Geoscience

Spring 1986

Reports

NO.7

Some Thoughts on Why Evolution Replaced Creationas an Explanation for Earth History

L.J. GibsonGeoscience Research Institute

A few hundred years ago, the testi­monies of the Bible and the natural worldconcerning earth history were assumedto be in harmony. The study of nature wasconducted primarily by pious Christianswho saw God's handiwork in nature.Today the situation is radically different.Scientists now see nature as governedby natural law, without any need to invokethe action of a creator. How did thischange come about? This paper willexplore three of the issues involved in theconflict of interpretations concerning thenatural world.

Before the theory of evolution couldbe accepted, several concepts based onreligious beliefs had to be disposed of.Three concepts stand out as beingespecially important: (1) Perfection ofnature; (2) Ark dispersal; and (3) Youngearth. I will attempt to show that insistenceby churchmen on the validity of anunscriptural view of perfection in natureeventually led to the rejection of scripturalideas of the Flood and the age of theearth, and their replacement by thetheory of evolution.

The concept of "perfection of nature"was supposedly based on scripture, butits roots can be traced back to the Greekphilosophers (see Mayr, 1980:89). Thepresumed scriptural basis for this belief isfound in the creation story of Genesis 1,in which it is stated that God saweverything He had made was "verygood", and in the biblical statementswhich describe God's care for and inter­est in His creatures (e.g., Ps. 104;Mt. 5:26).

Rigid insistence on natural perfectionwas one of the most important factorswhich led to the abandonment of thebiblical story of earth history. It led first to

the rejection of the Flood story, and thento acceptance of the theory of uniformi­tarianism, which requires long ages oftime. Finally the principle of naturalperfection became the victim of its owninternal inconsistency, and was itselfdiscarded in the Darwinian revolution.The inability of the church to separatehuman speculation from scripture re­sulted in the rejection of both the scriptureand the speculations. But the story reallybegins with Copernicus.

Science vs Religion

During the Middle Ages science as itis thought of today was not practiced inEurope. The teachings of the Church,which included a generous portion ofGreek philosophy, dominated men'sminds. Consequently there was littleeffort to investigate the world of natureuntil after the twelfth century, and no realconflict between science and religiondeveloped until several hundred yearslater. The story of the development of thisconflict can begin in the 16th century.

Religious teachings of the importanceof man to God and the apparent motion ofthe sun around the earth led to the logicalconclusion that the earth was the centerof the universe. This geocentric view ofthe universe had been refined by Ptolemyin the second century A.D. and wasincorporated into church dogma, despiteinadequate support from scripture. Coper­nicus challenged the geocentric view,suggesting that the earth and the planetsrotated around the sun. His theory wasroundly condemned both by leaders ofthe Catholic Church and by Martin Luther.Copernicus escaped persecution forhis ideas because 'publication of histheory was postponed until after his

death in 1543.In the early 1600s, Galileo could see

the reasonableness of Copernicus' ideas,but his acknowledgment of their validityled to persecution in which he was forcedto recant publicly (and insincerely) hisbeliefs. Despite the church's effort toerase the new heresy, the heliocentricsolar system replaced the old geocentricview. Thus a precedent was set. Truthwas not always what the church said itwas. Science could also contribute to anunderstanding of truth. This discovery setthe stage for other conflicts betweenscience and ecclesiastical authority,conflicts in which science became thewinner with increasing frequency.

A Static World

The belief that a perfect God creatednature to be perfect was central to theteachings of the school of naturaltheology, which was the dominant forcein both science and religion in the 17thand 18th centuries. Nature was seen asexpressing the will of God and revealingHis character. John Ray's The wisdom ofGod manifested in the works of thecreation, first published in 1690, advo­cated the view that species had notchanged since they were created byGod. Natural theology: Or, evidences ofthe existence and attributes of the Deity,collected from the appearances of nature,published by William Paley in 1802,ascribed every detail of nature to thedirect providence of God. These bookshad great influence and helped establishthe intellectual climate of their times.They also led to the inevitable conclusionthat God was responsible for death anddisease, which did not make God attrac-

continued p. 2

Staff of the Institute are Ariel A. Roth - Director, Robert H. Brown, KatherineChing, Harold G. -Coffin, L. Jim Gibson, and Clyde L. Webster.

Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Clyde L. WebsterAssociate Editor Katherine Ching

Subscription requests, correspondence, and notices of change of address should besent to: Geoscience Reports, Geoscience Research Institute, Loma LindaUniversity, Loma Linda, CA 92350.

Geoscience Reports is a newsletter published by the Geoscience Research Instituteto present current happenings at the Institute as well as articles of general interestwhich deal with creation/evolution issues for primary and secondary schoolteachers. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those ofthe Institute.

NO.7

2

major blow to the views of the naturaltheologians.

The teachings of natural theologywere also undermined by the increasingability of men to explain natural pheno­mena in terms of natural laws. Laws ofphysics and chemistry explained manythings which were previously attributed tothe working of supernatural forces. Thestructure of the earth seemed to beexplainable as the result of natural events,operating over increasingly longer periodsof time. The activities of the human bodywere increasingly explainable withoutinvoking divine intervention. The areas inwhich God was acknowledged to operatebecame smaller and smaller, until menbegan to wonder whether God wasnecessary at all.

Belief in a static earth is incompatiblewith the theory of evolution so familiartoday. Ironically, it was this very belief in astatic world which forced a change inworld view that resulted in the rejection ofthe static earth belief itself. It is temptingto speculate what direction science wouldhave taken if scientists had accepted thepossibility of change in species beforethe ark story had been rejected.

The Sinking of the Ark

One of the most important controver­sies leading to the rejection of the biblicalrecord of earth history focused on Noah'sFlood. The Flood theory is based onGenesis 7 and 8 and states that all landanimals, except those in the ark, werekilled by the Flood. Therefore, all livingland animals are descendants of thosesaved in the ark and have dispersed fromMt. Ararat to their present habitats afterthe Flood. "Ark dispersal" was the firstpoint in the biblical story of earth historyto be rejected (Browne, 1983:19).

Spring 1986Geoscience Reports

Greek philosophers, with their emphasison unchanging "types", than by thebiblical record of the fall of Adam and thecurses brought on by sin as recorded inGenesis 3.

If a species should change, it wouldbecome less perfect, and would thereforebe eliminated. The natural theologiansthought that extinction of a species wouldrepresent a failure of God to provide forHis creatures. Since God cannot fail,extinction was unthinkable. If no speciescould become extinct and no new speciescould be produced, then the number ofspecies must be fixed. According to JohnRay, "The number of true species innature is fixed ... and unchangeable ... "(quoted in Wheeler, 1975:88).

Leibniz recognized from fossil evi­dence that some species had becomeextinct. He tried to explain this bysuggesting that nature was created withan inherent tendency to move towardperfection, with extinct forms beingmerely earlier stages of organisms notliving. According to this view, extinctiononly appeared to have happened becauseGod had designed species to developover time.

Despite the general acceptance ofnatural theology, doubts began to creepin about the lack of change in nature.Fossils had been known for many years,although at first attributed to the activitiesof the devil. However, their true nature aspreviously living organisms was soonrecognized. The obvious explanation forfossils was that they were deposited bythe Flood. But many fossils were ofspecies which were unknown and hadapparently become extinct, in contra­diction to the statements of Leibniz andJohn Ray. The evidence that God hadallowed some species to go extinct was a

Be it thought or action, everything wedo is done with respect to some pastreference point. It would be an impossibletask to review every point of reference inour lives. However, from time to time we areobligated to review those points of refer­ence that have long-lasting effects uponour lives and others.

Within such a review process anhistorical perspective can often be ofgreatworth. For from history we can gain aninsight as to consequence of choice ordirection that is not a vailable in the present.

