The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate (9 page)

Young-earth creationists believe the text of Genesis indicates
that it is to be taken as a historical genre. They see no marks
of poetry or saga or myth in the Genesis account. They reject
the method of those who believe the text of Scripture must be
demythologized to make it fit with science. If we take such an
approach with Genesis, what is to prevent us from interpreting any other part of Scripture in the same way? What should
we do with the incarnation? The resurrection of Christ? Certainly
these do not make sense according to modern science, so should
they be demythologized? Young-earth creationists think not.
Better to take God at His word than to succumb to a doctrinal compromise that will lead us far astray.

A young-earth creationist understanding of Genesis has been
the predominant viewpoint of Christians throughout church
history. Does that automatically make it the correct position?
No, it doesn't. But young-earth creationists point out that
Christians should be cautious about so easily dismissing what
has been held to be true by Christians for two thousand years."

Young-earth creationists realize that most modern scientists
hold to an extremely old earth, and they realize that many interpret the fossil evidence as indicating life has been on earth for millions of years. They respond by suggesting that when God
created the physical universe, He created it-and all within itwith an appearance of age. 52 Adam and Eve were certainly created
as full-grown adults. We know this to be true because, among
other indications, they were commanded by God to be fruitful
and multiply (indicating their adult sexual maturity). They had
the appearance of age even though they did not have genuine
age.5' Likewise, one must assume that a fully functioning ecosystem in the Garden of Eden would include mature trees (that
had ready-to-eat fruit), bushes, and the like. Such items would
have the appearance of age despite being only minutes old."

This is similar to some of the miracles Christ performed
during His three-year ministry on earth. For example, at a
wedding banquet in Galilee, Jesus had some servants fill six stone
water jars-each holding 20 to 30 gallons-and He turned the
water (over 120 gallons) into wine (John 2:1-11). This miracle
disclosed Jesus' power over the chemical processes of nature.55
By a single word of command He accomplished the transformation that a vine requires several months to produce.

Shortly thereafter, Jesus multiplied five small loaves of bread
and two small fish into enough food to satisfy over 5000 people.
Matthew's Gospel indicates that those who partook of the food
provided by Jesus included 5000 men-to say nothing of
women and children (Matthew 14:2 1). Using a small boy's
lunch, which one of the disciples located, Jesus multiplied the
meager serving of unleavened barley cakes and pickled fish until
everyone in the vast crowd was more than satisfied." Notice that
the fish served to the people were full-grown fish, with the
appearance of having been in the lake for quite some time. The
bread existed despite the fact that grains had not been harvested
for it, nor had it gone through the process of baking.57

In the same way, the miracle of creation may have involved
apparent age in the universe. Some, such as John Whitcomb and
Henry Morris, have suggested that this "apparent age" principle might apply to radioactive substances, "meaning that such material might well have been created complete with decay products,
which would completely invalidate radiometric dating (such as
carbon dating) ."58

The apparent age hypothesis is also applied to stars and the
light in transit from those stars to planet earth. Of course, oldearthers would say that if the light from the star had to travel
a million light-years to get to earth, then the star is at least a
million years old. Young-earthers, who posit a younger dating
of the universe, traditionally argue that God not only created
the star but also created the light in transit from the star to planet
earth.59 In this scenario, then, the star's existence is compatible
with young-earth creationism.

1. Old-earth creationists raise an objection to the idea that
God created light in transit from the star to planet earth. If a
star is a million light-years away, and an observer on earth is
looking at the star, then that observer is actually seeing what
that star was like a million years ago. Therefore, observers are
witnessing a "fiction."

This objection has caused some young-earth creationists to
abandon the "light in transit" theory. They are presently examining other possible scientific explanations that may be compatible with their view.

2. Many have suggested that the "apparent age" hypothesis
would mean that God was being deceitful." To indicate that
the universe was one age when in fact it is another age is not
an honest thing to do-especially for a holy God.

3. The fossil evidence indicates life has been on earth for
millions of years.' Empirical observation indicates that fossils
form rarely, so the billions of fossils on earth must have taken
millions of years to form. Likewise, the layers of sedimentary rock, which are thousands of feet thick, must have taken millions
of years to form.

Related to this, geologists believe that what we see around
the world-fossils, volcanoes, mountains, and the like-can best
be explained on the basis of the scientific theory of uniformitarianism." As we saw in chapter 1, this involves the idea that
the geological, biological, and astronomical processes that we
now observe in our present universe operated identically in the
past at the same strength and intensity. If this is correct, millions
of years would have been necessary to produce the fossils, volcanoes, and mountains we see around the world.

4. Old-earth creationists (such as progressive creationists)
argue against the young-earth view by pointing out that the
Hebrew word for "day" (yom) can lexically mean "period,"
"epoch," or "age." Therefore, the "days" of Genesis need not be
literal twenty-four-hour days. (See "Progressive Creationism,"
pages 50-53.)

Because these objections to young-earth creationism have
generated considerable controversy and have entered the public
arena via popular magazines and newspapers, I would be remiss
if I failed to mention how young-earth creationists are
responding. They are quick to respond, for example, to the allegation that the "apparent age" theory would make God dishonest. They argue that God gave humanity a book (actually, a
bunch of books combined into one) called the Bible wherein
He fully explained all about creation. And a plain reading of
the Genesis account seems clearly to set limits on how old the
earth could be. No one would suggest, they argue, that God
was being deceitful to Adam when He presented a full-grown
Eve to him. No one would suggest that Jesus was deceiving the
wedding guests when the water He had turned into wine was
served to them.

