The Early Church's Testimony on the Doctrine of Creation

Introduction
Recently in the long span of church history, the traditional view of the Creation, as recorded in Genesis 1, has come into question. Starting the in the nineteenth century, science became more and more secular. This secularization peaked in the middle of century, when Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in his book The Origin of the Species. At the time, the divide between Creation and evolution was simply a divide between Christians and non-Christians. The divide continued that way until the early twentieth century. The famous Monkey Scopes trial made Christians look foolish for believing in Creation. Now some Christians, fearing looking foolish and ignorant to science, sought to make their faith compatible with evolution, producing groups like theistic evolutionists. Now Creation Christians not only had to combat atheist evolutionists, but also theistic evolutionists.

A growing debate between Creation theists and evolution theist is their origin. Both sides appeal to early church history. The Creation Christians will claim the church always believed in the Creation story as Genesis 1 records it. They claim that believing anything different will be acting against the orthodox doctrine the church has supported all of its history. The theistic evolutionists claim that the early church never read Genesis 1 literally, which opens the door for science, not the Bible, to explain how the universe came into existence. This paper will look at ten of the early church fathers and how they interpreted the first chapter of Genesis.

The Opposition

Before looking at the early church fathers, the opposition to the early church fathers must first be observed. Most of the early church fathers’ writings came in response to popular false teachings that began to penetrate the church. While the early church fathers did not have evolutionists pushing evolution upon the church, they did have philosophers whose philosophies entertained the minds of Christians. Some of these philosophies do even sound like evolution. The philosopher Epicurus taught the universe began when small particles began banging together in empty space. Hippolytus expanded on Epicurus’s idea, even teaching that God Himself came about from these particle colliding. The particles of matter did not have an origin. They simply existed for all eternity, past, present and future. Other philosophers taught about a demiurge. Platonic philosophers, like Plotinus, believed that the spirit was good and that matter was evil. Therefore, the Supreme God, a spirit, could not make anything out of matter, for he would be evil. So these philosophers created a demiurge, a creator god, who was evil because he worked with matter.  While some Christians naturally knew these philosophies did not work with orthodox Christianity, many Christians did try to make their religion and these philosophies compatible. Because of these Christian compromising their faith, the early church fathers knew they needed to speak out against these false philosophies.

Justin Martyr

 

Justin Martyr referenced the creation story in many of his writings. Like many of his day, Justin Martyr recognized the origin of life and the earth to come from the divine God. In his Second Apology, Justin states that the reason Christians call God the Creator derives from the fact that God “created and arranged all things.” Justin takes the belief a step further and recognizes God the Son, Jesus, as the Creator. In another writing, Justin takes the belief another step further and specific recognizes God as the creator of human life. In one of his writings, Justin defends the doctrine of the resurrection. Justin believes that God has the power to give life to any human again because God gave life to humans in the first place, which, to Justin, demonstrates his omniscience. Furthermore, in the same sentence, Justin goes on to say that this first instance of human life came about when God inserted his power into the earth to make the man. This quote demonstrates Justin believed the life of man came about as Genesis 1 recorded.  Same lies true for Justin when it comes to Eve. Eve, coming from Adam’s rib, proved to Justin God’s role as the Almighty Maker of everything he saw. Once again, Justin’s quote verifies that Justin saw Eve as real. To him, Eve was as real as Elizabeth or John the Baptist who only lived a century earlier than he did.  Without a doubt, Justin Martyr believed in the creation story literally, especially when it came to believing in a literal Adam and Eve.

Irenaeus of Lyons

 

Just like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus felt the need to defend God as the Creator of all things. Irenaeus explains that God formed the heaven, earth and seas, as well as all their contents, with his Wisdom and his Word. Like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus takes the doctrine a step further. Unlike Justin Martyr, who focuses on the Son as Creator, Irenaeus specifies the Holy Spirit as active with the Father and the Son at the Creation. The language Irenaeus uses in his defense, such as “formed man” and “planted paradise” proves that Irenaeus believed in a divine God that created the world, as described in Genesis 1. Irenaeus also went further by defending the creation as ex nihilo, or out of nothing. Appealing to Luke 18:27, which says that everything is possible with God, Irenaeus boldly declared God as the first substance, thus requiring all other substances to flow from him. When God created the world, he created the first elements for the first time. Irenaeus also defending creation having over six days of twenty-four hours. Although Irenaeus uses it to erroneously predict the end of the world, it shows Irenaeus took the days literally.

Clement of Alexandria

 

Young earth creationists or any Christian who interprets Genesis 1 literally would not want to quote Clement of Alexandria. Clement interpreted Genesis 1 allegorically, similar to how the Gnostics would have interpreted Scripture. For Clement, Genesis 1:1-5 describes the creation of a spiritual world, not the planet earth. The numbers for the days in Genesis 1 do not serve as ordinal numbers, according to Clement, but rather the value of their importance.  While this interpretation might seem unorthodox, or even heretical, to the literalist, Clement of Alexandria did contribute the orthodox doctrine of ex nihilo. As a matter of fact, Clement of Alexandria clearly states on three different occasions that God created the world out of nothing. On one of those instances, Clement credits the utter use of God’s will as the sole source of everything’s existence. In another instance, Clement explains that everything must come from out of nothing except God’s will alone. If humans came from a previously existing matter, then then humans might worship that matter, but if humans came from God’s will alone, then they must worship God alone.  While literalist Christians might want to shun Clement of Alexandria for his Gnostic-like interpretation of Genesis 1, they can learn from him and appreciate his practical reasoning on the importance of the ex nihilo doctrine.

Hermas

 

Hermas would have Irenaeus and Clement on the importance of the doctrine of ex nihilo. Hermas is most famous for his book The Shepherd of Hermas. His book begins with five vision. During the first vision, Hermas depicts God creating the world with his wisdom and by his strong, imperceptible power. After receiving five visions from the Good Shepherd in his book The Shepherds of Hermas, first mandates his readers to worship God as the creator who gives existence to everything non-existent and set them in motion. Not only does Hermas affirm God as the divine Creator, but he also affirms that the divine Creation formed the earth and everything in it out of nothing.

Tatian

 

Tatian might not seem like a candidate with whom young earth creationists or Christian literalists would want to side. Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Origen all deemed Tatian a heretic. Looking back at this point of history, historians believe some of the Early Church Fathers gave Tatian the title heretic because of his willingness to use Gnostic language in his writings. Looking at the remains of his writings, while using Gnostic language at some parts, Tatian holds to an orthodox belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Christians today can learn from Tatian, especially concerning the creation of the world. For Tatian, the creation begins with the eternal God. Nothing existed before, not even reason, even reason God had to begat. From God comes everything, from reason to matter. Tatian’s proves that not only did the early Christians support ex nihilo, but they strongly opposed Greek philosophers like Plato who declared matter to be eternal. To the early Christians, only God alone is eternal.

Theophilus of Antioch

 

Theophilus of Antioch knew what the Greek philosophers believed, and he did not fear challenging those beliefs. Theophilus knew that the Greek philosophers believed matter and nature existed eternally, just like God did. Using logic and reason alone, Theophilus refuted them all. If matter and nature exists eternally like God, Theophilus, then God cannot be the creator of all things. Furthermore, Theophilus states, if matter and nature exists eternally alongside God, then matter and nature stand equal to God. If the first two statements stand, God’s role as creator is limited, for just like man, he can only create with the resources he has. On the contrary, if God is the source of all things, then he cannot be limited. The logic and reasoning of Theophilus demonstrates the early church concerned itself the importance of believing in creation ex nihilo. Christians today should also display that same concern Theophilus had.

Tertullian

 

Tertullian constructs most of his doctrine on the creation in Against Hermogenes. Hermogenes, a Platonic philosopher, believed that matter existed eternally, that everything in existence came from that eternal matter, and that all things made of matter are evil because matter itself is evil. At first, Tertullian has to confess that Scriptures never explicitly say creation came out of nothing. He confesses that Christians believe in creation out of nothing as a presupposition. Yet Tertullian also tells Hermogenes that creation out of nothing only makes logical sense. First, if matter existed eternally, like God exists eternally, then matter is equal to God. Second, if matter is co-eternal with God and equal to God, then God is not omnipotent. Third, God also would not be omnipotent because part of God’s power is that he can create something out of nothing. If God needs matter to create, he ceases to be omnipotent. Fourth, when God does make something from something else, the Scriptures always mention it. For example, Genesis 1 explicitly mentions the sky produced birds and fish springing forth from the season. Therefore, one can conclude that when the Bible does not mention God making something from another thing, it must come from out of nothing. All in all, Tertullian could logically conclude that God made created the world out of nothing, making God the source of everything. Furthermore, Tertullian’s reasoning came from reading and understanding Genesis 1 literally. While Tertullian understood Genesis to be an incomplete account, he still believed it was a trustworthy account.

Basil the Great

 

Basil the Great wrote a sermon series on the opening chapter of Genesis, called The Hexaemeron. From reading these six sermons, the reader can tell Basil the Great took Genesis 1 very literally, as literally as possible. From his sermons, the reader can tell Basil wrote his own theology of the creation. He believed the source of the creation lies within the divine God. He believed the days in Genesis 1 as six periods of time twenty-four hours long, refuting anyone who disagreed, even Augustine! He also refuted Augustine on his allegorical approach to the Scriptures. In his Hexaemeron, he does not only refute Augustine, but also the Platonic philosophers. He disagrees with the philosophers who claim that matter is evil by pointing out how God made everything good. He even calls out the philosophers who claim their ancestors were animals, possibly the first building blocks of evolution. Basil the Great holds to an orthodox view of the creation because he reads and interprets Genesis 1 literally.