Joseph Anderson once stated, "Thereis nothing that strengthens a nation likereading of a nation's own history, whetherthat history is recorded in books orembodied in customs, institutions andmonuments. II

Because of the importance in betterunderstanding the Creation / Evolution con­flict and its long-lasting effects on ourpersonal point of reference, GeoscienceReports is devoting a special issue to anhistorical perspective of the Eris.

CL.W 0

A POINT OF REFERENCE

EDITORIAL

Continued from page 1

tive to many thoughtful people, includingCharles Darwin (see Wheeler, 1975:80).

The idea of a scala naturae (scale ofnature), first described by Aristotle, waswidely promoted by Leibniz in the early18th century (Mayr, 1982:19). Accordingto this idea, everything in nature can bearranged in order of increasing perfec­tion, from the simplest atom to man.Another concept stressed by Leibniz wasthe "principle of plenitude", according towhich God has created everythingpossible, so that the scala naturae iscomplete, with no missing gaps to fill in.Implicit in this principle is the belief thatnothing new could be produced. Thescala naturae met its end at the hands ofCuvier, an eminent 19th century paleon­tologist, who asserted that there are fourdistinct groups of animals, with no con­nections between them (Mayr, 1982:201 ).Nevertheless, it had considerable impactin the history of biology.

In a perfect world, change would beundesirable. Nothing that has beenperfect from the beginning can improve.According to the natural theologians,God's foreknowledge would enable Himto create organisms which could copewith any circumstance. There would beno need of change, and no possibility ofextinction. Unfortunately, the naturaltheologians were influenced more by the

3

The Ptolemaic ("geocentric") System

The Copernican ("heliocentric") System

Ee E a..r-l-h

c1 M .. ,..~

1.f. Jl.A.pi.fel'"'

11 S 4,J.U.Y"n

Symbols

0 S14n

~ Mere u.Y'y

~ Ve n LA. S

( M 00 n

and local dispersal. The result of all thiswas that the ark was abandoned, and thestory of Noah's Flood was no longertaken seriously, except as possibly anexaggerated account of a local event inMesopotamia. As the Flood story wasgradually discarded, the presence offossil layers and evidences of geologicupheavals came to be explained ashaving taken place by normal processesover long ages .of time, rather than asevidences of a world-wide Flood.

Aging of the Earth

The next point in the controversy overearth history was the,age of the earth.The "young earth" concept was basedon the chronogenealogies of Genesis 5

In 1675, a German Jesuit namedKircher carefully studied the descriptionof Noah's Ark and drew a marvelousdiagram showing how it could have beendesigned to hold all the known species ofland animals (130 mammals, 150 birds,and 30 snakes) with their provisions for ayear. Kircher's Ark was shaped like ahouse on top and a boat below, with threedecks (Browne, 1983:5; see Browne,1983 or Diamond, 1985 for diagrams).Although this exercise helped make theark more real in people's minds, it alsomay have hastened its demise by show­ing its apparent limitations.

When men began to explore theworld, the number of known speciesincreased dramatically. By the end of the1600s, Britain's foremost naturalist, JohnRay, knew of over 500 species of birdsand over 150 species of mammals. Withthe continuing exploratiqn of the NewWorld, Australia, and Southeast Asia,many more new species were discovered.It soon became clear that the ark couldnot possibly hold all these animals. By1691, John Ray declared Kircher's ark tobe "trifling and superficial" (Browne,1983:16). As the overloaded ark began tosink, creationists jumped overboard insearch of land.

The Swede Carl Linnaeus offeredland in place of the Ark: Mt. Ararat to bespecific. He proposed in 1744 that theanimals were preserved on Mt. Araratduring the Flood, rather than in the Ark,and that they dispersed from there to allregions of the globe. This solved theproblem of space, but still left the questionof why different regions of the world haddifferent kinds of animals.

