MOD 1:Evolution And The Bible

Evolution And The Bible

Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
IMPACT
No. 5, August 1973

The evolutionary system has been entrenched for so long that many people whootherwise accept the Bible as infallible have deemed it expedient tocompromise on this issue. Thus, evolution has been called, "God's method ofcreation"; and the Genesis record of the six days of creation has beenreinterpreted in terms of the evolutionary ages of historical geology. Thesegeological ages themselves have been accommodated in Genesis either byplacing them in an assumed "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 or by changingthe "days" of creation into the "ages" of evolution.

Theories of this kind raise more problems than they solve, however. It ismore productive to take the Bible literally and then to interpret the actualfacts of science within its revelatory framework. If the Bible cannot beunderstood, it is useless as revelation. If it contains scientificfallacies, it could not have been given by inspiration.

The specific purpose of this study is to show that all such theories whichseek to accommodate the Bible to evolutionary geology are invalid and,therefore, should be abandoned.

Theistic Evolution
Evolution is believed by its leading advocates to be a basic principle ofcontinual development, of increasing order and complexity, throughout the universe. The complex elements are said to have developed from simplerelements, living organisms to have evolved from non-living chemicals,complex forms of life from simpler organisms, and even man himself to havegradually evolved from some kind of ape-like ancestor. Religions, cultures,and other social institutions are likewise believed to be continuallyevolving into higher forms.

Thus, evolution is a complete world-view, an explanation of origins andmeanings without the necessity of a personal God who created and upholds allthings. Since this philosophy is so widely and persuasively taught in ourschools, Christians are often tempted to accept the compromise position of"theistic evolution", according to which evolution is viewed as God's methodof creation. However, this is basically an inconsistent and contradictoryposition. A few of its fallacies are as follows:

(1) It contradicts the Bible record of creation. Ten times in the firstchapter of Genesis, it is said that God created plants and animals toreproduce "after their kinds". The Biblical "kind" may be broader than ourmodern "species" concept, but at least it implies definite limits tovariation. The New Testament writers accepted the full historicity of theGenesis account of creation. Even Christ Himself quoted from it ashistorically accurate and authoritative (Matthew 19:4-6).

(2) It is inconsistent with God's methods. The standard concept of evolutioninvolves the development of innumerable misfits and extinctions, useless andeven harmful organisms. If this is God's "method of creation", it is strangethat He would use such cruel, haphazard, inefficient, wasteful processes.Furthermore, the idea of the "survival of the fittest", whereby the strongeranimals eliminate the weaker in the "struggle for existence" is the essenceof Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, and this whole schemeis flatly contradicted by the Biblical doctrine of love, of unselfishsacrifice, and of Christian charity. The God of the Bible is a God of orderand of grace, not a God of confusion and cruelty.

(3) The evolutionary philosophy is the intellectual basis of allanti-theistic systems. It served Hitler as the rationale for Nazism and Marxas the supposed, scientific basis for communism. It is the basis of thevarious modern methods of psychology and sociology that treat man merely asa higher animal and which have led to the misnamed "new morality" andethical relativism. It has provided the pseudo- scientific rationale for racism and military aggression. Its whole effect on the world and mankindhas been harmful and degrading. Jesus said: "A good tree cannot bring forthevil fruit" (Matthew 7:18). The evil fruit of the evolutionary philosophy isevidence enough of its evil roots.

Thus, evolution is Biblically unsound, theologically contradictory, andsociologically harmful.

Progressive Creation
Some Christians use this term "progressive creation" instead of "theisticevolution", the difference being the suggestion that God interjectedoccasional acts of creation at critical points throughout the geologicalages. Thus, for example, man's soul was created, though his body evolvedfrom an ape-like ancestor.