Origen

 

Unlike the early church fathers discussed so far, Origen refused to read the first chapter of Genesis literally. For him, believing in a literal reading of Genesis 1 meant thinking contrary to logic, reasoning and history. For example, he could not comprehend how the first three days had a morning and an evening when God had not yet created neither the sun nor the moon. Origen traded in a literal translation of Genesis for a spiritual interpretation. Origen believed for God to be truly omnipotent, a creation always had to exist to demonstrate his omnipotence. Using that logic, Origen concluded that God had already created a spiritual world prior to the events in Genesis 1. This spiritual world contained rational creatures that God could demonstrate his omnipotence to. According to Origen, Moses records this world’s creation in Genesis 1, not the planet Earth. God created the planet earth when a Fall happened in the spiritual world.

While theistic evolutionists might want to rejoice at a church father that did not believe in a literal interpretation, they might want to hold back on using him as an example. Origen applied his spiritual hermeneutic all over the Bible, causing him to doubt many historical events. For example, Origen did not believe that the Devil came and tempted Jesus.  Also, Origen stood alone in his hermeneutic and exegesis of Genesis 1. No bishop, pastor or church leader ever supported his stance.  Therefore, anyone could easily say Origen’s view on the creation was unorthodox.

Augustine of Hippo

 

Like Origen, Augustine did not interpret Genesis 1 literally, but unlike Origen, he took a different route. Whereas Origen read Genesis with a spiritual hermeneutic, Augustine read Genesis with an allegorical hermeneutic. According to Augustine, the “lights” created on the first day were the angels. Instead of the six days meaning six time periods twenty-four hours long, the six days represented six stages of increasing knowledge and wisdom of the earth. For example, on the second day, the angels had knowledge of the sky, and on the third day, the angels gained knowledge of solid land and its vegetation. The Bible has creation happening over six days in order that a day seven, which is the number for completion, could happen. That “seventh day” represents completion of knowledge and rest. Despite his allegorical hermeneutics leading to unorthodox exegesis, Augustine did side with many orthodox doctrines. He defended the earth’s origins coming from the divine God. He sided with his counterparts on the importance of believing the creation came out of nothing. Surprisingly, Augustine also strongly believed in a youth, so much so that he would attack anyone who proposed an old earth. While a theistic evolutionist might appreciate Augustine for not reading Genesis 1 literally, they might want to hesitate siding with him, for Augustine still sided with an orthodox understanding of the creation, especially when it came to a young earth

Conclusion

This article has looked at the preaching and the writings of ten early church fathers. From looking at the consistency of the writings, an orthodox doctrine of the creation comes out of it. The early church believed that all things, living and non-living, come from God. The church firmly held to the creation coming out of nothing, opposing all who thought matter existed eternally, like God did. Most of them held to a literal six-day creation. Those who didn’t, like Origen and Augustine, read the Bible in an extreme spiritual or allegorical way, so extreme, it would make any orthodox Christian uncomfortable. For a theistic evolutionist to pull out Origen or Augustine to claim the early church did not take Genesis 1 literally would be misrepresenting the early church. Still, even these men held to a divine God, creating a young earth, out of nothing. The early church fathers created this orthodox doctrine to defend against non-Christians who questioned and attacked their faith. Christians today can use these defenses of the early church fathers in order to also defend their orthodox, traditional faith.

 

Creation (Part 1): Ex Nihlo

Introduction

 

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is a comedic science fiction piece, written by Douglas Adams, a British comedian who has worked with other British comedians, such as Graham Chapman, who is most famous for starting the comedy group Monty Python. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy has gone from radio show to television show to books and to a movie. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy begins with the main character, Arthur Dent, waking up one morning to find out his house is going to be demolished that very morning in order to make room for an interstate highway. That same afternoon, Arthur Dent finds out that his home planet Earth is going to be destroyed in order to make room for an intergalactic highway. Unknown to him, Arthur’s friend Ford Prefect is an alien, and Ford knows how to escape and survive by hitchhiking throughout the galaxy. The whole story focuses around Arthur Dent’s adventures as he hitchhikes through the galaxy.

On one of his adventures, Arthur learns that, many millennia ago, in a planet far away, an ancient alien civilization wanted to know the answers to “life, the universe, and everything.” So the ancient civilization invents a machine to give them this answer. It takes centuries for this machine to be invented and built, and it takes more centuries for the machine to process the answer. But after several years, the machine finally gives the alien civilization the answer: 42. After a while of arguing between the aliens and the machine whether a number is a legitimate answer for such a profound question, the machine helps reveal to the aliens that they really don’t know what the question of “life, the universe and everything” is, for if they did, they would know 42 is the perfect answer to it. When the alien people ask the machine, if it knew the question, the machine sadly said it did not, but it could give them instructions on how to build the machine that would tell them the question. This new machine would be called “Earth.”

By the time this hits the conclusion, it will come full circle to explain why this is so important. But for now, ponder at the ancient alien civilization’s curiosity to find the answers to “life, the universe and everything.” Douglas Adams seems to be suggesting here that, if intelligent life exists on other planets, they too would want to know the answers to “life, the universe and everything,” just like human beings do on planet Earth. In fact, psychologists say that’s exactly why religion exists on planet Earth. According to psychologists, religion exists to answer 4 questions: origins (Where did we come from?), meaning (What are we here for?), morals (What is right and wrong?), and destiny (Where are we supposed to be going?). Another way to look at it is that religion exists to give humans the answers about their past (origins), present (meaning and morals) and future (destiny). Christianity indeed is a religion an attempts to answer all these questions. To answer them all right here and right now is too big of a task, so for now, let’s just focus on one. This time, let’s focus on The Origin of Life and the Universe.

The Testimony of the “Typical” Christian

Before we dive into any Biblical knowledge or scientific knowledge, let’s start with a testimony. I always believe that it’s easier to tackle hard subjects when we understand where people are coming from with their life’s story. When it comes to this subject, however, it seems hard to find a single testimony from a single person that gives the stereotypical testimony of what the average Christian goes through. Even my own testimony is far from average. So what I have decided to do is create a fictional, hybrid testimony of what a “typical” Christian’s testimony might look like. We’ll even give the guy the name Christian.

Christian was born and raised in a Christian home. Being born and raised in a Christian family, Christian began going to church since he was one week old. At age 3, when Christian began preschool, he also began Sunday school. Since the church’s Sunday school curriculum goes in order of Bible books, the first Sunday school lesson Christian gets is the Creation story, right out of Genesis 1. At the young age of 3, this is how Christian understands how life and the universe came to be in existence-

In the beginning: heavens and the earth

1^st day: light, darkness, day night
2^nd day: The sky
3^rd day: Land, seas, plants
4^th day: Sun, moon, stars
5^th day: Fish in the sea and birds in the air
6^th day: Animals and humans
7^th day: God finished and rested

Therefore, at the age of 3, the Creation story, right out of Genesis 1, is Christian’s answer to life and the universe. As the Sunday school curriculum loops, this story will be reinforced throughout Christian’s life again and again. This view will be uncontested throughout Christian’s preschool years and elementary school years.

 

 

Then, halfway through Christian’s childhood, whether it be as early as middle school or as late as high school, this view will be contested. See, Christian goes to the local public school. One day, Christian’s public school science teacher announces, “For the next chapter, the class will look at the origins of life and the universe.” Christian thinks to himself, “Cool! We’ve never talked about the Bible in school before!” (Christian sometimes wondered why, but never thought about it too hard, for he figured it was a complicated reason.) “It will be new and exciting to talk about the Bible with my classmates.” Christian’s science teacher continues, “This next chapter is on evolution.” All Christian can think is, “Wait, what?” but has no time to deal with his confusion, for he has to keep up with his teacher’s lecture to take notes. The teacher throws brand new terms at him, like macroevolution, microevolution, mutations, natural selection, primordial soup, Cambrian explosion and survival of the fittest. All these new terms just through Christian into a deeper confusion. What’s really making Christian’s head spin now his answer on the Origin of Life and the Universe is split between Creation and Evolution.

 

Christian makes his way home, still having a headache from all the confusion science class gave him. He decides that maybe the best way to figure this all out is to get on the family computer, log on to the internet and do his own research on the subject of evolution. His confusion does not clear up, however, when he finds out that not all the scientists can agree on evolution. Some evolutionists are calling themselves “Darwinists.” They say that Charles Darwin got it right originally, and since then, evolution has been tainted. The most pure evolution theory is the one Darwin wrote up. Other evolutionists call themselves “Neo-Darwinists.” They claim that Charles Darwin was on the right track, but really didn’t know as much as the science world knows today. The Neo-Darwinists claim that they have updated Darwin’s theories to be more accurate. On top of that, Christian discovers that, while all evolutionists agree life evolved, they cannot all agree on how life started. Some say that life started in a primordial soup: a lake with all the right building blocks of life got struck by lightning, which was the energy boost to put the blocks together and form life. Other evolutionists say that Earth only contained 99% of the building blocks, but one day, a meteorite with the other 1% hit earth, and when it hit earth, the blocks began building life. Still others claim that life evolved out of crystals evolving. All these theories within the evolution theory has Christian’s head spinning.