Biblical Lands Flood

A temporary answer was discoveredin the writings of the Frenchman LaPeyrere who had proposed in 1655 thatthe biblical Flood involved only the biblicallands and that the areas far away hadseparate histories. The distinctiveness ofthe fauna of each region was emphasizedin 1753 by Buffon, who also suggestedthat the earth may be much older thanbelieved at the time. This faunal distinc­tiveness was discussed further by Zim­merman in 1777, leading to the idea ofmultiple centers of creation. The exactnumber of centers of creation wasspecified by Sclater in 1858 (cited inDarlington, 1957:21). He described sixbiogeographical regions, each charac­terized by its peculiar fauna. These sixpresumed centers of creation are stillrecognized as six biogeographical realms,although they are now interpreted quitedifferently.

Notice the change from single crea­tion, world-wide flood and world-widedispersal to multiple creation, local flood,

and 11, in which the number of yearsbetween generations from Adam toAbraham are given. The figures given inthe Masoretic text total 1656 years. Whencombined with chronological data fromother portions of scripture and fromsecular historical sources, the earth'sage appears to be around 6000 years.For those who wanted to be morespecific, John Lightfoot calculated thatAdam was created at 9 a.m., Friday, Sept.17, 4004 B.C. (Diamond, 1985). Unfor­tunately, the exaggerated claims ofprecision weakened the credibility of theentire concept, making it easier to discardwhen some details were found to beincorrect.

Rejection of Ark

The failure of natural theologians toexamine the basis for their belief regard­ing perfection in nature, special design,and related concepts led to a loss ofconfidence in the Bible that resulted inrejection of the historicity of Noah's ark.Without a universal' Flood to producegeologic changes quickly, long ages oftime were needed to explain the exis­tence of sedimentary layers, the forma­tion of mountains, and other geologicalphenomena.

In addition, observations from astron­omy showed that the universe was not asunchanging as had been thought. Starsexploded, clouds of dust and gas existedin space, the moon and planets had scarsfrom collisions with meteors. It appearedthat natural processes were acting andcausing changes in the universe, so whynot on earth? Immanuel Kant, in 1775,suggested a kind of theistic evolution ofthe universe, requiring millions of years tobring it into the order desired by God(quoted in Wheeler, 1975:102). Thislogically led to the idea that the earth itselfwas very old. Georges Buffon was one ofthe first in modern times to estimate, in1779, an age for the old earth. Hispublished estimate was about 168,000years, but he privately suggested it couldbe half a million years old (cited in Mayr,1982:316).

The most important factor leading tobelief in an old earth was development ofthe science of geology based upon theprinciple of uniformitarianism. Inferencesabout the history of the earth can bedrawn from the arrangement and com­position of the rocks themselves and alsofrom the fossils that are often foundcontained within the rock layers. Both ofthese areas of evidence were interpretedin ways that challenged belief in a young(less than ten thousand years old) earth.

The presence of faults, folded strata,and multiple layers of sedimentary rocksshows that the earth has undergonegreat changes during its history. Based

upon observed rates of geologic change,it appears that these changes would takea very long time. In the late 18th century,James Hutton was promoting the principleof uniformitarianism: the present is thekey to the past. This can be restated tomean that the structure of the earth canbe explained on the basis of processesacting today. This statement was popular­ized by Charles Lyell in Principles ofGeology in 1830 and has had a greatinfluence on the course of geologicalthought since that time.

Despite the opposition of such men asthe famous French paleontologist Cuvier,uniformitarianism soon became thedominant theory for interpreting geologicfeatures. Most scientists accepted thewords of James Hutton: "we see novestige of a beginning, no prospect of anend". Efforts by the very influentialGerman geologist Abraham Werner toexplain the rock layers as the result ofdeposition from a world-wide ocean wereunsuccessful, and the concept of a veryold earth soon won nearly universalacceptance among scientists (Ritland,1981 ).

With the development of radiometricdating techniques, most scientists arenow convinced the actual age of theearth can be measured reliably. The ageaccepted by the scientific community isabout 4.6 billion years. Life supposedlyoriginated somewhat later, perhaps byabout 3.5 billion years ago (see Nisbetand Pillinger, 1981).