This concept is less acceptable than theistic evolution, however. It notonly charges God with waste and cruelty (through its commitment to thegeologic ages) but also with ignorance and incompetence. God's postulatedintermittent creative efforts show either that He didn't know what He wantedwhen He started the process or else that He couldn't provide it with enoughenergy to sustain it until it reached its goal. A god who would have tocreate man by any such cut-and-try discontinuous, injurious method as thiscan hardly be the omniscient, omnipotent, loving God of the Bible.

The Day-Age Theory
According to the established system of historical geology, the history ofthe earth is divided into a number of geological ages. The earth is supposedto have evolved into its present form and inhabitants over a vast span ofgeologic ages, beginning about five billion years ago.

In contrast, the Biblical revelation tells us that God created the entireuniverse in six days only a few thousand years ago. Consequently, manyChristian scholars have tried to find some way of reinterpreting Genesis tofit the framework of history prescribed by the geologists.

The most popular of these devices has been the "day-age" theory, by whichthe "days" of creation were interpreted figuratively as the "ages" ofgeology. However, there are many serious difficulties with this theory.

The Hebrew word for "day" is "yom", and the word can occasionally be used tomean an indefinite period of time, if the context warrants. In theoverwhelming preponderance of its occurrences in the Old Testament, however,it means a literal day—that is, either an entire solar day or the daylightportion of a solar day. It was, in fact, defined by God Himself the veryfirst time it was used, Genesis 1:5, where we are told that "God called thelight, day." It thus means, in the context, the "day" in the succession of"day and night" or "light and darkness".

Furthermore, the word is never used to mean a definite period of time, in asuccession of similar periods (that is, "the first day", "the second day"etc.) or with definite terminal points (that is, noted by "evening andmorning", etc.) unless the period is a literal solar day. And there arehundreds of instances of this sort in the Bible.

Still further, the plural form of the word (Hebrew "yamim") is used over 700times in the Old Testament and always, without exception, refers to literal"days". A statement in the Ten Commandments written on a tablet-of stonedirectly by God Himself is very significant in this connection, where Heuses this word and says plainly: "In six days, the Lord made heaven andearth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Exodus 20:11).

Not only is the day-age theory unacceptable Scripturally, but it also isgrossly in conflict with the geological position with which it attempts tocompromise. There are more than 20 serious contradictions between theBiblical order and events of the creative days and the standard geologichistory of the earth and its development, even if it were permissible tointerpret the "days" as "ages." For example, the Bible teaches that theearth existed before the stars, that it was initially covered by water, thatfruit trees appeared before fishes, that plant life preceded the sun, thatthe first animals created were the whales, that birds were made beforeinsects, that man was created before woman, and many other such things, allof which are contradicted by historical geologists and paleontologists.

But the most serious fallacy in the day-age theory is theological. Itcharges God with the direct responsibility for five billion years of historyof purposeless variation, accidental changes, evolutionary blind alleys,numerous misfits and extinctions, a cruel struggle for existence, withpreservation of the strong and extermination of the weak, of naturaldisasters of all kinds, rampant disease, disorder, and decay, and, aboveall, with death. The Bible teaches that, at the end of the creation period,God pronounced His whole creation to be "very good", in spite of all this.It also teaches plainly that this present type of world, "groaning andtravailing in pain" (Romans 8:22) only resulted from man's sin and God'scurse thereon. "By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin"(Romans 5:12). "God is not the author of confusion" (I Corinthians 14:33).

The Gap Theory
Two theories for harmonizing the First chapter of Genesis with the geologicages have been advanced, one placing the geologic ages "during" the six daysof creation (thus making the "days" into "ages"), and the other placing thegeologic ages "before" the six days (thus making them days of "recreation"following a great cataclysm which had destroyed the primeval earth). The"day-age theory" has been shown to be an impossible compromise, bothBiblically and scientifically.