 

At the same time, it’s giving Christian a smug sense of satisfaction. “Hmm,” Christian thinks to himself. “These evolution scientists can’t agree on anything. They have no idea what they are talking about. This must mean Creation must be the right answer because we Christians have it all together.” Christian there and then decides that his essay for this chapter in his science class will be on how Creation is right and evolution is wrong. So Christian begins doing his research on proving how Creation is right. To Christian’s surprise, he finds out that the Christians can’t agree on Creation either! He discovers Christians fighting and arguing over 5 different theories of Creationism: Literal 6-day Theory, Day-Age Theory, Gap Theory, Intermitten Theory and Literary Framework Analogy. Now Christian find himself confused about Creationism, too, because he has to deal with just as many theories as he does with evolution!

 

On top of that, Christian finds the Creationists attacking the evolutionists, and the evolutionists attacking the Creationists. Christian yells out in anguish, “Can’t we all just get along?!” And one theory stands out and says, “Yes, we can.” The theory calls itself Theistic Evolution. It claims the best of best worlds: it supports the observations made in science, while still believing in the God of the Bible. But this compromise doesn’t help Christian; it just makes things worse. The Creationists and Evolutionists were going at it so hard. The only thing they seemed to agree on is that a person had to be on one side or the other. They might also agree that trying to find a compromise would lead to contradiction. Truly a middle ground can’t exist…right?

 

Poor Christian. He’s as confused as ever. Perhaps your testimony might sound somewhat similar to that. Maybe you’re as confused as Christian. I plan on helping you. First, we’re going to look at the testimony of history, for history’s testimony is just as strong as the typical Christian’s testimony. Next, we are going to look at 8 Icons of Evolution, 8 Icons which all evolution scientists hold as proof of their theory, and we will test them ourselves and see how well they stand. Then, we’ll look at 6 different views of Creation, examining each one’s strengths and weaknesses. Finally, we’ll conclude by drawing scientific, Biblical and theological conclusions, and even come full circle to Arthur Dent hitchhiker through the galaxy.

The Testimony of History

Just like the “typical” Christian’s testimony, history can have a powerful testimony on the subject at hand. Many people’s beliefs, possibly including the “typical” Christian, can be influenced by their time in history. This influence can include everything from scientific discoveries to changes in religion and philosophy to simply what’s popular in a certain culture. Therefore, this section will do a brief and compact (in no way exhaustive) look at the history of mankind’s answer to the origins of life and the universe, looking at certain milestones in history.

Ancient History, Ancient Religions

 

The section title simply sums it all up, but I will expand on it a bit. Simply put, if you were living in the ancient world, whatever society or culture you grew up, you believed in that society’s/culture’s religion, and whatever myth that religion gave you about how the world came to be, that’s what you believed to be true. So if you were an ancient Egyptian, you believed the ancient Egyptian creation myth. If you were a Canaanite, you believed the Canaanite creation myth. If you were a Philistine, you believed the Philistine creation myth. If you were Assyrian, you believed the Assyrian creation myth. If you were Babylonian, you believed the Babylonian creation myth. If you were Persian, you believed the Persian creation myth. So on and so forth.

The Greek Philosophers

After last section, I bet would expect to continue on saying, “If you were an Ancient Greek, you’d believe the Greek creation myth.” Indeed, this was true for the most part, but it wasn’t true for all of history. There were the Greek philosophers. If you remember from your Ancient Greek history class, the Greek government charged the Greek philosophers with 2 crimes: corrupting the youth and denying the existence of the Greek gods and goddesses. Yes, the Greek gods were charged with atheism, and rightfully so. Now the Greek philosophers probably weren’t the first atheists, but they were the first to make it “a thing.” Before then, if someone was an atheist, their thought pattern was somewhere along the lines of, “I practice my religion because it’s part of my culture, but I really don’t believe it.” The Greek philosophers were the first to make a philosophy and a religion, which could be publically proclaimed and practiced.

Once the Greek philosophers came to be atheists, they must have realized something else was now missing. “Wait a minute,” maybe one thought aloud, “all these years we’ve believed the world came to be through the gods and goddesses. If the gods and goddesses don’t exist, then how does the world exist?” So the Greek philosophers did what they did best: they thought. They made observations in nature, they thought about them, and then they made conclusions. Their conclusions would be some of the first bits and pieces of evolution. I bet you’re thinking to yourself, “What are you doing? You’re hinting that once any kind of theistic religion is taken out of logic and reasoning, then the clear answer is evolution. You’re not helping your stance!” Ah, but I am. I am going to argue the complete opposite. It’s not when one takes out theism, one gets science. Rather, I argue that once one inserts atheism, one gets evolution. Throughout all of this, I am going to continually make a connection between atheism and evolution. Evolution will only arise from atheists attempting science. We’ll see it happen again in history.

Paley and the Watchmaker

Shortly after the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire conquered as the dominant empire. Those familiar with history will recall that in 313 A.D. Roman Emperor Constantine turned the Roman Empire into the Holy Roman Empire by establishing Christianity as the state religion. Everyone in the empire had to be Christian, and when everyone did, they all became believers in the Creation story as portrayed in Genesis 1 and 2, just like young Christian did. It would stay this way throughout the Early Church years, the medieval church years and the Reformation church years. I don’t want anyone to get the idea, however, that throughout those decades and centuries, everyone blindly believed in a 6-day creation. During those years, people were developing teleological arguments, or defense of a Creator God creating the world using logic and reasoning. True, this isn’t the science known today (mainly because the scientific method of today wasn’t invented until the 1900s), but this is the logic and reasoning used by the Greek philosophers to start the ball rolling with evolution. Such men who made a teleological argument were Thomas Aquinas, William Turner and John Ray. For my example, I will use one of the later and more recent examples, William Paley.

 

Suppose you’re taking, let’s say the beach. During your walk, you see a watch on the ground (and for this argument, it’s an analogue watch.) What’s the first thought that comes to your mind? Pause from reading this and actually think about it. Got it? I can’t guess exactly what you thought. Maybe you thought, “Somebody lost their watch,” or “What a nice watch,” or “Lucky me! I got a new watch!” But I can tell you what you didn’t think:  “Wow! Centuries of weathering and erosion has produced such a lovely watch!” Why not? It’s not natural to think that way.

 

How did Stonehenge get here? How about the Easter Island statues? It’s a trick question. Nobody knows. People have been guesses, anywhere from ancient societies to even aliens. But no one dares suggests thousands of years of weathering and erosion. On the same note, take a little child to Mount Rushmore. The child doesn’t need to know who they are; just ask the kid how he or she thinks the faces got there. The story might get crazy, but I guarantee that the child will never say, “Oh, clearly it’s hundreds of years of weathering and erosion.” It’s not natural to think that way.

Why is it not natural to think that way? When we see design, we want to believe there has to be a creator. When we see a complex design, we have to believe there’s an intelligent creator. That’s the heart of the teleological argument. Despite all the science Christians have discovered, this argument is still one of the strongest arguments for God. Sure, it alone will not bring you the Christian God, but it will at least get someone pondering there is a Creator God out there.

Charles Darwin and The Origin of the Species

Let me give a short testimony to the life of Charles Darwin before diving into his contributions with evolution. Believe it or not, Charles Darwin also went to Christ’s College seminary, an offshoot of Cambridge University, to become an Anglican clergyman. While successful, Darwin never really liked it. What Darwin did like was his cousin Emma Wedgwood. The two of them fell in love, got married and had children. The marriage, however, far from happily ever after. Two children died before seeing their second birthday, and one died at the age of 10. This took a toll on Darwin’s faith and beliefs. It’s hard to say where Charles Darwin was faith-wise before these tragic events. No one knows if he was conservative or liberal, or if he was evangelical or deist. But after having to put three children in the ground, Charles Darwin was an atheist. (Even if Charles Darwin believed in God after that, his view of God would be far from the Christian God of the Bible.)

While seminary at Christ’s College never caught Charles Darwin’s interest, the field of naturalism at Cambridge University did catch his interest. So Darwin transferred out of the seminary program at Christ’s College and transferred into the naturalism field in Cambridge University. During his studies, Charles worked on the harbor, unloading and loading ships. Some of Darwin’s favorite ships to work on were the one sailing with the naturalist scientists. The naturalist scientists sailed across the world, studying nature. Charles loved to listen to their tales. When the naturalist scientists heard that Darwin was pursuing the naturalism field, they invited him to join them on one of their expeditions. After much coaxing, Charles decided to go. On December 27, 1831, the HMS Beagle set off on a worldwide expedition, surveying wildlife around the world. The highlight of the trip was the Galapagos Islands, a group of islands off the coast of Ecuador, because scientists believed man had not touched these islands since the dawn of time. On the Galapagos Islands, Darwin’s favorite animals to observe were the platypus, the tortoise, the mockingbird, and especially the finches. Charles would write all his observations down in a journal, which the world would later know as The Origin of the Species. The voyage ended about a year later. Upon arriving home, Darwin took his journal, brought it to his desk upstairs, put it in a drawer, shut it, and completely forgot about it. That would have been the end of that…if all his other naturalists buddies were like that. No, they were more excited about their finds and discoveries. They rushed to have them edited and published. One of the naturalists, a close friend of Charles, wrote in his acknowledgements, “I’d like to thank Charles Darwin for his observations and all his help.” People who read this were bewildered. What’s the former seminary student doing studying evolution? Don’t the godless believe in evolution and naturalism? Darwin now felt obligated to defend himself. On November 24, 1859, Charles Darwin published The Origin of the Species.