The Fall of Perfection

The discovery and interpretation ofdistinctive fossil layers, which contributedto the rejection of the young earth theory,also helped prepare the way for accep­tance of the theory of biological evolution.Different fossil layers were discovered tocontain distinctive kinds of fossil organ­isms. There was a general trend from"simpler" organisms in the lower layers to"more complex" organisms in the upperlayers. Creationists such as Cuvier andAgassiz interpreted this as evidence ofmultiple catastrophes, occurring at differ­ent times of earth's history, the mostrecent one probably being recorded inGenesis. Agassiz believed that eachcatastrophe was followed by a newcreation. The "progression" seen in thefossil layers was due to God's purposeand design and had climaxed in the mostrecent creation in which man was made.

On the other hand, those who hadrejected the reliability of the Bibleinterpreted the fossil layers as requiringlong periods of time for their deposition. Ifthe layers each represented vast periodsof time, it was clear that different kinds oforganisms lived on earth at differenttimes. This idea easily led to the theory

4

that one kind of animal could give rise to adifferent kind. The young earth theoryprobably had been the most importantconcept holding back the developmentand acceptance of the theory of evolution(see Mayr, 1982, chapter 7). The beliefthat the earth was very old prepared theway for Darwin's theory of evolution, for itseemed to provide enough time so thatnearly any kind of change could beproposed.

When Darwin demonstrated, in TheOrigin of Species, that species are notfixed, but do in fact change, the ideaquickly swept through scientific circles.Darwin's success was in great measuredue to the fact that he could propose amechanism for change (natural selec­tion), as well as to the thoroughness withwhich he presented the evidence support­ing his theory. Darwin's work was donecarefully and was well-documented, incontrast to the work of many of hisopponents. The situation was made worsefor his opponents by the fact that they hadabandoned concepts which were trulyscriptural, such as the Flood, but hadrefused to give up their unscriptural viewson fixity of species. Unwilling to dis­tinguish between those beliefs taught byscripture and those interpretations givenby man, they were unable to harmonizetheir beliefs with what they could see.Acceptance of the theory of evolutionbecame nearly universal among thosewho studied the natural world.

Evolution and Christianity

Christians have responded in variousways to the challenge of evolution. Somehave discarded the Bible story altogether,regarding it as merely a fable. Many inthis group regard nature as controlled byits own inherent properties. Other Chris­tians have rejected any claim of authorityfor evolutionary science, regarding it asmere speculation. Many other Christianshave attempted to combine science andreligion in a way to minimize the tensionbetween them.

The response of many "main-line"churches to the problems in earth historyhas been to attempt to integrate longages of time into the creation account.The biblical record of creation is seen assymbolic. God is portrayed as the greatDirector of Evolution. He acts throughnature so as to bring order out of chaosand guides the course of eVOlution fromthe simple to the complex, using thephysical properties of the materialsinvolved. The process has supposedlytaken billions of years, but has proceededin a somewhat orderly fashion, culminat­ing in the "creation" of mankind byplacing a "soul" in a primitive humanoid.This belief is often called "TheisticEvolution". Many thoughtful scientists

have doubted that the complexity ofnature could be accounted for by randomnatural events and see a need for adirecting force. Theistic evolution has theattraction of providing God's will as anexplanation for non-random developmentin nature.

Objections to Theistic Evolution areprimarily theological. The theory holdsGod responsible for death, disease andthestruggle for existence. God's power isportrayed as limited by natural law, andHe appears as a weakling, unable tocreate what He really wanted withoutwaiting for its development by naturalforces. It also undermines the reliability ofthe Bible, which clearly teaches that lifehad a miraculous beginning and that aworld-wide Flood occurred. If one acceptsthe existence of God and His activity innature, why not accept the description ofHis activity given in His word?