One scholar has noted that rocks and fossils do not come
with a date stamp on them. Rather, scientists devise theories
to postulate age. If the universe is in fact young, why should
God be blamed simply because our scientific method was inaccurate? "Do we presume that our theories are so good that we
are correctly interpreting what the rocks and fossils actually sayso that if they do not mean what we think they say about their
age, then their Creator is responsible for their prevarication ?"13

As for the objection that fossil evidence supports an old earth,
young-earth creationists reply that the only sufficient explanation for all the various strata formation, fossil remains around
the world, massive volcanic activity, and mountain formation
is a universal catastrophic Noachian flood that lasted a full year.
The waves of this flood would have swept up all forms of life,
and the mud into which these various forms of life finally settled
solidified into rock as a result of the tremendous pressure of
the water. Because the flood produced wave after wave after wave,
layers of rock strata eventually formed, full of fossils of dead
animals and plants. What normally would have taken immeasurable time to occur (millions of years) took place in a relatively
short time as a result of the catastrophic flood. Fossilization of
whole organisms in sedimentary rocks must have taken place
rapidly (as would necessarily be the case in a catastrophic flood)
because otherwise, in normal conditions, not much of the organism would be left to fossilize after decay, bacteria, and scavengers
did their damage.64

Regarding the objection relating to uniformitarianism,
young-earth creationists reply that that the overwhelming force
of a universal flood, combined with the rapid extermination of
innumerable plants and animals, "could not fail to have been
the greatest producer of thick sediments and entrapped plants
and animals in those sediments of any event in world history."65
They thus reject uniformitarianism and believe that the geological column is a record of what transpired in the flood.

In keeping with this, Dr. Bert Thompson, a Ph.D. in microbiology and former chairman of veterinary medicine at Texas
A&M University, points out that in 1980 Mount St. Helen
erupted and formed a 25-foot canyon in a mere 24 hours.
Sediment layers were also laid down in extremely rapid fashion. Thompson thus urges that geological erosion can happen
a lot faster than most uniformitarian proponents will admit.`

I discuss further differences of opinion between old-earthers
and young-earthers in subsequent chapters.

One of the more fascinating aspects of the study of origins
has to do with the fossil evidence. This fascination is reflected
in the popular media. Fossil discoveries are regularly reported
in newspapers and magazines around the world. Television shows
on the Discovery Channel and PBS feature the latest and greatest fossil discoveries. Movies like Jurassic Park and The Lost World
feature fossils, dinosaur bones, dino-DNA, and more.

One of the best ways to become an instant celebrity is to
discover fossils that "prove" evolution. Make a significant discovery and you might just find yourself featured in the pages of
National Geographic magazine.

On the darker side of fossil studies, research funding for
continued fossil hunting is often dependent on a researcher's
significant evolution-supporting discoveries. One cannot help
but wonder whether such researchers are always completely
objective regarding their interpretations of their findings.' The
sad reality is that just as university professors must "publish or
perish" in order to rise in the academic field, so paleontologists
must find evolution-supporting fossils if they hope to rise in
their field.

Fossils point us to the past. They constitute rock-solid
evidence of various life-forms, some of which have continued
to exist to the present day and others that have become extinct.
Webster 's Revised Unabridged Dictionary defines a fossil as "the
remains of an animal or plant found in stratified rocks."'
Princeton University's WordNet database defines a fossil as "a
relic or impression of a plant or animal that existed in a past
geological age."3 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language defines a fossil as "a remnant or trace of an organism
of a past geologic age, such as a skeleton or leaf imprint, embedded and preserved in the earth's crust."4 Actually, the word
"fossil" comes from the Latin word fossilis, which literally means
"dug up." Fossils, then, represent the mineralized remains, traces,
and impressions of plants and animals that lived long ago and
have since been dug up.' They are deposited and preserved for
us in the layers (or "strata") of sedimentary rock that form the
earth's crust.

Billions of fossils have been discovered virtually all over the
world. Henry Morris notes that multiple fossils of fish have been
discovered in such diverse areas as California, New York, and
Scotland. Dinosaur graveyards are scattered all around,
including such places as the Rockies, South Africa, Central Asia,
and Belgium. Fossils of marine invertebrates are found almost
everywhere.' Fossils of ocean fish, mollusk shells, and even a
whale have been discovered on various mountains.'

Having noted this abundance of fossils, allow me to suggest
a logical expectation: If evolutionary theory were true, one would
expect that the fossil record would show a step-by-step progression from simple life-forms to increasingly complex life-forms.
The record should show a step-by-step progression from common ancestors to the complex organisms of today. As we will
see in this chapter, however, the fossil record actually shows that
species throughout geologic history have remained remarkably stable (not changing) for exceedingly long periods of time, and
that a sudden explosion of life-forms erupted during the
Cambrian age (the first period of the Paleozoic era). Creationists therefore believe that the fossil evidence is much more in
keeping with their view than with evolutionary theory' No intermediate fossils showing a transition of one species into another
have been found.