1. Genesis and evolution actually agree
In an attempt to harmonize the Bible with views of origins popularly defended as scientific, many people assert that the first chapter of Genesis is basically in agreement with the modern concept of evolutionary development from incipient life to man. Such attempts at harmonization come under the classifications of "theistic evolution" and "progressive creation."
Progressive creation endeavors to avoid the difficulty of time by proposing six long (millions of years) periods of relative stasis punctuated by direct divine intervention in six literal twenty-four-hour days. Theistic evolution treats the Genesis text as a metaphor with time significance only to the extent of portraying six succeeding epochs of gradual evolutionary development.
Both progressive creation and gradualistic theistic evolution have difficulty with the progression of events given by Moses. The standard evolutionary model, based on theoretical constraints and the fossil sequence, sees life beginning in the sea, with gradual differentiation into the plant and animal kingdoms. Modern land vegetation does not appear until after extensive development of marine plant life. According to Genesis, life began on land with fully developed vegetation of all types appearing two days before animals inhabited the ocean. In the Genesis narrative, birds and fish appear simultaneously, while in the current evolutionary scenario birds were not developed until about 400 million years after complex marine animals were in existence.
Thus it may be confidently asserted that progressive creation and theistic evolution models for the development of life are irreconcilable with a direct, grammatical-historical reading of the Biblical account of Creation.
2. The problem of radiometric dating
One of the most effective challenges to a direct, grammatical-historical interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis is provided by radiometric dating. Creationist literature is at its worst in its attempts to deal with this challenge.
Many individuals expect scientific evidence to independently support the Bible since both natural phenomena and inspired testimony are revelations of God who is truthful and consistent. That this is not necessarily so becomes apparent from reflection that on the first full day of their existence no scientific evidence could independently lead Adam and Eve to the conclusion that their world was only six days old. They were surrounded by mature plants, animals, and landscape. Truth concerning the age of their world could be apprehended only through the testimony of reliable observers.
No logical treatment of radiometric data inductively leads to the conclusion that our world today is less than 10,000 years old. Such a conclusion must be based on confidence in the testimony of observers and is a religious viewpoint. Having accepted this viewpoint on the basis of a broader range of evidence (the testimony of reliable observers as recorded in Scripture), one can then reassess the radiometric data in search of an interpretation that is consistent with all the evidence.
Scientific evidence indicates zero, or relatively negligible, radioactive carbon (infinite radiocarbon age, but in actual practice 40,000 years) in the remains of organisms that were buried by the catastrophe of Genesis 6-8. Biblical data place this event 5,000 (± 500) years ago. The two sources of evidence may be harmonized by postulating a post-Flood transition period during which the radio active carbon concentration increased from a relatively negligible level to the level that has been maintained over the past 3,500 years.
Inorganic radiometric ages may be viewed as mineral characteristics resulting from isotope ratios established in a primeval creation, regular radioactive transmutation since primeval creation, and consequences of exposure to heat, water, and radiation; but not necessarily as dating the time of association with organic remains any more than radiometric ages for minerals in a modern cemetery can date the burials there.
3. The evolution of the horse
The horse, perhaps more than any other example, has been used to illustrate evolution. The series of horses from small to large, from several-toed to one-toed, as illustrated in books and in museums has been impressive. Yet even this prime exhibit has broken down under careful scrutiny.
The "dawn horse" (Eohippus) was first named Hyracotherium and placed in the hyrax order. This classification is still valid. The hyrax, a cat-sized animal that lives in the Near East and Africa, is somewhat generalized, resembling groundhogs, pigs, rabbits, guinea pigs, et cetera, depending on which parts are compared. When the horse evolutionary series was being pieced together, Hyracotherium was renamed Eohippus and placed at the beginning of the series. For more than fifty years this evolutionary sequence has appeared with little change in textbooks and in museum displays. That it was an incorrect oversimplification became clear, however, soon after it was outlined. Note this statement writ ten twenty-three years ago by a well-known scientist and writer: "There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-line evolution from small to large, from doglike to horselike, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with the complicated cusps of the modem horse. It looked straight-line—like the links of a chain. But not for long. As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all, but that (to consider size only) horses had now grown taller, now shorter, with the passage of time. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example of orthogenesis had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History, photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks (where it is still being reprinted today)."—Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man's Fate (New York: Mentor Books, 1961) pp. 225, 226.
