possess reliable and full genealogies. With small variations, compilers take us back to about B.C. 4,000 for Adam. If we are prepared to accept Scripture first and foremost we can reach no other conclusion than that Adam was created about 6,000 years ago, and that therefore the scientists have made errors in their assumptions and calculations when they state that man and the organisms of this present creation have existed for many thousands or millions of years. The very essence of science is that, as its hypotheses and theories are tested, those hypotheses and theories are altered. As new instrumental techniques and data become available the old theories are tested, changed, and often discarded. In contrast to science, God’s Word does not change: “The Word of the Lord endureth for ever”.
It seems, therefore, to this reviewer that Brother Hayward is trying to build the ‘fiat theory’ on the assumption that, because the ‘experts’ agree about dating, they are therefore correct, and that therefore we have a ‘problem’ reconciling this with the days of creation. The correct standpoint of the saints should surely be that the Word is correct and that true science will not conflict with it.
Conclusion
In summary, Brother Hayward’s book can be recommended only for its first section on Darwinian evolution, and, in the second section, for an interesting if rather one-sided consideration of the evidence in the young earth/ancient earth controversy. But for the reasons given in this review, the remainder of the book has serious shortcomings, and should be used with great caution, particularly amongst the younger age groups in our midst
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)