Some other groups have opted for atheory called "Progressive Creation".This is similar to Theistic Evolution in itsacceptance of long ciges of time for thehistory of life on earth, and can be tracedback to Cuvier and Agassiz. The mostimportant difference is the way in whichGod has acted. In progressive creation,God created in stages, perhaps sixstages, each of which could have beenone literal day in length, as represented inthe Genesis story. After each creationevent, long periods of time passed whilethe processes of geology affected thesurface of the earth. Then, possibly aftersome catastrophe, a new creationoccurred, in which more complexorganisms were created. Finally, in themost recent creation event, man andother present species were created.

Severe Weakness

The theory of progressive creationismwas popular for a while with the studentsof Cuvier and Agassiz, but had severalrather severe weaknesses. From ascientific viewpoint, the theory of progres­sive creationism remains unsatisfactorybecause the sequence of fossils isinconsistent with the sequence of creativeactivity described in Genesis. Anotherproblem is that plants, which requiresunlight for survival, were created on daythree, which would be millions of yearsbefore the sun appeared on day four.Theologically, the theory suffers from thesame faults as does Theistic Evolution. Itholds God responsible for death beforethe fall of Adam and Eve. It portrays Godas a bumbling giant who couldn't dothings right the first time and had to tryagain to finally get what He wanted(assuming man is what He wanted). Itaccepts the concept of God's activity innature, but rejects the biblical revelationof His method.

More conservative churches haveheld to a literal interpretation of Genesis.Ussher's chronology is given nearly equalauthority with scripture itself by some.The earth-centered universe conceptreappears in a different form in the beliefthat the entire universe, including thestars in space, was created on the fourthday of creation. This raises the questionof how one could measure the first threedays of creation week before the e~is­

tence of the universe. Even beliefs whichsound much like the fixity of species aresometimes advocated.

Adventism and Evolution

Seventh-day Adventists have takenthe position that the Bible record isreliable and literal. The very name ofSeventh-day Adventists indicates a beliefin God as Omnipotent Creator. It is thisbelief which justifies our observance ofthe seventh-day Sabbath as a memorialof original creation, and our confidence inthe Advent and the expectation of a newcreation. We see these issues as a focusof attention in the closing events ofearth's history as outlined in the Revela­tion. We feel called to proclaim that Godis the Creator (Rev. 14:7). As we celebratethe Sabbath, we express our faith in Godthe Re-creator, who will raise us from thedead and give us immortality (1 Cor.15:51-54), and who will make all thingsnew (Rev. 21 :5).

The story of Genesis is an integralpart of the entire biblical theme. Thehistoricity of Adam is attested by Christhimself (Mt. 19:4-6). Paul refers to thecreation of woman from man (1 Cor. 11 :8)and the temptation of Eve by the serpent(2 Cor. 11 :3) as real events, and affirmsthat Adam was a real character (e.g.,1 Tim. 2:13-14). Similarly, the story ofNoah's flood is accepted as true by Christ(Mt. 24:37-38) and Peter (2 Peter 2:5). Ifthese particular statements stand to becorrected by the opinions of men, thenthe same process must be applied to allthe statements of Christ and the apostles.The authority of God's word will beusurped by the opinions of men, with theinevitable result of loss of faith in theBible.

An attack on the validity of Genesis isan attack on the very foundations of ourchurch. If God did not create in six days,then why keep the Sabbath? Why notkeep any day, or no day at all? If God didnot create "by the word of the Lord" (Ps.33:6), but had to use long periods of time,do we have reason for confidence thatHe is able to raise us instantly from death,or to re-create a new and better order in anew earth? If God created in stages, thenis He responsible for, the presence ofdeath in the world before the fall of Adamand Eve? If so, do we want to spend

5

eternity with Him? If He has not told us thetruth about our origin, can we trust Him totell us the truth about our destiny? Thesequestions underscore the importance ofour understanding of the history of life onearth and justify a serious attempt to findsatisfactory answers.

Lessons Extracted

Several lessons can be extractedfrom reviewing the history of the conflictbetween science and religion. One factthat stands out rather quickly is that thearguments which one hears today are notnew. The same points have been debatedfor more than a hundred years. Progres­sive creationism dates back more than ahundred years, at least to the students ofLouis Agassiz in the mid 19th century(Mayr, 1982:374). Theistic evolution hasroots in the Vestiges, written by RobertChambers in 1844 (Mayr, 1982:382).

