The story of Creation is the most contested claim of the Holy Bible. Did God create the universe? Is Creation compatible with modern science?
The story of Creation is the most contested claim of the Holy Bible in general and the book of Genesis in particular. Does the book of Genesis contain wisdom or just a creation myth to which the superstitious can lay claim? With modern science embracing evolution, is it rational to believe in Creationism? Can intelligent people really believe in a Creator God or in the Bible?
The Bible's Creation Story
Moses, the likely writer of Genesis, penned the opening lines of the Hebrew book of Genesis several thousand years ago. "In the beginning, " wrote the ancient patriarch, "God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
According to the book of Genesis, the earth was created in six "days," with God resting on the seventh. A literal reading of the Creation story (Genesis 1-2) along with the Old Testament genealogies strongly indicates an earth no more than 6,000 years ago.
If one accepts the possibility that generations were skipped in the genealogies (something scholars say happened in several of the biblical records), then the age of the earth could be extended to as much as perhaps 10,000 or 12,000 years. Either way, a literal reading of Genesis gives us a young earth.
Many Christians, particularly in the mainline denominations, have embraced a more figurative reading of Genesis. They argue that the days of Genesis are "time periods" reflecting millions (perhaps billions) of years. William Jennings Bryan, for example, opened the door to this possibility when on the witness stand at the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial (1925).
Even so, a conservative, evangelical loyalty to the Bible can't fully jettison a literal reading of Genesis. The reasons are that Jesus quotes from Genesis several times as does the apostle Paul. What's more, the very doctrine of original sin stems from the Garden of Eden (Romans 5:12), which tells us there was one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) at the origin point for humanity. Conservative evangelicals must defend Genesis.
Evolution and Modern Science
Modern science has scientifically established a very old universe. Likewise, the earth is estimated to be at least 4.5 billion years old. These time estimates are based on a number of factors, including (but not limited to):
the apparent age of the universe's chemical elements
the geological data of the earth, including fossils, earth layers, etc.
Refutations of these evidences by Creationists have been summarily dismissed in the mainstream scientific community. It is a matter of canonical science that the universe and the earth appear billions of years old.
"The preponderance of scientific evidence, which is growing exponentially, indicates the universe is about 14 billion years old," concedes Christian author and apologist Ralph Muncaster.
How then can Christians reconcile evolution and the age of the universe with the book of Genesis?
Evidence for Creation
First, the time estimates are based on two fundamental presuppositions: naturalism and uniformitarianism. In other words, things happen by chance or natural forces only (naturalism) and generally in the same way and manner they always have (uniformitarianism).
Consequently, a person approaching the makeup of the universe, the chemical elements, geology, the fossil record, DNA, etc. from a naturalistic-uniformatarian outlook will naturally lean toward evolution. But someone who embraces monotheism will see things a little differently.
Can science prove that the monotheistic perspective is wrong? Hardly. It can only do that if it can prove that God doesn't exist. Richard Dawkins is trying to do that, along with several others, but he'll be trying a long time. Science can't disprove God, and therefore it can't disprove Creationism.
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
The bottom line is this...Science can only comment authoritatively on what it sees and observes. It can speculate on matters it can't observe, but it carries NO authority on such matters. Thus, a reasonable, intelligent person can believe in Creationism if he or she embraces the existence of an eternal, all-powerful God who is supreme over time, science, natural law, and reality.
******
For more information, check out....
Examine the Evidence by Ralph Muncaster
No Doubt About it: The Case for Christianity by Winfried Corduan
The copyright of the article Evidence for Creation in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish Evidence for Creation must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Oct 29, 2007 9:11 AM
Pink
:
. You are hitting the nail on the head. Yuppers. . Put yourself back in the year 1776 or so as an American. I can tell you something about yourself and the people with whom you would have related. . You were, each and every one of you, raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord God Almighty. Chances are close to 100 % that you would have been a Christian. You might not have known there was any other form of religion in the entire world. You would not only never ever question the Genesis story of creation; but, you wouldn't even have been able to think of questioning it. The idea of questioning your place in society wouldn't have entered into your mind--you would have been almost completely incapable of such questions. . "You have come a long way, Baby." . Now, you are able to question all those things; but, if you do, let it be known that you will be pursued by others who will fault you for being apostate or worse, a small voice within your own being will pursue you with a vengence. It will take courage to question the authority of the Bible--great courage. .
Oct 29, 2007 10:57 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
I think it is a shame that many fundamentalist / evangelical Christians turn a blind eye or deaf ear to anything that calls the Bible into question. Paul tells us to "prove all things" and "hold fast to that which is good." And he tells us to "study." So, Christians shouldn't give themselves over to blind, irrational faith.
That said, I want to make clear...
Modern science has proven that the earth and the universe APPEAR to be billions of years old. It cannot prove that they are actually that old. Science (and, by that, I mean REAL science) is based on observation and/or reproducibility. No one - not even the most brilliant secular scientist - can PROVE that the earth is 4.5 billions years old or that the universe is 14-15 billion years old. All they can do is prove that it APPEARS that way.
Christians need to acknowledge that the universe and the earth appear to be billions of years old, and need to accept that public schools are (appropriately) going to teach that. But this doesn't disprove God or the Bible.
Oct 29, 2007 11:35 AM
Pink
:
. <i>Christians need to acknowledge that the universe and the earth <b>appear</b> to be billions of years old, and need to accept that public schools are (appropriately) going to teach that. But this doesn't disprove God or the Bible.</i> (My bold) . I never thought anyone could do that; but, it looks like you have figured out how to have it both ways.. . :)
Oct 30, 2007 8:53 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Genesis strongly indicates that God created Adam and Eve as adults. So, on the first day of their lives, they would've been "grown-ups."
I see the creation of the universe similarly. It appears 14-15 billions years old, but (pardon the double negative) this doesn't mean God could NOT have created it several thousand years ago.
In addressing the issue of "the days of Genesis are time periods reflecting millions of years...", we need only to go to Genesis to refute this error quite conclusively. On the third day, God made the earth bring forth vegetation. On the fourth day God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day (the sun) and the lesser light to rule the night (the moon). Vegetation requires the sun for photosynthesis. It is the process by which plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into complex substances essential for plant life. Since vegetation came before the sun, there could not be vast periods of time between events and still have plants survive. Had He reversed the two days, with the sun being created before the vegetation, then a long period of time between the days of Genesis could have been possible where the sun would have been available for whenever plants appeared. But such is not the case. The Lord knew what He was doing even to the point of proper sequencing of events in order for us to know that the six days were literal.
Oct 30, 2007 2:24 PM
Migisi
:
. It appears God made light twice -
on Day 1: "3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." . and on Day 4: "14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." .
Oct 31, 2007 9:53 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Pink, as inconvenient or frustrating as my "cure-all answer" is for you, it's right there in the Bible. If you take Genesis literally, God created Adam and Eve as adults. What's more, if you take Genesis literally (as in 24-hour day Creation), then God DID position the planets and the stars in a way where the universe would appear advanced in age. You can't get around that. If Genesis is literal, then God most certainly created it with the appearance of age. Sorry if that frustrates you, but that's the way it is. :)
Oct 31, 2007 9:54 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Good observation, Migisi. There's been lots of speculation on what that all means.
Oct 31, 2007 9:56 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Good points, brantlake. Thanks for stopping by. Personally, I take Genesis for what it says. But I recognize (and do so very respectfully) that those skeptical of Christianity and/or unwilling to take the Bible at face value do not. And, for that matter, there are many, many, many CHRISTIANS who view Genesis as allegorical. We must acknowledge that.