Let me take the time to mention a few things about The Origin of the Species, which will include some misconceptions. As stated above, Charles Darwin never really intended to publish the observations he made in his journal. That’s simply what the journal was: mere observations. Darwin does not make any big theories. He does not propose a big bang start of the universe. He does not propose a single common ancestor. Yes, late in life, in a correspondence letter, Darwin says he’d be open to the idea of a single common ancestor, but the conditions would have to be right, which would include a lot of “if”s. When Charles published his journal, science did not know the difference between microevolution, which is changes that happen within a species (or sometimes a genus), and macroevolution, which is changes that bring about a new species or a new genus. Today, people know the difference, and looking at The Origin of Species from today’s standpoint, the truth is Darwin only speaks of microevolution, not macroevolution. Darwin also faced other difficulty in his time. Charles did not know about DNA, chromosomes or genes. Darwin also didn’t know how complex cells, tissues and organs really were. To roughly quote the movie documentary Expelled, “Darwin saw the cell as like a mud hut; today we know the cell is more like the International Space Station.” All Charles could go by were phenotypes, or outward appearances. By only going by phenotypes and not getting down to the cellular level, Darwin’s observations were basic, simple and elementary. Now of days, Darwin’s theories need to be constantly updated to fit modern science.

 As I close out this section on Darwin, I would like to leave with a quote from his book-

 

 

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed [concerning eye, ear, etc.], which could not possible be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would break down. But I can find no such case.” –Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species, p. 189

I know I said a lot about Charles Darwin, but just keep a few important facts about him throughout all of this. First, I draw your attention to the connection between atheism and evolution. Once the death of his children brings Darwin to atheism, he will then proceed to making theories about evolution. Second, keep in mind that Darwin’s Origin of the Species is merely observations, and merely observations of the physical, outward appearance at that. Third, remember that even Charles Darwin puts a way to debunk his theory in his book: by proving that complex organs cannot come about by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

The Scopes Monkey Trial

 

Up to this point, evolution has always been the minority view. Since the Christianizing of the Roman Empire in 313 AD, Creation as stated in Genesis 1-2 has been the majority. The decade is the 1920s. The place is Dayton, TN. The small town of Dayton is in financial trouble. Its economy is collapsing. It needs to desperately get money back in the town, and I mean desperate. What’s hurting the most is their tourism industries. After all, why would someone want to visit a small town such as Dayton? They need to get people back into Dayton. But how? Nothing like a good controversy to get people’s attention. Recently, the Tennessee state legislature pass a controversial law making teaching Creation official and teaching evolution illegal. What a better way to challenge the law and grab people’s attention by teaching evolution. But who will do it? The science teacher is a good teacher and is loved by all. The school can’t risk losing him to some jail time. So the school gets John Scopes. John Scopes is the football coach and substitute gym teacher. He has a knowledge of teaching and somewhat a knowledge of science, so teaching evolution shouldn’t be hard for him. So for a day, John Scopes taught evolution in science class. Of course the kids can’t keep their mouths shut. They run home and tell their parents, and the parents demand for his arrest. The arrest is quite the spectacle. The authorities find John Scopes at the local soda fountain, enjoying an ice cream and soda float. All the local press is there, snapping away pictures as the police officer puts John in hand cuffs and escorts him out the building. Like I said, quite the show.

 

The show didn’t stop there. Dayton got exactly what they wanted. Overnight, the town size multiplied. All its hotels were booked, as well as the hotels of the surrounding towns. The fanfare of it all turned the town into a fair. Vendors set up food booths and game booths. People could go to tables to purchase books and pamphlets about the creation and evolution debate. Street preachers would stand on soap boxes on every corner, preaching against the evils of evolution, along with a “turn or burn” call to repentance. All this did help Dayton’s economy. The event brought in people, and the people brought in money. But it was all at a cost. The town of Dayton turned itself into a carnival.

 

The prosecutor was William Jennings Bryan. Bryan was a Democratic politician and lawyer. He had taken the Democratic nomination for president three times, losing all three. Hoping to get a fourth nomination, Bryan decided to take the case as the prosecutor, believing that if he won, he could define himself as the Christian choice for President, securing the Christian vote. Defending John Scopes was attorney Clarence Darrow. Darrow was a lawyer for the ACLU. The trial took 7 days and 2 days. It didn’t help that there was a heat wave during the week of the trial. Since Tennessee law required all men in court to wear full suits, the judge had to pass a ruling allowing me to take off the jackets, and one day, since the courtroom was so packed with hot bodies, the judge had to rule to have the trial outside on the courtyard. During the 7-day trial, the trial began debating whether or not John Scopes taught evolution, but the trial quickly turned to debating if evolution should be taught it schools. The climax of the trial came on the last day, when Bryan called himself to trial as an expert witness. Remember, this is not the “I saw him did it” witness. This is the expert witness, someone who has specialized knowledge in the field, like a forensic scientist. Someone should have defined expert witness to Bryan, for Bryan appeared to be quite opposite. Darrow would volley at him simple questions like, “How can the Bible say the sun was created after the earth, when science says the earth is millions of year old and the sun is billions of years old?” and Bryan could not answer them. All he could do is parrot what preachers and teachers told him.

Once both men rested their cases, the jury deliberation took a matter of 9 minutes. Who was the winner? Well, that’s debatable. The jury decided that John Scopes was guilty. There was no debate about that. The guy taught evolution; he was guilty! He was fined $100 (with inflation, today that would be $1,345). If John Scopes was declared guilty, how is the win debatable? Remember I said the trial quickly shift to whether John Scopes taught evolution to whether evolution should be taught it school. In the debate whether John Scopes taught evolution, the prosecution won, but in the debate whether evolution should be taught in schools, the defense won. The defense made William Jennings Bryan, and anyone who believed in creation, as a dumb redneck hick. The truly intelligent believe the world came about through evolution. This is turning point in history, especially American history. From here on out, evolution takes the front burner and creation takes the back burner. Evolution is the majority and creation in the minority.

And that’s where we are today.

(If you ever want to get a better understanding of what happened at Scopes Monkey trial, just watch the movie Inherit the Wind. This movie has been done and redone a few times, and each one is good.)

The 8 Icons of Evolution

This section is named after a book of the same name written by Jonathan Wells. The Icons of Evolution are examples that all evolution scientists will use as “proofs” to back up evolution. In his book, Wells has ten; I have eight. Some of our proofs are similar, while others are different. I will make a quick disclaimer here. I am not a scientist; I am a theologian. I did, however, take a college-level science course on the creation vs. evolution debate. I read many books and articles about both sides of the debate, I listened to lectures and debates, I even performed experiments and participated in a class debate of my own. From all of it, combining it with my logic and reasoning, the same logic and reasoning a Greek philosopher would use, I concluded what I am about to report about these Icons of Evolution to be true. I hope you do, too. Let’s take a look at these 8 Icons of Evolution

Embryology Record

 

Who remembers seeing this chart in science class? It’s a picture with eight different species of animals (one of which is human) over three stages in the embryo cycle. Evolution scientists will point out how all eight of these species looks very similar during all three cycles. Evolution scientists will claim this is evolution at hand. They claim that it shows that all eight species come from a common animal ancestor, and the differences can be accounted for through slight modifications through mutation.

Ever notice that this chart is always a drawing and never photographs? Surely with the technology of today, the drawings can be replaced by photographs. They can be, but the evolution scientists won’t do it. That’s because they if they did, everyone would notice the species are all quite the different at these three stages. These drawings are really charactertures of the embryos, overemphasizing the similarities to make them noticeable. Now some of the artists who draw these will acknowledge that they are charactertures, but will quickly defend that they only did it to emphasize the similarities. First of all, if the embryological record is really evidence of evolution, shouldn’t it be obvious to be seen, and not needed emphasis? Second, like I said, these similar characteristics aren’t emphasized, there are overemphasized. Furthermore, Ernst Haeckel, the man who first drew up these examples, was extremely selective in the species he chose and the stages he chose. He chose these stages because they are the three times in embryo cycle where the eight animals do look the most similar. If anyone looked at the stage before the first stage, the stage after the third stage, and the in-between phases, these animals would all look very different. He chose those animals because they do look similar in certain stages. If Haeckel would have choose other, even animals that are supposedly “closer related” to each other, they would look much different. This drawing is so selective, it is biased.

And then there were 7.

Homologous Structures

 

Who remembers seeing this chart in science class? The picture shows the limbs from several different vertebrate animals. Evolution scientists will point out that these structures are very similar in nature. Once again, evolutionists say homologous structures point to evolution. All these animals had a single common ancestor, and over time each animal evolved its structure to adjust to its needs through natural selection and mutation.

Ever notice how these pictures are mostly always color coded to show the onlooker how the structures are similar? Why do I need color coding? Once again, if this is really evidence, shouldn’t it be obvious? It’s not obvious because they are different structures. If they were really similar structures, we, as humans, would be able to run like horses, swim like whales and fly like bats. Even when they group similar animals together, like “runners,” “swimmers,” “fliers” and “graspers,” they still do each function incredibly differently. Even if scientists want to call these homiologous structures instead of homologous structures (homio is the prefix of “similar,” while homo is the prefix for “same”), I would argue this is not evidence of evolution, but rather evidence for an intelligent creator. If I invented a new car engine, I would use it in all my cars, including my trucks and my vans. Sure, I would modify to work for a different vehicle (perhaps the truck needs eight cylinders, while the car only needs six), but I wouldn’t invent a brand new, totally different engine for it. In the same way, only an intelligent creation, by design, would use similar structures to creature perfectly functioning animals.