A second lesson is that the tendencyhas been for churches to move towardacceptance of the theory of evolution,abandoning a literal interpretation ofGenesis. Once one point is abandoned,other points are left exposed. One's viewof earth's history must form a unifiedwhole, bound together by internal con­sistency. Those who adopt a symbolicinterpretation of some aspect of Genesissoon find that consistency demands thatthey adopt the same view of otheraspects of the Bible, until they end upbelieving quite the opposite of theiroriginal position. Before adopting a newviewpoint, it is important to understand itsimplications thoroughly. If one rejects thereliability of the Bible, there remains nohigher authority than one's own opinion.

A final point is that failure to dis­tinguish between speculation and script­ural teaching will inevitably lead toconfusion. Basing one's beliefs onhearsay is not safe. Each position mustbe examined to determine whether it beof human or divine origin. Rejection of theGenesis story of Creation and the Floodwas in large measure a result of insistenceupon perfection in nature. Failure torecognize the effects of sin on nature ledto a belief in fixity of species. As thenumber of known species became toogreat for the ark, the Flood and ark storywas discarded. Without the Flood, longages of time were required to account forgeologic phenomena to occur by ordinaryprocesses. Long ages of time, whenapplied to the fossil layers, conflict withthe Genesis story of creation. Acceptanceof long ages resulted in the rejection ofGenesis as historically accurate for theorigin of the earth, sin, and man. Thealternative was, and continues to be,evolution, and the only future it promisesis extinction.

An Adventist's View

In a world of skepticism and un­certainty, what can a Christian believeregarding the history of the earth? Itseems to me that any doctrine concerningthe history of the earth must address twopoints: what does it say about God? andwhat does it say about nature? No beliefcan long stand against challenge if itforms part of a world view which is notinternally consistent. Three related pointswhich are woven throughout the Bible arethat God is the omnipotent Creator (Ps. 8;Mt. 19:4; Col. 1:16), God is love (Jer. 31 :3;John 15:9; Rom. 5:8), and that nature issuffering the effects of sin (Gen. 3:14-19,Luke 13:16; Rom. 8:21,22). Any Christiantheory of earth history must be consistentwith these points. I will use these pointsas a basis for addressing the three issuesof earth history discussed at the beginningof this paper.

1. Perfection in natureUndoubtedly the earth as God created

it was perfect. In describing the originalcreation, God called it "very good" (Gen.1:31 ). The Bible clearly states that God isthe Creator (Ps.8) and that He is perfect(Mt. 5:48). But the Bible also records aconflict with evil, which resulted in thespoiling of nature by Satan (Rom. 8:21 ,22).Man had been given dominion overnature by God (Gen. 1:28). Instead ofcooperating with God in his power overnature, sinful man perverted nature (Gen.6:5-7). As a result, even the plants andanimals showed the effects of man's sin(Gen. 3:14, 18). In order to understandnature properly, one must allow for theeffects of sin and the Flood.

Fixity of Species

We do not know whether God createdmany different varieties of each kind ofanimal, or whether He created a smallernumber of kinds of animals and gavethem the capacity to change and adapt tovarious environments, producing newvarieties as they did. However, the Bibledoes clearly teach that when Godcreated, He created a diversity of livingthings (Gen. 1). He did not start withamoebas and direct their evolution formillions of years until He finally gothuman beings. Neither did God createdeath, disease or decay, although He didforesee them (Gen. 3). These are thework of Satan (Luke 13:16; Heb. 2:14).

The phrase "after his kind" or itsequivalent has been used to support theconcept of limited change in species. Ingeneral, the idea is that changes mayoccur in organisms with the result thatmany varieties of a "kind" may beproduced, but that no new "kinds" areever produced. A more careful exami-

nation of the words of scripture showsthat this is not what the Bible says.

