It is the opinion of the present writer that in discussion about this subject and its treatment from the platform too much time is devoted to the wrong side of the coin. Elaborate arguments designed to ridicule evolution fail to convince any but those already convinced, for several good reasons:
- How can we expect others to take the word of an amateur when the overwhelming majority of “professionals” take an opposite line?
- In picking at points which the evolutionist might find difficult to explain by evolution we use the same logic as those who refuse to look seriously at the Bible because of apparent contradictions in it.
- Quoting scientist against scientist proves nothing; it is the same as saying that because there are so many different sects believing in the Bible it cannot contain absolute truth.
- We claim that the scriptures are for all to understand, including those without training in worldly wisdom (1 Cor.l:21). It should not be necessary to go into science to defend the Bible; we ought to be able to “defend” the scriptures from a scriptural standpoint.
The following notes are submitted in the hope that they may stimulate some ideas on this subject.
1. Evolution is a Theory
It is a fact that scientific theories derive from both facts and assumptions. No theory can therefore be proved in science; they can only be disproved. The assumptions upon which the theory of evolution are based deny the possibility of interaction between supernatural and natural. Such an assumption is that of ‘uniformity of nature’ necessary to the whole of geology. To use the theory of evolution to “disprove” creation when some of the assumptions needed for the construction of the theory deny the possibility of a supernatural creation is clearly a circular argument.
2. Fossils are Facts
Fossils form 99% of the evidence for evolution, and they are definitely factual. If theory can never prove creation untrue, all facts must be in harmony with the account. To see how fossils fit in we need to take a closer look at the creation narrative. In doing so we will look at some other points in passing on the way.
3. Simplicity or Naiveté?
The very simplicity of the Genesis account compared with pagan stories is remarkable. In revealing things too deep for us to comprehend YHWH gives us a precise and brief account sufficient for our needs.
4. Structure
The account is in three parts.
a) Ch. 1:1-2 (Prologue)
b) Ch. 1:3-31 & Ch. 2:1-4 (Chronological account)
c) Ch. 2:4-25 (Man’s place in creation)
5. Prologue
Many have taken the words in verse 2, “the earth was without form, and void,” to read “became desolate”. This makes it possible to suggest 1 that there was a previous creation which was destroyed or removed and the face of the earth used for another creation. (To me it seems a slight a on the character of YHWH to propose a series of failed creations.) This idea has been used to account for the origin of fossils and angels. I am left, however, with the suspicion that such explanations are attempts to find in the creation account evidence for ideas derived elsewhere, often outside scripture. It will be the purpose of the present writer to attempt an understanding of the words as they exist in our Bible today.
6. The Face of the Waters
The heavens and the earth were created first, followed by light upon that earth. The creation of a water-covered globe bathed in light was followed by the rest of the acts of creation, summarised in the statement “the spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.” (The comparison with Ps.103:20 is interesting.)
7. Six Days
With the creation of light it was possible to mark out time periods. For the following creation to take place the speed of rotation of the earth would have to remain constant; therefore the duration of a day must have been 24 hours, then as now. This is further substantiated by reference to Ex.20:11, where, in the context, the meaning of the word “day” is quite unmistakable.
The insistence upon closing each act of creation by the words “and there was evening and morning, a …. day ” seems obviously to draw our attention to the fact that creation was performed on six consecutive days of 24 hours each. This implies no limitation on God’s power; He chose for some good reason to spread the work out in this fashion. A God able to raise Jesus from the dead could have taken .a split second had He so desired.
8. Light
Although our experience of light is limited to that derived from some body, we have no right to insist that this must always have been the case. It need not surprise us, therefore, that the world was flooded with light before the creation of the heavenly bodies on the fourth day. Remember that God dwells in light unapproachable; He instituted a pillar of light to lead the Israelites. (See also Zech.14:7.)
9. “Yielding Seed”
YHWH created the earth and plants on the third day. Plants need soil to grow in, yet soil as we know it takes much time to form from rock fragments and decayed plant material. Yet God must have created a suitable environment for plants immediately, with no wait. Soil in any case cannot be formed without plants, plants cannot live without soil. God must have created both simultaneously. Anyone looking at the earth at the end of the third day creation would have seen the earth mantled in soil and covered with vegetation. It would therefore give the impression of a history of co-operation and development of soil and plants extending over previous years which never existed! To create this as going concern God would have to create the earth with an apparent past.
Consider the plants themselves. They were quite clearly created as reproductive entities with a life cycle involving seed and flower. By definition life cycles have no starting point. Each point on the life cycle of a plant is derived from the previous stage. At what stage would God create it? Seeds contain structures derived from flowers; the mature tree contains structures derived from its younger stages (annual rings, girdle scars on twigs). Since no one stage is a more logical starting point than any other, God may have created plants at all stages. In fact, He would have to do so to institute a stable environment. Whatever He created would have an appearance of age, i.e., again God would need to create an apparent past which never existed.
10. Mountains and Rivers
Less obviously, but equally essentially, this principle applies also to the non-living world. I have shown people a piece of granite and asked, “Could God create that?” The answer is always “Yes”. Show the same person a fossil in a rock, ask the same question, and the answer is always “No”. The strange thing is that the arrangement of minerals in granite is as clear an evidence of the passage of a long period of time as the existence of a fossil in a sedimentary rocks
To take another example, mountains and river valleys also have a life cycle extending over a long period of time. At what point would God create a mountain? Would he create a flat landscape, or rectangular mountains? No, in either case it would be a long time before the earth in such a form could support life in all its diversity. To create a going concern YHWH would create mountains and the rest of the landscape as we see it today, more or less. YET A Mountain is the result of Erosion over a long period of Time.
Again and again we come back to the principle that YHWH would have to create an earth with a full non-existent past history complete in all details, most of which we still see around us. YHWH did not do this to provide an alternative to faith, although that is the effect of what He has done, but because that was the only possible way the earth could be created as a dynamic working whole from the moment of creation.
Evaluating other texts about Creation