And then there were 6.

Vestigial Parts

Vestigial parts are body parts that no longer any function in the body. Evolution scientists claim vestigial parts prove evolution because the body has evolved beyond using that part. The most common example evolutionist point towards is the whale’s foot bone. They claim it proves that the whale at once had a land-dwelling ancestor, but the species eventually evolved back to a swimming creature, and since swimmers don’t need feet, the foot bone became a vestigial part.

According to the theory of evolution, evolution happens to advance a species. It would seem like the vestigial parts do help advance the species because the species no longer needs that part. But that’s not always the case. Sometimes, when a part becomes useless, it becomes a hindrance. The best example is the human vestigial part: the appendix. The appendix seems to have no apparent use for the human today (scientists hypothesized at one point it helped humans with digestion). But today, the appendix is a ticking time bomb. It is full of poison. If it bursts, it can kill the person. Even if the person survives, it can make the person’s life miserable. So much for advancing the species. Real advancement would be if evolution could make the vestigial part disappear altogether.

And then there were 5.

Fossil Record

Shrek would compare the earth to an onion, and Donkey would compare the earth to a cake, because the earth’s crust has layers. Each layer comes from a different time period in the earth’s natural history. The further down one goes, the further back in history one goes. Each layer has different fossils, indicating different plants and animals. The lower layers, representing the earlier years, have fewer fossils, and the higher layers, representing more recent years, have more fossils. Evolutionist scientists point this out as a proof of evolution, showing that the reason the earth has so many species today is that they all evolved from a common ancestor back then.

In making this proof, evolution scientists, however, have forgotten about one of their laws of evolution. According to the theory of evolution, growth, natural selection, mutations, and overall evolution must happen at a constant rate, without time borders. The fossil records ruin all of this. Let me simplify this to explain it. If the evolution growth rate was a base 2, the first generation would have 1 species, the second generation would have 2 species, the third generation would have 4 species and the fourth generation would have 8. If the growth rate was a base 3, the first generation would have 1 species, the second generation would have 3, the third generation 9, and the fourth 27. If it was a base 4, the first generation would have 1 species, the second generation would have 4, the third generation 16, and the fourth 64. If a base of 5, the first generation would have 1 species, the second generation would have 5, the third generation 25, and the fourth 125. But it doesn’t work like that at all. In reality, the earth’s layers might start out with a constant, but then that constant go ballistic in every direction. Sticking with our simplified model, it would be like the first generation starts out with 1 species, and the fourth generation has 73 species. Evolution scientists have to account for that it. So they have species evolving at different rates over different time periods, violating the constant law all over. Some scientists even ascribe to the “Cambrian Explosion” theory, which says during the Cambrian era, evolution happened at a much expanded rate. True, there are more fossils are the “Cambrian level” of the crust, but they use this to claim that the evolution constant reset itself, violating their own law even more.

And then there were 4.

Fruit Flies

 

Evolution scientists have claimed to discover a fruit fly that has evolved. This fruit fly has two pairs of wings, unlike the typical fruit fly, which only has one. Evolutionists claim that evolution has advanced the species by giving it an extra pair of wings.

First of all, this discovery of fruit flies with two pairs of wings has only happened in laboratories, where scientists breed together flies. Fruit flies with two pairs of wings have never been found in nature. This proves creation by an intelligent creator over because these scientists are intelligibly creating this modification by breeding the flies together. Second, the second pair of wings on these fruit flies do not have any muscles in them. Therefore, the fly cannot use them. These wings are now useless to fly, only weighing it down, preventing it from flying straight. This violates another law of evolution. According to the theory of evolution, evolution must help the species advance. The second pair of wings does not help the fruit fly advance. Instead, it hinders the fruit fly. It would have been better if the fruit fly still only had one pair of wings.

And then there were 3.

Hox Gene

The homeotic gene, or hox gene, is a gene in some organisms that allow mutations to occur at the embryo stage. Evolution scientists point to this gene as responsible for causing the mutations that created all the species through evolution. They claim that only some of the species will have this gene. Those that do are the ones that go on to live, via survival of the fittest, to produce the new species.

In reality, further research of this gene shows everyone from every species has this gene. Furthermore, this gene activates in what humans call the third trimester, which is too late to cause any real mutations.

And then there were 2.

The Galapagos Islands Finches

 

As noted above, one of Charles Darwin’s favorite animals to observe on the Galapagos Islands was the finches. Darwin observed 12 different types of finches while on the islands. Charles noted that he could not find all 12 finches on a single island. Different finches were on different islands. He took all the finches that were on the same island, looked at their diet, look at their beaks, and match all those observations together. Darwin noted that each island had its own vegetation. Each finch ate from the same vegetation, and each finch had a beak that was able to eat of that vegetation. For example, the islands that had nuts had finches with beaks made to break open nut shells. Charles concluded that all finches came from a single finch ancestor, and as these finches migrated to different islands, their beaks evolved through natural selection and mutation in order to adjust to their new diet.

 

Now recall everything I said earlier about The Origin of Species. Remember that Charles Darwin only knew about phenotypes, which are outward appearances, and not genotypes, which are things like DNA, chromosomes and genes. Darwin made these observations and conclusions by merely looking at the phenotypes. If Charles would have known about genotypes, he would have seen that all 12 types of finches share 98% to 99% of the same DNA. This means that these aren’t really different species of finches, but more like different breeds of finches. To call all these different finches different species would be like saying a greyhound and a doxen are two different species. The slight changes in the beaks is what we would call microevolution, which are slight modifications within a species (or sometimes a genus). This is very different from macroevolution, which are changes that develop brand new species or a brand new genus. But remember, Darwin doesn’t know the difference, so he simply calls it “evolution.” If Charles knew the difference, he may not have suggested that they came from a single finch ancestor, he definitely would not suggested that the finches came from a single bird ancestor.

And then there was 1.

Antibiotic Resistant Single-Cell Bacteria

If you’re paying attention to medical science, a crisis has arisen in the pharmaceutical field. Single-cell germs and bacteria are becoming more and more resistant to our pain killers and symptom relievers. They are becoming so resistant that it’s causing the drug companies to abandon their old medicine recipes and seek new ones because the old have little to no effect on these germs and bacteria. While this is making medical scientists unhappy, it’s making evolution scientists quite happy. They make it an icon of evolution. They claim these bacteria are evolving through natural selection. When they encounter they antibiotic, the weaker bacteria dies out, when the stronger bacteria lives and produces more antibiotic resistant bacteria.

My answer is no different from the one above. This bacteria is receiving slight modifications, but not enough to become a new species. It’s the same bacteria with the same DNA. Therefore, this is microevolution at best, but definitely not macroevolution.

And then there were none.

Conclusions about Evolution and its 8 Icons

In this section, we have looked at eight examples all evolutionists will hold as proof of evolution. We’ve heard from evolution scientists and creation scientists. We have applied logic and reasoning that would make the Greek philosophers proud. I have come to conclusions, and I hope you have come to the same. Icons 1 to 6 simply are not true. Icons 7 and 8 prove microevolution, which would prove slight modifications can happen within a species (or a genus), but have not proved macroevolution, which means a species cannot change enough to become another species (or a genus).

 

Now I have a guess you’re about skip down to the comments section to angrily accuse me of being “anti-science.” Hold on; I beg you to listen a little bit longer. I am not anti-science. I know that all facts of physics are true. I know that if you drop a watermelon and a cherry from a tower at the same time, they will both hit the ground at the same time. I know that all facts about chemistry are true. I know that the salt water in the ocean is comprised of a molecule that is a 1 to 1 ratio of sodium and chlorine in an ionic bond and a molecule with a 2 to 1 ratio of hydrogen and oxygen in a covalent bond. There are other areas of biology I hold to be true. I know plants produce their own food through photosynthesis. And I do believe microevolution to be true. I know if you want to get pink carnations, you breed red carnations and white carnations together. Any gardener knows that. I know that Noah did not load any labradoodles (a cross-breed of a labrador and a poodle) or goldendoodles (a cross-breed of a golden retriever and a poodle) in the Ark. I know they are recently invented breeds. I’m not stupid.

 

What people don’t get, and it frustrates me people don’t get it, is that science isn’t as objective as the modern era would like us to think. No scientists go in with a pure, clean, fresh slate. They all have presuppositions that come from their family, their friends, their philosophy and their religions. Evolution scientists come in with a naturalism philosophy, a philosophy that that believes that all that exists is in nature, and there is nothing supernatural. Nothing supernatural means there’s no angels, no demons and no God. What do we call the belief of no God? Atheism. There’s a strong tie between naturalism and atheism, and there’s a strong tie between atheism and evolution. When the Greek philosophers went atheist, it led them to set forth the first building blocks of evolution. When Charles Darwin went atheist, he developed evolution and made it famous. Still don’t believe me? There’s a summer camp out there called Camp Quest. Camp Quest is the atheist equivalent of summer Bible camp or summer church camp. Just like summer church camp, Camp Quest has activities like crafts, games and swimming. They even have a study time to learn. But if it’s not a Bible study, then what is it? You guessed it: evolution. Of all things to teach children, they teach evolution. I beg you, please see the correlation between atheism and evolution.

