Creation, evolution, or other views?

This article assumes that truth is to be found in both nature and the Bible, Science, which is an explanation of nature, has been gratifyingly successful. Also, the Bible has demonstrated a high degree of historical validation and has endured for millennia as a respected guide for life.

Creation. According to the most direct reading of Scripture, Creation occurred in six literal days, with a short period of time (compared to the geologic time scale) between Creation and the Flood. No life existed on earth prior to Creation (Gen. 1:2) and possibly no earth (soft-gap theory). A universal flood lasting one year was the major catastrophe that has produced most of the fossiliferous sedimentary layers of the earth's surface. The sequential arrangement of these layers forms what is known as the geologic column.

This model fits well with the Bible and the significant degree of design and orderliness that is found in nature. It explains the problem of the origin of life-forms and the evidence of catastrophism found in the rock layers of the earth. It disagrees with several scientific interpretations that specify long ages, especially radiometric dating, rate of cooling of magmatic bodies, rate of fossil reef formation, and rate of growth of successive fossil forests.

The Gap Theory (distance, 1970; Fields, 1976), also called "Ruin and Restoration." * According to this concept, God created life on this earth in the distant past. However, He destroyed that life after a judgment upon Satan. The Scofield Reference Bible presents this view in connection with Genesis 1:2 (1917 ed.) and with Isaiah 45:18 (1967 ed.), which can seem to imply that the earth must have become a waste place (ruined) subsequent to an ancient creation not described in Genesis.

The model accommodates some of the scientific interpretations that suggest a long time period for life on earth. However, most individuals are dissatisfied with the concept because it has inadequate scriptural and scientific sup port. If there had been a gap following a ruin, a distinct blank period in the fossil record should be evident on a worldwide basis prior to a subsequent creation, but there is no evidence of this.

Progressive Creation (Gedney, 1950, pp. 45-50; Ramm, 1956, pp. 112, 215; Fields, 1976, pp. 165-179). The "Day-Age Theory," in which each day of Creation represents long ages, can also be fitted into this model. In this scheme God performed multiple creation events over long periods of time. The degree of progression from bottom to top in the fossil record reflects the degrees of progress in creative acts.

The model fits both the evidence of gaps between fossil kinds which support creation and the idea of long ages for the geologic column. Neither science nor Scripture suggests this model directly; hence, the basic idea itself lacks authoritative support and is difficult to test. It contradicts a contiguous six-day, all-inclusive creation, though God remains the Creator of all things. The presence of predation (for example, the large, flesheating dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex.) early in the fossil record places evil before the advent of man. This negates the Genesis story of a good Creator and Creation followed by the Fall of man and subsequent spread of evil in the world. Such a creator as is brought to view in this theory would not be the God described in the Bible.

Theistic Evolution (Ramm, 1956, p. 113; Key, 1959, pp. 21,22). Marsh (1950, pp. 53,54) calls this "teleological evolution." Modifications of this view placing special emphasis on the creation and nature of man have been proposed by Teilhard de Chardin (1966, p. 63) and Bube (1971). The latter calls his idea "Biblical evolutionism." Theistic evolution holds that God directed some of the continuous progress of evolution from simple to complex over long periods of time.

The idea adapts fairly easily to many concepts of the general theory of evolution and still permits God's involvement. He is available to bridge some of the difficulties of evolution, such as the problem of the origin of life, the gaps between fossil types, development of the higher mental characteristics of man, et cetera. But this model also has problems: The gaps between fossil kinds do not suggest a continuous process of evolution. It is also demeaning to the all-powerful Creator described in the Bible to use the crutch of evolution in order to produce advanced forms of life. The multiple "errors" represented by the numerous extinct kinds of organisms and the slow progress and competition implied in an evolutionary model challenge God's creative power, knowledge, and goodness. Competition seems uncharacteristic of the God who does not forget the sparrow (Luke 12:6) and whose ideal for life includes the wolf and the lamb living peacefully together (Isa. 11:6; 65:25). As in the case for progressive creation, we also have the appearance of evil in nature before the fall of man—a logical difficulty.

God at the beginning only (Klotz, 1970, p. 477). A few authors call this "theistic evolution." In this view God began life, then naturalistic evolution proceeded without His help. This model solves the question of the origin of life on earth, which is perhaps the most difficult problem for evolution (Bonner, 1962). Later, naturalistic processes produced advanced forms of life. The problems of theistic evolution apply here also, along with the problems of naturalistic evolution without God's help. For instance, how would inept, intermediate stages survive competition while changing from one functional type to another in a system of survival of the fittest? The forelimb of an organism evolving into a wing (to make a bird) in its inept, intermediate stage would not provide the necessary survival required by evolution. An intermediate stage which is neither a good organ for running nor for flying would be eliminated by competition.

Naturalistic Evolution (Ramm, 1956, p. 113), also called "evolution," "atheistic evolution" (Key, 1959, p. 20), or "mechanistic evolution" (Marsh, 1950, p. 53). According to naturalistic evolution, life and its advanced forms developed strictly through the operation of natural law.

This idea suits those who limit the concept of reality to tangible, natural laws. No intelligent design or supernaturalism is involved. Important questions remain unanswered: How do complex life systems originate on earth without a designer? How do inept, intermediate forms survive the competition of naturalistic evolution? How can the gaps between the fossil kinds be bridged? How could man's higher characteristics such as free will, morality, consciousness, and love originate in a purely mechanistic system?