The "gap theory" likewise involves numerous serious fallacies. The geologicages cannot be disposed of merely by ignoring the extensive fossil record onwhich they are based. These supposed ages are inextricably involved in theentire structure of the evolutionary history of the earth and itsinhabitants, up to and including man. The fossil record is the best evidencefor evolution (in fact, the only such evidence which indicates evolution onmore than a trivial scale). Furthermore, the geologic ages are recognizedand identified specifically by the fossil contents of the sedimentary rocksin the earth's crust. The very names of the ages show this. Thus, the"Paleozoic Era" is the era of "ancient life", the "Mesozoic Era" of"intermediate life", and the "Cenozoic Era" of "recent life". At a matter offact, the one primary means for dating these rocks in the first place hasalways been the supposed "stage-of-evolution" of the contained fossils.

Thus, acceptance of the geologic ages implicitly involves acceptance of thewhole evolutionary package. Most of the fossil forms preserved in thesedimentary rocks have obvious relatives in the present world, so that the"re-creation" concept involves the Creator in "re-creating" in six days many ofthe same animals and plants which had been previously developed slowly overlong ages, only to perish violently in a great pre-Adamic cataclysm.

The gap theory, therefore, really does not face the evolution issue at all,but merely pigeon-holes it in an imaginary gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.It leaves unanswered the serious problem as to why God would use the methodof slow evolution over long ages in the primeval world, then destroy it, andthen use the method of special creation to re-create the same forms Hehad just destroyed.

Furthermore, there is no geologic evidence of such a worldwide cataclysm inrecent geologic history. In fact, the very concept of a worldwide cataclysmprecludes the geologic ages, which are based specifically on the assumptionthat there have been no such worldwide cataclysms. As a device forharmonizing Genesis with geology, the gap theory is self-defeating.

The greatest problem with the theory is that it makes God the direct authorof evil. It implies that He used the methods of struggle, violence, decay,and death on a worldwide scale for at least three billion years in order toaccomplish His unknown purposes in the primeval world. This is the testimonyof the fossils and the geologic ages which the theory tries to place beforeGenesis 1:2. Then, according to the theory, Satan sinned against God inheaven (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:11-17), and God cast him out of heavento the earth, destroying the earth in the process in the supposed pre-Adamiccataclysm. Satan's sin in heaven, however, cannot in any way account for theage-long spectacle of suffering and death in the world during the geologicages which preceded his sin! Thus, God alone remains responsible forsuffering, death, and confusion, and without any reason for it.

The Scripture says, on the other hand, at the end of the six days ofcreation, "And God saw everything that he had made (e.g., including not onlythe entire earth and all its contents, but all the heavens as well—noteGenesis 1: 16; 2:2, etc.) and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31).Death did not "enter the world" until man sinned (Romans 5:12; I Corinthians15:2 1). Evidently even Satan's rebellion in heaven had not yet taken place,because everything was pronounced "very good" there, too.

The real answer to the meaning of the great terrestrial graveyard—the fossilcontents of the great beds of hardened sediments all over the world—will befound neither in the slow operation of uniform natural processes over vastages of time nor in an imaginary cataclysm that took place before the sixdays of God's perfect creation. Rather, it will be found in a careful studyof the very real worldwide cataclysm described in Genesis 6 through 9 andconfirmed in many other parts of the Bible and in the early records ofnations and tribes all over the world, namely, the great Flood of the daysof Noah. Evidences for and results of this worldwide flood are discussed indetail in Impact Series No. 6.

Conclusion
Only a few of the many difficulties with the various accommodationisttheories have been discussed, but even these have shown that it isimpossible to devise a legitimate means of harmonizing the Bible withevolution. We must conclude, therefore, that if the Bible is really the Wordof God (as its writers allege and as we believe) then evolution and itsgeological age-system must be completely false. Since the Bible cannot bereinterpreted to correlate with evolution, Christians must diligentlyproceed to correlate the facts of science with the Bible.

| Summary & Review | Practice Examination | Sitemap |

| Advanced Creationism Home | Biblical Creationism Home|