If you’re still not convince I am not anti-science, maybe this will convince you. I think that Christians have been too harsh on Charles Darwin. Darwin only wrote about microevolution, which most creation scientists will acknowledge as fact. He never wrote on macroevolution. He didn’t even ascribe to a single common ancestor late in life, and even then, he was cautious because he knew everything would have to line up just right by chance. In fact, Charles enjoyed listening to and wrestling with the teleological arguments. Furthermore, although atheist, Darwin never made his evolutionary observations and discovery a vendetta against God or Christians. Therefore, why should Christians have a vendetta against him? Besides, it’s just not showing the kindness and gentleness Jesus taught us to bear. Maybe if Christians were slow to judge Darwin, maybe in turn evolutionists would be slow to criticize Christians for believing differently.

6 Views of Creation

So far, we’ve looked at 8 icons of evolution, seen how they are weak or non-existant, and thus have concluded that evolution is somewhere between a weak theory and a bad theory. Since we took out the main, overall theory, there’s no need to discuss any subtheories or differences because they all hang on the main, overall theory. To use an analogy, we’ve cut off the branch, and killed all the leaves along wth it. Now it’s time to look at the creation side.of the argument. Although I bet there’s many more views, we’ll look at 6 main views of creation. I’ll explain each one of them and provide some of the proofs they give. We’ll look at strengths and weaknesses. Then, at the end, I’ll let you decided which one you like the best, but I will mention theology that all of them need to have.

Literal 6-Day Creation

Literal 6-Day Creation reads Genesis 1 and 2 in the most literal straightforward way.God created the world exactly the way Genesis 1 and 2 records it. Every time in the Hebrew Old Testament the Hebrew word yom, the Hebrew word for “day,” gets paired with a number, it always means a literal, 24-hour period. No one believes Jonah lived inside the belly of the great fish for 3 millennia, No one believes Esther and her maids fasted for 3 centuries. In each case, it says 3 days, and they meant 72 hours. The Old Testament Israelites/Jews would have understood the creation to take 6 days with a 7^th day of rest. After all, this is why they established the work week to be 6 days long and the Sabbath to be the 7^th day of rest. Both the New Testament Jews and the New Testament Christians understood the Creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 to literally happen that way. Jesus quoted Genesis 1:26, the part where God literally creates man on the 6^th 24-hour day of creation. Paul, too, refers to Adam and Eve as really real people (cf. Romans 5:9-12, 1 Corinthians 11:8,9, 15:21,22,45-47, 2 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:13,14, and many more!). The Early Church Fathers believed the creation story to be true. The Christians during the Reformation took the Creation literally. Historically speaking, literal 6-Day Creation has been the dominant view for most of history. To believe differently, a person has to go against centuries of historical testimony.

To side with Literal 6-Day Creation, on the other hand, takes a lot of guts. Literal 6-Day Creation opposes secular science the most. To take Genesis 1 and 2 literally, the earth can only exist for 4,000 to 6,000 years. Science puts the Earth at about 4.5 billion years old. Furthermore, secular science says the sun is 4.6 billion years old, making the sun older than the earth. A literal reading of Genesis 1 records the earth as older than the sun by a matter of 3 days. On a similar note, secular science states all light must have a source. How can light exist on Day 1 when the sun or stars don’t exist until Day 4? The Hebrew word yom, while translated “day,” does not always mean a 24-hour period. The Day of the Lord, yom YHWH, does not mean a single, 24-hour day, but rather a time when the Lord reigns. So yom does not have to be restricted to 24 hours. This is why creation literalists need to mention that the number needs to go with the word yom to make it a literal 24-hour period. But it’s not that straightforward either. If a person read Genesis 1 and 2 in the original Hebrew, he or she will notice days 2 to 6 do read with ordinal numbers (2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th). Day 1 does not fit this pattern. In Genesis 1:5, yom ehad most literally translate into “one day.” The creation literalists will argue it can be translated to “first day” as well, or “one day” could be considered interchangeable with “first day,” but that’s not always the case. Opponents of the literal creation will say “one day” could mean “some day,” or “a day” or “a certain day,” like the sentence, “One day, Christian learned about evolution in science class.” This sentence does not mean Christian spent 24 hours straight listening to his science teacher lecture about evolution. In the same way, Genesis 1:5 should not be taken that way. On the opposite end, Genesis 2:2 rightfully reads “the seventh day,” but it does not have the typical closing phrase of all the other days: “and there was morning and there was evening.” Does this mean day 7 lasted more than 24 hours? That’s not the only problem with Genesis 2. Genesis 2:4-7 causes a whole lot of problems for the literalist. In Genesis 2:4-7, God creates man before plants and animals, while in Genesis 1, plants and animals come before man. If Genesis 2:4-7 is taken literally, it would seem to contradict a literal reading of Genesis 1.

Day-Age Theory

Day-Age Theory begins by helpfully reminding the reader that Genesis 1 comes for God’s perspective. Then it goes to 2 Peter 3:8, which reads, “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” According to Day-Age Theory, God sees a millennium as a day. Together, when God says in Genesis 1 it took him a day to create, it really took a millennium.  Still, this would only make the earth 6,000 to 10,000 years old, still millennia away from what science says. So Day-Age Theory says that a day is not a literal 24 hours, but rather just a time period, which could be a million or a billion years. Day-Age Theory insists that day does not have to mean 24 hours. They will use the “Day of the Lord” example, saying that the Day of the Lord will last for millions or billions of years. This theory makes so compromise to science, like the age of the sun and the earth, as well as the microevolution, but does not compromise enough to accept macroevolution.

Day-Age Theory correctly reminds everyone that Genesis 1 comes from God’s point of view, but the theory incorrectly views 2 Peter 3:8. It takes it way out of context. 2 Peter 3:8 serves a reminder that God does fulfill his promises, even though it may not be on our time table (cf. 2 Peter 3:9). The verse has no connection to the creation accounts, and thus has nothing to do with creation. While the theory claims to allow microevolution and not microevolution, it really doesn’t allow any kind of evolution. The theory of evolution states (or at least claims) that for true evolution to happen, evolution cannot have any time period borders. Even with Day-Age Theory having “days” that are thousands, millions or billions of years, they are still time periods with borders, and that would not suit any kind of evolution. Day-Age Theory may have good reasoning behind it, but it still lacks any kind of scientific backing, even if it makes compromises in order to side with science.

Gap Theory

Remember when I told Christian’s testimony, I put God creating the heavens and the earth in the beginning on a separate line than God creating light on the first day? The Gap Theory is that reason. Gap Theory keeps the two as two different, separate events. According to Gap Theory, billions of years ago, God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1). Sometime later, the devil and his demons rebelled, and they were cast down on the earth. This ruined and corrupted the earth, making it formless and empty (Gen 1:2). So God spent 6 days, 24 hours long, recreating and renewing the earth (Gen 1:3-31). Just like Day-Age Theory, it compromises with science on the age of earth, sun, moon and stars, but does not compromise with evolution.

Gap Theory shares a lot of criticisms with Day-Age Theory. If it wants to compromise with science, it does not compromise enough. Evolution will claim that the ancestors of our modern-day animals date back to over a million years ago. Gap Theory would only allow today’s animal’s ancestors to date back to 4,000 to 10,000 years ago. This would really create a problem observing fossils. Again, Gap Theory will not allow evolution because of the time borders. Some will say that Gap Theory’s Biblical Hermeneutics skills need work. A formless and empty earth does not mean the earth is ruined or corrupt. Genesis 3 shows that a fallen world is ruined a corrupt, not Genesis 1:2. The earth being formless and empty just means the earth is incomplete. Gap Theory might have good reasoning behind it, but it still lacks any scientific backing. For this reason, Gap Theory really was just a fad. It was commonly held during the 1970s and 1980s, but it is rarely defended today.

Intermittent Theory

Intermittent is almost a combination between Day-Age Theory and Gap Theory. Intermittent Theory states that God created everything in 6 24-hour periods, yet it also says that these days are not consecutive days, but rather there’s millions to billions of years between them. During these million to billion years, they claim, evolution happened. Once again, most people who hold onto Intermittent Theory believe only microevolution happened; few will believe macroevolution happen. Intermittent Theory will also help account for science’s old age of the sun and earth.

Since Intermittent Theory is a cross between Day-Age Theory and Gap Theory, it encounters a lot of the same problems. Once again, despite allowing millions and billions of years for evolution and old age of the sun and earth, it still would create time borders, which evolution cannot be limited by. Once again, Intermittent Theory makes use good logic or reasoning to compromise with science, but it really has no science behind it.

Literary Framework Analogy

The Literary Framework Analogy first seeks to understand the Biblical background of the Creation story. So prior to looking at the Literary Framework, we have to look at the background of Genesis. First, we have to know who the author is. For simplicity’s sake, we’re going ignore the J.E.D.P. theory (that’s another discussion for another time), and we’ll stick with the traditional answer of Moses. Second, we have to know who the audience is. The audience of Genesis is the Israelites. Now which generation of Israelites depends on how one believes the Torah or Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Bible) was compiled. If one believes that the Torah was written in progression, that is, they were written as they happened, the audience of Genesis is the older generation of Israelites that came out of Egypt. If one believes the Pentateuch was written together, it would be the younger generation of Israelites, who are the children of the Israelites who came out of Egypt, which means they have no recollection of the slavery or the plagues. Although the message would be more important for the latter, it really doesn’t matter. Third, we have to know where they are. The Israelites are encamped in the Sinai Desert, between Egypt and Canaan, the Promised Land. Fourth, we have to consider what’s happening. God has brought his chosen people out of Egypt. He has led them to Mount Sinai to establish a covenant them. Now God is preparing His people for the Promised Land.