Eohippus should not be included in a progression of horses. The rest of the horses, even if they represented a valid straight-line evolutionary series, do not illustrate major evolution. They neither arose from, nor developed into, nonhorses. Creationists accept change within basic- kinds of animals. They insist that changes bridging families and higher classificational categories are unsupported by evidences from either ancient or modern organisms. The horse series that was supposed to supply the evidence for major evolutionary change can now be seen to be, instead, only another example of microevolution.
4 The evolution of man
Much has been said about the evolution of man. Many books have been written on the topic. It is a difficult subject to handle briefly.
There are only two well-known and well-authenticated types of ancient man—Neanderthal man and Cro-Mag non man. In more recent years the picture of Neanderthal man has been changed because of evidence that the original skeleton that served as a model was misshapen by osteoarthritis and rickets! Neanderthal man has been inaccurately portrayed for many years as a brutish, beastlike human. Excavations in Iraq (Shanidar Cave) have revealed that handicapped members of the Neanderthal society survived to old age. Neanderthal man had a cranial capacity equal to that of modern man. Cro-Mag non man was apparently physically superior to modern man and also does not qualify as a connecting link between ape and man.
The interesting fossil remains being discovered in Africa are surrounded by much controversy. Some paleoanthropolegists (those who study ancient man) believe that they are fossil remains of prehumans, whereas others say that they are merely the remains of bipedal apes. Some think that the creatures walked upright like little men, while others feel they swung through the trees. Fierce arguments over the interpretations of the various finds make objective evaluation difficult. Anthropologists often think their own finds are the missing link, while denying the importance of what their colleagues have found. Until more specimens are located and more information is available, it is difficult to come to any reliable conclusions.
The development of man from apelike ancestors has been portrayed from time to time as a branching evolutionary tree. But these schemes of development often change. Recently the supposed development of man from apelike ancestors has undergone a complete revision because of the discovery of a single skull labeled 1470 (MINISTRY, April and May, 1974).
We have every reason to believe that such revisions have not ended. In no other area of science has there been such controversy and bias. The evidences for the evolution of man from ape are poor despite the appearance given by the superficial coverage of popular literature.
5 The Yellowstone petrified forests
The petrified forests of Yellowstone, consisting of many sequential levels, are said to have taken many thousands of years for successive growth and burial by volcanic mud slides. Research during the past fifteen summers reveals many features that are distinctly unlike that of a normal growing forest and its humuscovered floor. If these trees did not grow in their present locations, they must have been transported from elsewhere.
The eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 tore out many trees and deposited them on the slopes, in the river valleys, and in floating rafts in Spirit Lake at the base of the mountain. Mount St. Helens provides a modern model of what may have happened in the past to produce the petrified forests of Yellowstone. Many of the trees that have been torn out have Come to rest in an upright position as in Yellowstone.
6 Coral reefs and time
Coral reefs represent the largest structures on earth that are built mainly by organisms. Because of the present usual slow rate of growth of these reefs it is frequently asserted that they cannot be accounted for in the few thousand years of time since Creation suggested by the Bible. It would take more than one hundred thousand years to build our largest reefs, according to some commonly accepted estimates.
On the other hand, some measurements on record suggest reef growth rates several orders of magnitude higher than usually assumed (see Origins, vol. 6, no. 2, 1979). Some factors that may have contributed to faster reef growth in the past are: (1) reduced ultraviolet light inhibition at depth; (2) trapping of sediments by reefs; (3) increase in temperature; and (4) more favorable nutritional factors.
7 Erosion of the Grand Canyon
Often many millions of years are suggested for the cutting of the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River in Arizona. This huge chasm is indeed impressive. How did it come about? Actually, there is no commonly accepted model because of the peculiarities involved, not the least of which is the fact that the river has cut through the Grand Canyon dome instead of going around it as any "intelligent" river should do!
Could the Grand Canyon have been cut down rapidly by a catastrophic event? Some evidence, such as huge blocks of the Redwall formation having slid down the canyon, suggest this. Also the Navaho, Hualapai, and Havasupai Indians of the region still believe that the river is the runoff from a great flood that once covered the earth.