Space does not permit the discussion of other models such as the devil experimenting on earth prior to Creation, life in various forms originating from outer space, pantheistic evolution, and deistic evolution. There is no paucity of ideas to consider.

The relationship of these theories to the Bible. The intermediate interpretations lack good Biblical support. They suggest progress, while the Bible speaks of degeneration (compare Romans 8:22 to Genesis 1:31). The involvement of some concept of God is often their only serious link to Scripture. The Bible describes a short Creation period (Gene sis 1 and 2) of six literal days a few thousand years ago, producing all the basic forms of life. Long ages are not suggested for this process. Also, the original earth was empty and dark (chap. 1:2). Since light is necessary for many of the life-forms found throughout the fossil record, an extended period for the development of advanced forms before Creation week is not entertained.

Those who adopt intermediate views between Creation and naturalistic evolution often assume the first part of Genesis to be allegorical. They must also assume the same for other scriptural references to this early part. Not only is Moses, who wrote the book of Genesis, being questioned by these views. God, who dictated the fourth commandment (Ex. 20:11), Christ and the apostle Paul, who referred to the Genesis account of origins (Matt. 19:4 and 1 Cor. 15:45) are also doubted. The apostle Peter's description (2 Peter 3:3-6) corresponds to Genesis. Hence these ideas question the reliability of Scripture as a whole.

Intermediate interpretations and naturalistic evolution challenge God's integrity. Would God state in the fourth commandment (Ex. 20:11) that He created all in six days if He had not? If so, He would not be the God described in the Bible—the God who speaks the truth, declares what is right (Isa. 45:19), and never tells falsehoods (Titus 1:2). Rejection of the Creation model harms more than the book of Genesis; it poses a threat to God's integrity. The conflict is resolved either with the Creation model or by a non-Biblical view of God. It is seldom realized that a significant amount of time for any part of the fossil record precludes the concept of an all-inclusive, six-day creation as given in Genesis 1 and 2 and Exodus 20:11.

The relationship of scientific data to the various interpretations. The multiplicity of models prevents the formulation of a simple general statement. Conclusions depend partially on one's definition of science. Science is usually considered to be explanations about nature. Traditionally, science has not always excluded God or the super natural. Many of the founders of modern science were seeking explanations about God's creation and principles He had incorporated therein. During the past century science has emphasized natural ism, excluding God and the supernatural.

Many scientists see tension between an omnipotent God, who can overrule the laws of nature, and science which seeks for consistent explanations within established laws. Therefore, a scientist is expected to seek naturalistic explanations that exclude God. But if supernatural explanations actually are a part of reality, such an exclusion would be erroneous. The tension between God and science is not as serious as envisioned above. Both God and science can coexist, especially when we are dealing with the noncapricious God described in the Bible and if science is viewed as a search for explanations based on the consistency that God placed in nature. God and science need not be mutually exclusive.

The difference between Creation and the other views given above could be tested by the amount of time required in each for the formation of the geologic column. The other views propose a long time for this; Creation does not. Some interpretations of scientific data (for example, radiometric dating and rate of cooling of large magmatic bodies) suggest long ages; other data (for example, catastrophism and the paucity of time-dependent erosional features expected at so-called long time gaps—paraconformities) suggest a brief period for life on earth.

The relationship of these models to drifting patterns of thought. The influence of the intermediate views between Creation and evolution on the beliefs of many Christian churches has been considerable. Since the popularization of the theory of evolution during the past century many denominations have in some way accommodated to various ideas of the progressive development of life over long ages.

Richard Niebuhr (1957, pp. 19, 20) has outlined the traditional history of a religious group. After being organized by the original reformers, the character of the sect changes as a new generation of children is born. This new generation rarely has the fervor of its fathers who fashioned their "convictions in the heat of the conflict." Succeeding generations find isolation from the world more difficult. Wealth and culture accrue as compromise of the original purposes brings in the usual churchy type of morals. Soon the group changes from the originally intended instrument for reform to a more placid social group. Managerial requirements increasingly distract the church's religious purposes.

This traditional sociological pattern of drifting away from the Bible (and too often its God) is also illustrated in Biblical history, where repeatedly God had to use drastic means to reverse the trend. The Genesis flood, the long sojourn of the Israelites in the desert, and the Babylonian captivity illustrate the difficulty but importance of resisting such trends.

Modem educational institutions also illustrate this tendency to drift. A large number of institutions of higher learning in the United States (for example, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Brown, Rutgers, Dartmouth, The University of Southern California, Auburn University, Boston University, Wichita State University, Wesleyan University) began primarily as religious institutions but are no longer church related.

The patterns of drifting described above appear, unfortunately, to be trends away from God. Gradual and sometimes barely perceptible drifting is disturbing to those concerned with unchanging truth. Drifting from one position to a slightly different one, and so on, can be unconscious. The intermediate models illustrate how one could slowly and almost imperceptibly drift from a belief in a Creator to atheism. The path can be a facile way to destroy the Bible and God—painlessly.

Conclusions. I believe that creation by a God who established the laws of science and who revealed history in Scripture is the most satisfying model of origins and is best supported by the reality around us. The variety of interpretations given above show how one can gradually change from a belief in creation as described in the Bible to naturalistic evolution. Some sociological factors favor a trend in this direction. I hope that efforts will be made to go in the opposite direction—closer to God. Man's most important relationship is with his God, and we should do all we can to encourage this.