Why is this all important? The best explanation comes from a Bible verse. Everyone knows Joshua 24:15b, which reads, “But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord,” but few know the context. The context can be found in Joshua 24:14-15a. It reads, “Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell.” This passage so well describes the context. Stuck between two lands, the Israelites have two options of religions to worship. They can worship the Egyptian polytheism, which they came out of, or they can worship the Canaanite polytheism, which they are going into. But Joshua reminds them of a third option. They can worship and serve the one and only true God, Yahweh. What makes Yahweh makes one and only is that he’s unique. God wants His people to know that he’s unique and nothing like the other gods in the other lands. Part of the reason we have in Genesis in the Scriptures to show all of God’s people that God is nothing like any foreign god.

So how is God different than other gods? Let’s look at one of the creation myths. Let’s look at the Egyptian creation myth. According to Egyptian creation myth, before the dawn of time, there was a dark, watery chaos known as Nu. From Nu arose Atum, who created himself out of his own intellect and willpower. Atum is an all-seeing and all-knowing god with an all-seeing eye. First thing Atum creates is a hill because he has no place to stand in the water. Atum looks around and is lonely because he sees no one around. He mates with his own shadow to produce a son and a daughter. His son he spits out, names him Shu, and puts him in charge of the air. His daughter he vomits out, names her Tefnut, and makes her goddess of mist and moisture. Atum then commands Shu and Tefnet to make that dark, watery chaos into order and stability by creating principles and laws. These principles and laws Shu and Tefnet called Maat. Using Maat, they separate the chaos into light and darkness, and they give each one a place and time. Shu and Tefnet mate together and produce Geb, the Earth, and Nut, the sky. When they are born, they are two lovers, intertwined into each other’s arms. So Shu had to push Nut up into the heavens. Geb and Nut longed to be together, but they could not in the name of Maat, so they would give gifts to each other. Nut sends rain to Geb, and Geb makes plants out of Nut’s rain. Every day, Nut gives birth to the sun at sunrise and gives it to Geb, where it dies at sunset. But Nu is still not fully conquered and Shu and Tefnut get lost in it. Atum sends his all-seeing eye out to find. Eventually, the all-seeing eye finds them and brings them back to Atum. Atum is so happy he cries tears of joy. Those tears of joy become the first human beings. The humans are commanded to uphold Maat, tend to Geb, and worship the gods. In exchange, the gods would protect and bless the creation, especially the humans.

 

Believe it or not, this is one of the “nicer” creation myths. Check out the Babylonian Creation Myth, known as the Enuma Elish. Once again, the story begins with a watery chaos. There’s a chief god, Apsu (or Abzu), who is the god of fresh water, and Tiamet, who is the goddess of salt water. Once again, the two of them are lonely, so they mate in order to make more gods and goddesses. Before they know it, Tiamet is pregnant with eight gods. The gods inside Tiamet are very noisy, so noisy that it annoys Apsu and Tiamet. Apsu is so annoyed that he wants to abort the gods, but Tiamet thinks that’s going too far. So the two of them call forth Mummu to serve as a mediator and judge. Mummu ends up agreeing and siding with Apsu. Tiamet, still not wanting for her babies to die, finds the strongest god within her, Ea, and devises a plan to take out Apsu and make Ea the chief god in his place. Together, using magic, they place Apsu in a coma, and they kill Apsu in his coma. To reward Ea, Tiamet releases Ea from her body, along with his sister and wife Damkina. Ea and Damkina mate together and bring forth the god Marduk. They make him god of the wind and give him the winds to play with. Instead of using the winds for good, however, Marduk uses the winds to cause trouble, with tornados and dust storms. This disrupts Tiamet and the gods within her, so much they cannot sleep, which makes the gods cranky. The gods inside Tiamet guilt Tiamet into believing this is her fault, but then they quickly turn the blame to Ea for creating Marduk. They convince Tiamet that the only right thing to do is avenge Apsu by putting to death Ea and putting another god as chief god. Again, Tiamet finds the next strongest god, Kingu, and they conspire a plan. Together, they create 11 monsters who kill Ea. Kingu now becomes the chief god. Kingu and Tiamet rule as tyrants, in fear that another god or goddess will step out of line and cause more disruption and trouble. Kingu and Tiamet rule so fiercly, the other gods and goddesses constantly fear for their lives. Marduk, naturally wants to avenge his fallen father, calls some of the other gods and goddesses to his side to wage war against Kingu and Tiamet. Kingu and Tiamet align gods and goddesses with them as well, and a divine war breaks out. Marduk ends up as the victor. In the end of the war, Marduk and Tiamet fight one-on-one. Marduk completely destroys her. He takes her body, rips it in half, places one half above him and makes it heaven, and he places the other half below him and makes it earth. Using the two halves, Marduk makes the sun, moon and stars in the heavens and the plants on the earth. After fighting Tiamet, Marduk fights Kingu one-on-one. Just like with Tiamet, Marduk defeats and destroys Kingu. The fight is so bloody that fingers and toes fall off of Kingu. These fingers and toes become humans. Like a pregnant teenage girl (sorry if this is too harsh, but it’s the best comparison), Marduk has unplanned human life, and he doesn’t know what to do with it.  So Marduk decides to enslave humans as servants of the gods, to do the gods’ bidding. If they do not comply, they will receive curses. Not a pretty picture.

 

You’ve probably noticed some similarities and some differences in both stories, but what striking is the difference of themes between the polytheistic myths and the Creation story. In the myths, the creation is mass chaos. The god(s) is(are) constantly struggling against the chaos. The gods are fighting one another. Humans are accidently born, and the gods don’t know what to do with them, so they enslave them and treat them poorly. The true God, Yahweh, wants his people to know He is nothing like the gods the Israelites hear about in the foreign nations’ stories. The Lord is sovereignly in control. His creation had a plan and a purpose, with a future in mind. At the creation, there was peace and order from the start, due to his sovereign hand being in control. The creation submits to the creator, and yet love abounds between the Creation and the creation.

Therefore, the literary framework analogy states that Genesis 1 is God taking the creation myths of the ancient Middle Eastern peoples and redeeming it in a way to show who God really is. Just like the other creation myths, this creation story also begins with formless and empty watery mass known as earth. Instead of struggling to subdue it, God spends 3 days forming the formless. Next, God spends 3 days, days 4 to 6, filling the empty. Furthermore, the forming days parallel the filling days. Day 1 and Day 4 parallel each other because Day 1 begins with, “Let there be light…” and Day 4 begins with “Let there be lights…” Day 2 creates the sky by separating water, and Day 5 fills the sky with birds and the waters with fish, therefore a parallel happens. Day 3 forms land, and Day 6 fills the land with animals, thus a parallel exists there, too. Finally, by Day 7, the formless is formed, the empty is filled, so God can rest. In this way, God has created a Creation story, similar to the ones of the surrounding nations, which is easy to remember and teaches the Israelites about the true, loving God.

	Beginning: Formless and empty
Formless Given Form	Day 1: Separate day from night. “Let there be light.”	Day 4: Fill day & night with sun, moon & stars. “Let there be lights...”	Empty Being Filled
	Day 2: Separate water from water to form sky	Day 5: Fill sky with birds and seas with fish
	Day 3: Separate water to form land	Day 6: Fill the land with animals
	Day 7: Form, filled, complete. Rest.

 

Something to appreciate about the Literary Framework Analogy is its use and understanding of Biblical background. It knows the Creation story was not written in timeless, spaceless bubble, but rather was written in at a time in real history, at a place in real geography, and in a real culture. It knows this story needs to be observed in those contexts. It even goes as far as seeking to understand the ancient writings in order to get a better understanding of the context. Something else that someone might appreciate is that it requires no compromises with science. In fact, science can be 100% right, which could even include Big Bang Theory being right and evolution being right. If the purpose of the creation story is to teach that God was in control of his creation and that he loved his creation, then the purpose is not to teach on how the world came to be about, and science can give that answer. Thus, it’s OK to believe in a sun billions of years old and an earth millions of years old. It’s OK to believe in humans coming from a common ancestor of apes, which came from a common ancestor of lizards, which came from a common ancestor of fish. Why? Because how the earth and the species came to be is not the point of Genesis 1! The point is that God created it, He was in control, and he loved it.

On the flip side, the biggest criticism of Literary Framework Analogy can be summed up in a sentence uttered by Pontius Pilate in John 18:38: What is truth? Those supporters of Literary Framework analogy will say that the true being conveyed in Genesis 1 is that God was in charge, God was in control and God loves. But when it comes to the truth on how the world came to be, evolutionary science has that truth. If evolutionary science has the truth for the earth’s origins, and it’s different than what’s written in Genesis 1, does that mean Genesis 1 is a lie because that’s not how the earth came to be? If Genesis 1 is a lie, and Christians believe the Bible, including Genesis 1, is the Word of God, does that mean God lied? But doesn’t God always speak the truth? Literary Framework supporters will come back and say, “Isn’t God putting a full grown garden with full grown, fruit-producing trees lying because the garden is only a few days old? If God made a tree to look like it’s been around for years, but it’s only been around for a few days, isn’t that a lie?” Opponents come back and say that it’s necessary and would foolish not to. When God created man and woman, he could put an infant boy and an infant girl in the Garden. They needed to be a full grown humans to survive. Supporters of the Literary Framework says this further proves their point. It goes back and forth. As stated already, it comes down to how someone defines “truth.”