8 The fossil sequence argues against creation
Many paleontologists feel that the fossil sequence found in the layers of the earth represents the strongest evidence available for evolution. This is because organisms classified as simpler are found in the lower portions of the fossil record. For instance, from bottom to top, the first appearance of most major vertebrate classes—fishes, amphibia, reptiles, birds and mammals—is in a general evolutionary sequence. On the other hand, the invertebrates, which form about 95 percent of the fossil animal kinds, do not present a meaningful evolutionary sequence.
The general evolutionary sequence of the vertebrate fossils can be valid only if one assumes vast amounts of time for its formation. Creationists have other explanations. The ecological zonation theory proposes that those organisms living at lower levels were the first to be buried by the Flood, while those living higher were destroyed later as the floodwaters gradually rose to higher levels. This theory suggests that the vertical distribution of the pre-Flood ecology was similar to the fossil record with the invertebrates and fishes at lower levels, then amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, thus producing a sequence commonly used to support evolutionary theory. This order is somewhat compatible with present ecology but differs in many details.
Other factors used to explain the fossil sequence include gravitational sorting (the more dense organisms sinking deeper and faster during the Flood), locomotion (the more motile organisms escaping to the highest levels during the Flood), and the flotation characteristics of the dead organisms. Doubtless these factors would be significant in a limited way during the Flood, but it is highly doubtful that any one factor alone can explain the complete sequence of fossils. Probably at least a combination of original ecological distribution, sorting, locomotion, and flotation was involved.
9 The Australian problem
Of the questions that are posed to creationists, one of the most frequent involves the fact that marsupials (pouched animals such as the kangaroo, wallaby, and the wombat) are found almost exclusively in Australia. There are about six families of Australian marsupials ranging in size from seven-foot-tall kangaroos to marsupial mice barely an inch long. Yet Australia has no native forms of land animals comparable to the large herbivorous animals, carnivores, or rodents found on the rest of the continents. In fact, with one exception, no other animal families found on the other continents are native to Australia. The one exception is an indigenous group of placental mammals related to the old-world rats and mice. These were in Australia long before man introduced the rabbit, the dingo, and, of course, his domestic animals.
As one views the marsupials in Australia, he is struck by the structural similarities between them and placental mammals which occupy similar habitats in other parts of the world. Australia has marsupial carnivores, marsupial moles, and other forms occupying ecological niches similar to those of their placental equivalents.
The creationist must ask: If all these marsupials came off the ark and migrated to Australia, how were the small mouse like forms able to reach Australia ahead of large placentals that now inhabit nearby regions in the Malay peninsula—e.g., deer, elephant, large cats, and assorted primates? At present the creationist has no convincing explanation for the current distribution of marsupials. Looking only at this problem one would have to admit that the evolutionary paradigm is more successful. On the other hand, the fossil record of marsupials does not support an evolutionary origin. If one looks at the total picture, the creationist view still maintains an advantage.
10 Does microevolution prove macroevolution?
Basic to the theory of evolution is the concept that one species, with enough time, can give rise to another species. In proposing this idea, Darwin postulated that environment was the agent that, over time, selected the most fit. Those that survived passed along their genes to the next generation, and gradually new structures, behaviors, et cetera, came into place.
Darwin was, of course, correct in stating that it is possible for one species to evolve into something different within the kind. But was he correct to imply that this process could be carried on indefinitely so that one could start with a single-celled organism and eventually produce a complex form such as man?
While perhaps a majority of creationists will say that some change is possible, they will also state that there are limits to change. Here the creationists stand on firmer ground in the conflict with evolution. The fossil record is clearly incompatible with a gradualistic view of species formation. There are indeed gaps between major groups of organisms.
Evolutionary apologists have claimed until recently that the intermediates have been lost. Recently the proponents of "punctuated equilibrium" have admitted the reality of the gaps but have proposed that these gaps represent times of very rapid speciation in which new structures appeared in but a twinkle of evolutionary time, leaving little or no traces in the fossil record.
The evidence for evolution between major groups is strikingly lacking.