The Bible states clearly that Godmade various kinds of plants and animalsand gave them the capacity to reproduce.But it does not say anywhere that animalswould reproduce after their kinds, or thatchange was limited. It do~s say thatplants would produce their own kinds ofseeds (Gen. 1:11, 12), but it is obviousthat this cannot mean that plants couldnot change. Plants are well-known fortheir ability to hybridize and even to formnew species in one generation (bypolyploidy). God predicted that majormorphological change would occur inplants (Gen. 3:18) and in snakes (Gen.3:14). Scientific evidence may suggestthat change may be limited, but the Bibledoes not set limits. If major changes canbe shown to occur in organisms, thisdoes not contradict the biblical statementof "after his kind".2. Ark dispersal and Noah's flood

Another question to consider is theextent of the Flood. The Bible describes itas covering all the mountains (Gen. 7:1 9)and destroying all the land animals (Gen.7:21 -23). The reason for the Flood wasthat man had rebelled against God to thepoint where it appeared that mankindwas in danger of losing any possibility ofbeing reconciled to God. Nature hadbeen corrupted by the effects of man'srebellion. In order to give men a betterchance, a change was needed. Goddestroyed mankind as well as the corrup­tion he had caused.

One might ask whether the Floodcould have been somewhat limited inscope, not necessarily covering the entireearth. To answer this question, one canlook at the distribution of fossils. Everycontinent contains widespread layers ofmarine fossils, indicating that each con­tinent was once covered by water. This isevidence for the world-wide extent of theFlood.

The problem of space on the arkbecomes much less serious when weunderstand that species are not fixed.Species can change, producing newspecies. The large number of speciesand varieties of land mammals seentoday may be descendants of only a fewhundred species saved on the ark. Yetthere are still unresolved problems. Why,for example, are the mammals in Australiaso different from those in South Americaand other places? How much havespecies changed since creation? Thereare enough unanswered questions torequire that creationists be humble, but aknowledge of God and His word gives usconfidence that both are worthy of ourtrust.3. Age of the earth

The third important issue is the

6

question of the age of the earth. The Bibledoes not give the age of the earth. A studyof biblical chronology suggests that thehistory of life on this earth representsthousands, not tens of thousands, ofyears. It is not possible to be exact, nor isit really necessary. It is quite possible thatthe minerals of the earth have been inexistence as part of an earth "withoutform and void" for long ages of time. Thiswould explain certain data from science,but it is not important to an understandingof biblical history.

Although the Bible does not directlyaddress the question of the age of theearth, it does directly address thequestions of the manner by whichchanges occurred on the earth. Godcreated by the power of His word (Col.1:16), not by doing His best to bring orderfrom chaotic nature, while limited bynatural laws. A variety of plants andanimals were created in less than oneweek. A world-wide Flood caused drasticchanges in the earth.

There is no need for long ages of time.Certainly, God could have created in anyway He chose. But what kind of God dowe believe Him to be? Trying to constrainGod to long ages of time for creation oflife on the earth slanders His character byblaming Him for death and implies thatHe is misleading us by not telling us thetruth in the messages He has given toman. Such attributes properly belong toour enemy, not to our saviour. Let usaffirm our trust in God and His word andjoin in the heavenly chorus:

"Our Lord and God l You are worthyto receive glory, honour, and power.

For you created all things,and by your will they were givenexistence and life."(Rev. 4:11, TEV)

Literature Cited

Browne, M. 1983. The secular ark. YaleUniv. Press, New Haven.

Darlington, P.J. 1957. Zoogeography.John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Diamond, J. 1985. The overloaded ark.Discover 6:82-92.

Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biologicalthought. Belknap Press, Cambridge,Mass.

Nisbet, E.G., and C.T. Pillinger. 1981. Inthe beginning. Nature 289:11 -12.

Ritland, R.M. 1982. Historical develop­ment of the current understandingof the geologic column: part 1.Origins 8:59-76.

Wheeler, G.W. 1975. The two-taled dino­saur. Southern PUblishing Assoc.,Nashville, Tenn. 0