Theistic Evolution

Theistic evolution is exactly what the name implies. It is pretty much evolution to its fullest. The sun, moon, stars and earth are billions of years old. Life started as a single cell bacteria and evolved over millions of years into the species that exist today. The only difference, and the big difference, is that God is the originator. God started off evolution and let it go from there. How much God intervenes throughout the process depends on which theistic evolutionistic is asked. They range from no interaction whatsoever to God specially making man. As for Genesis 1, it’s not historically or scientifically accurate. It might be a myth, a legend, a fable, a parable, a story or an allegory, but it’s definitely not history, and it’s definitely not science.

Theistic evolution’s greatest strength is where all the other views failed into being weaknesses. There is no contradiction with evolution whatsoever. The galaxy can be billions of years old, life can be millions of years old, and there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it’s very right because it 100% agrees with science. While theistic evolution fully backs the science textbook, it sacrifices the Bible in order to do so. If Genesis 1 isn’t historically credible, then it’s easy to say Genesis chapters 1 to 11 isn’t historically credible either. And if Genesis 1-11 isn’t historically accurate, it’s possible to question the historical accuracy of the whole book of Genesis. Someone who believes that one weak spot in the Bible weakens the whole message of the Bible will greatly be offended by theistic evolution. Theistic evolution also has logical problems. Theistic evolution is sometimes called the “God of the gaps” theory. Theistic evolutionists have a habit of explaining everything with science, until they can explain no more, then the rest they attribute to God. What happens when science advances and finds out the answer? All of a sudden God isn’t there anymore? It weakens the power of God.

 

5 Icons of Creation

We just looked at 6 View of Creation. Looking at the 6 major views, we can see similarities among the first 5. The 6^th one, theistic evolution, leaves us hanging because the similarities in the first 5 are hard to find in the 6^th view. I propose we call the 5 similarities the “5 Icons of Creation.” Just like all evolutionists believe in the Icons of Evolution, the Icons of Creation are beliefs all Christians need to believe from the Genesis 1 narrative to really be true Christians. Each icon had importance to the original audience in the ancient times, and each icon also significance for the modern-day reader in the modern era. This section will discuss these 5 Icons of Creation and their important in a progress manner. Then, in the conclusion, we will line up the 6 Views of Creation to the 5 Icons of Creation to determine if each View of Creation is legitimate.

God (Yahweh) created

Genesis 1 clearly establishes the Lord God, Yahweh, the Great I AM, as the creator. For the ancient audience, this meant none of the other gods of the other nations could take credit. Atem of the Egyptians cannot take credit. Marduk of the Babylonians did not create. Baal of the Canannites did not have any role. Chemosh of the Philestines is absent from creating. It’s the one and only Yahweh. For the modern-day creator in a growing atheistic world, this means that a God, a Divine and Supernatural Being, is the creator. Chance cannot be credited for bringing about the universe. Random events did not bring about life. This earth and the life on it had an intelligent designer, and Christian call him God. (Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 124:8, Isaiah 66:2, Acts 17:24, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2, Revelation 4:11)

God created everything out of nothing

As we saw in the 2 of the creation myths, the earth and its inhabitants came from the gods’ body parts (fingers, toes, teeth, etc.) or the gods’ excrements (vomit, spit, tears, sweat, blood, snot, etc.). Later on, the atheistic Greek philosophers rejected this, stating that matter, the building blocks of the universe, was eternally present and available. The Bible, especially Genesis 1, rejects both sides. The Bible makes it clear the only one who is eternal is God Himself. Everything else finds it origin from God. God did not give birth to anything, nor did he use his own self to spawn a creation, but rather he created, by his voice and by handcrafting it. For the modern-day, this once again rejects the idea that a Big Bang came from nowhere and caused a chain reaction of random events to create everything seen today. Every reaction must have a source action, and that source action Christians call God. (John 1:1-4)

God willingly created everything out of nothing

As stated earlier, a lot of the ancient creation myths have humans coming about unplanned. Just like a pregnant teenage couple, they have no idea what to do with this new life. Pretty much, life on the earth is like a mistake. Modern-day evolution doesn’t really help this cause either. When random chance is involved, anything can go. There’s no plan, and things can exist by mistake. Not so in Genesis 1. When Genesis 1 shows God actively involved, the reader can tell God is willingly creating everything. Nothing he created is unplanned, nor is it a mistake. If it’s there, God wanted it to be there. What a relief it is for the Bible believer! If the reader exists, then God wanted him/her to exist! (1 Corinthians 8:6)

God willingly and lovingly created everything out of nothing

There’s not much love going around in the creation myths. When gods bring forth unwanted humans, the humans end up being enslaved by the gods, forced to worship them or suffer the consequences. Evolution may not be concerned with love, but no wonder a society that believes in evolution shows little concern in taking care of the environment and places little value in human life (suicide, homicide, abortion, etc.)! From start to end, the creation narrative in Genesis 1-2 displays a God who loves his handiwork. God’s close attention to detail alone proves. If God takes the time to know how many hairs on a human head and what a human thinks before the human thinks it, don’t you think God loves that human? Looking at the creation story, anyone can see love. It’s harder to see love in evolution or warring gods. (Psalm 139:1-4,13, Matthew 10:30)

God willingly and lovingly created everything out of nothing with a plan and a purpose

When the ancient gods of the ancient myths find out they have human life, they must quickly devise a plan on the spot, and it’s never a pretty one. With evolution having life randomly coming about, it’s hard to give life a deep meaning. Sure, it may give some liberty to choose a purpose as seen fit, but the purpose has no deeper connection to everyone and everything around it, and when that human life is up, the purpose dies with the human. Genesis 1 preaches quite the opposite. If God willingly creates something, God has in mind a role for the creation in part of the larger creation. When God lovingly creates something, he wants it to share in His divine will and plan. When God brings something to existence, it doesn’t go to waste. It will bring about fulfillment to the creation, fulfillment to itself, and glory to God. (Jeremiah 29:11, 1 Timothy 4:4)

Conclusion

We’ve been on a long, tough and crazy ride. We’ve explored what the testimony of the “typical” Christian might look like, and how he (or she) can get caught up between the war between creation and evolution. We’ve looked at history’s testimony, how it has had its own long, tough and crazy ride, and the war between creation and evolution has become rougher over the years. We’ve observed 8 Icons of Evolution, and we saw how 6 are outright false and the other 2 are microevolution, not macroevolution. We’ve examined 6 Views of Creation, and we detected each had strengths and weaknesses. Then we noticed similarities, and we made them 5 Icons of Creation, beliefs that all Christians need to believe to be true believers.

Let’s take at the last two, the 6 Views of Creation and the 5 Icons of Creation, one more time. Let’s put them together to see if the former accepts the latter, and thus the latter validates the former. Take one of the Views of Creation and the Icons of Creation, put them in this question, and then answer the question: “Does [View of Creation] believe that [Icon of Creation]?” Do it for all combinations of all views and all icons. What did you get? How did you answer? For the first 5 views (Literal 6 Days, Day-Age Theory, Gap Theory, Intermittent Theory, Literary Framework Analogy), the answer can clearly be “Yes!” Therefore, those 5 views can be acceptable views on how God created the world (although, when it comes down to it, God only created the world one way, but with no human there to witness the whole thing, we’ll never know, so your guess on the beginning is as solid as your guess on the end times). The 6^th view, theistic evolution, however, is not so smooth. When it comes to theistic evolution and the Icons of Creation, some people would answer “yes,” while other people would answer “no.” So the best answer is “possibly.” I think what makes theistic evolution so indecisive is due to being a compromise between creation and evolution. The creation side of theistic evolution answers “yes” to all the questions, but the evolution side answers “no” to all the questions, so the answer becomes “possibly.” So it comes down to everyone’s individual conviction to determine whether or not theistic evolution is a legitimate view of creation. For me, I have 2 issues with theistic evolution. First, I have taken the time to prove the 8 Icons of Evolution are mostly false, and thus discredited evolution. Therefore, why would I support a view that still clings to it? Second, I believe I have proven a strong correlation between evolution and atheism (with maybe naturalism as an in-between stop). With such a strong correlation, the term “theistic evolution” is pretty much an oxymoron.

 

That leads us full circle right back to our introduction, right back to Arthur Dent in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. On one of his adventures, Arthur meets Slartibartfast, one of the engineers who built the earth. Arthur cannot wrap his mind around the fact that he’s meeting an engineer of the earth, possibly because he’s been taught there was no creator, designer or engineer. Slartibartfast asks Arthur, “Have you ever been to the fjords of Norway?” Arthur quickly says no. “That’s why,” Slartibartfast replies,” for if you would have, you would have seen I signed my signature in one of the glaciers” (italics is mine for emphasis). Going from a sci-fi book to a God-breathed book, Psalm 19:1 reads, “The Heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” The Lord has signed His handiwork, and we cannot deny that. The big theological term is “natural revelation.” Looking at the beauty of the earth, no one will say, “Man, am I a sinner desperately in need of a savior to die for my sins,” for that’s special revelation. But looking at the beauty of the earth, men and women should say, “Wow, this earth is so beautiful, there has to be a creator, and there has to be a God.” That is natural revelation. God has created life and the universe and has revealed himself in it. We cannot allow any religion, philosophy or science to deny God that credit. No matter what view you choose to hold of Creation, remember to give God credit and worship God as the Creator.