11 Is Archaeopteryx a missing link?
It has been noted above that transitional forms between two basic kinds are absent. A possible exception to this general rule is Archaeopteryx—a creature that shares characteristics between two major animal groups—the birds and reptiles. Indeed, until the true nature of the organism was known, several fossils belonging to this group were classified as small dinosaurs.
According to evolutionary thinking, birds evolved from earlier reptilian ancestors. Archaeopteryx resembles lizards in having teeth set in sockets, less fusion of the vertebrae, a long, bony tail from which feathers arise (tail feathers in birds arise from over a single bone), three wing bones homologous to the digits in lizards, a small sternum, and no air sacs in the bones. On the other hand, Archaeopteryx had feathers like those of modern birds, a large brain case, a skeletal structure specialized for flying, and fully developed wings. Thus it does appear to be a genuine intermediate. But could it also represent a group of extinct organisms that shared certain characteristics of both groups.
Archaeopteryx is not alone in sharing characteristics of two groups. The monotremes (duck-billed platypus and the spiny anteater) can perhaps help us better understand Archaeopteryx. Monotremes lay and incubate eggs, but then nurse the young. Structurally, some of their bones even resemble those of lizards. The creationist considers the monotremes to be a created kind. If one can make this assumption, it should not be difficult to accept that Archaeopteryx may also have been a created group now extinct.
12 Evaporites
An evaporite is a sediment deposited from an aqueous solution as a result of extensive or total evaporation of the water.
One evaporite deposit of anhydrite (calcium sulphate) found in the Permian "Delaware Basin" is 762 meters thick. A simplistic model has been postulated that such a deposit represents the salt in a column of sea water 1,544 kilometers deep. To produce such a deposit from evaporation alone would require almost one million years of constant evaporation at the rate of two meters of water a year. Fossils found in the evaporite deposit compound the time problem for those who believe in a short chronology for life on this earth.
The answer to such a dilemma must be found in models for deposition other than evaporation. Some such models do exist. However, it must be recognized that the evaporite problem is so complex that any model proposed is very involved and may not give as satisfactory an answer as one would desire.
13 Basalt cooling rates
A lizard lies on a small rock in the cool desert night. Why? Because the rock is slowly giving off the heat energy it absorbed from the previous day's sun. Imagine the length of time that the same rock would radiate heat immediately after solidification from a molten state. A lot of heat energy would be stored in that rock, and the lizard could spend a very long time in the cold before the rock would cool down to a comfortable temperature.
Imagine now that instead of a small rock in the desert we are interested in a rock the size of Half Dome in Yosemite National Park, and the length of time required for such a rock to cool from a molten state. The length of time becomes almost too large to comprehend, and yet we haven't even started to consider the rest of Yosemite Valley, let alone the other granite and basalt formations around the world!
It has been postulated that tens of thousands of years would be necessary for major batholiths, like Half Dome, to cool if a simple convection model were used for heat loss. A greater concern arises when we attempt to calculate the time necessary for the solidification and cooling of extensive mountain ranges such as the Sierra Nevadas in California.
When confronted by time issues such as those provided by evaporites and cooling rates, we must be willing to admit that we may not have all the data or understand the issues completely. In such situations it is best to reserve judgment regarding conclusions that may be currently postulated.
14 By what authority?
When a series of lectures is to be given on an important subject by an unknown individual, one of the first questions you ask yourself is: Does this individual speak from an authoritative position or is he a crackpot? Knowingly or unknowingly, we are constantly making value judgments concerning individuals who state a position or give information. This is especially true regarding controversial subjects.
The subject of origins brings out some of the strongest challenges to authority. Evolutionists offer demonstrable scientific evidence and the interpretation of such evidence. Creationists offer the assertions of the Bible supplemented by scientific evidence of design.
Any attempt to use science in deter mining the origin of life must, by definition, presuppose creation because science operates from the data of experience. Creation cannot be the object of experience because it is the precondition of experience!
Creation stands beyond the limits of human experience, resting at the inter face between man's faith and God. Any inquiry into origins must, then, be an inquiry into the nature and character of God. Since Scripture is the only reliable authority on God, the Scriptural record, elaborated by experimentation and observation, presents the most authoritative position on origins.
