Solum 1
James Solum
Senior Project
Mr. Elwood
25, April 2014
The Meaning Behind the Words Let there be: A Christian
Perspective on the Evolution and Creation Debate
The words “Let there be” (NIV, Genesis 1) began the light of day, the formation of life,
and ultimately the incredible story of God, man, and the universe, which, after many
extraordinary events lead to this particular day and hour. It is at this specific moment that we as
humans are loved and forgiven by God despite our sin, fallibility and finiteness, and it is because
of these characteristics that we also fail to truly follow and comprehend the Creator. This
shortcoming in our nature is the fuel that drives the wedge between the war on science and
reason versus faith and religion. Over the past one-hundred and fifty years there has been a
chasm between evolutionary theory and the creation account in the Bible. This debate forces us
to ask what the words “Let there be” really stand for; do they represent an instantaneous moment
in which God created light, day, the solar cycle, life, the stars and finally man, or does it
challenge us to infer and pursue further knowledge in how the hand of God works and creates?
But the evolutionary debate is also pushed by a much more biased side: the atheists. As it seems,
there is a battle of supremacy between the naturalistic atheists and Christians (or in that matter
any God believing persons) in the matter of science. Evolution stands in a key position for the
naturalistic atheist, who before the dawn of Charles Darwin, had no foundation for explaining
truth and the process of life. Although atheism may still not have that foundation, evolution
certainly gives the illusion it does. These modern peoples generally agree with the Neo-
Solum 2
Darwinian synthesis, which differs only from Darwin’s original evolutionary theory in the
explanation of how genes are transferred from parent to offspring. For simplicity, we will refer
to these theorists as evolutionists. On the opposite end reside the creationists. The term
creationism can refer to a large spectrum of thought and theory, from old earth creationism, who
commonly accept evolution, to young earth creationism who deny evolution, but again, for
simplicity, we will take creationists to refer to young earth creationists. Creationists represent
fundamentalist Christian thought and promote a literal interpretation of the Bible, most notably
in Genesis. By understanding the theories and arguments of both evolutionists and creationists,
along with some Biblical exegesis, it is clear that neither of the theories can fully express
accurately the nature of the universe nor the true greatness and infinite nature of God. Instead it
requires a union of our ability to rationally think and view our world with the truth of the Bible.
Evolutionary Creationism provides the best possible solution and maintains the integrity of both
reason and the Bible. Also called theistic evolution, evolutionary creationism stresses the fact
that God created the universe by including the word “creationism” in which after this creation,
God uses evolution as a tool to continually improve our fallen universe. It is the truth and love
behind the words “Let there be” that inspire us to use our God given power to perceive,
understand and pursue knowledge in God’s awesome universe.
Evolutionary Theory and “The Grand Evolutionary Story”
Evolution is “the cumulative, or additive, changes that take place in phenomena like
galaxies, planets or species of animals and plants” (Scott 23). Almost everyone can accept that
change is a normal part of our daily lives and the world; we know that galaxies shift, stars
collide, the weather changes and animals and plants adapt to their environments. The process of
adaptation and other small changes in biological organisms is known as microevolution.
Solum 3
Changes in an organism that result from microevolution are called horizontal changes, because
they do not convert the organism into another species. Clear evidence for microevolution has
been revealed, most notably, with the peppered moth. Prior to the English Industrial Revolution,
the peppered moth was known to be light in color and covered with speckled dots (hence the
name peppered moth), yet it was known, on very rare occasions, that peppered moths would
sometimes produce black offspring. Soon the English Industrial Revolution took off full throttle
and the resulting black soot from nearby coal factories enveloped the trees on which the moths
lived. The now darkened trees made the light colored moths easy for predators to capture, but
the rare black peppered moths were able to camouflage themselves. By a process of natural
selection the once rare black peppered moth became the majority in the peppered moth
population. These peppered moths did not produce a new species, but with the help of horizontal
changes were able to dramatically alter their appearance to help ensure survival. Many
evolutionists wonder if such changes can appear within a human lifetime, what kind of changes
can appear within millions of years? The process of evolutionary changes that evolutionists
propose can happen over long periods of time is known as macroevolution. Macroevolution
supports vertical changes in species or the process by which organisms change through natural
selection so much so that the organism turns into a completely new species. It is the implications
of macroevolution that cause the contradiction between science and the Bible, and is the
controversy in the evolution and creation debate.
Alvin Platinga, although a notable Christian philosopher, provides an accurate secular
evolutionist summary, which he calls “The Grand Evolutionary Story” (Pennock 128).
According to Platinga, evolutionary theory contains five pillars, or theses. First is the “Ancient
Earth thesis.” This thesis, as it seems to imply, states that the earth is not thousands, but billions
Solum 4
of years old; the consensus now being about 4.5 billion years old. Second, is the “Progress
thesis,” which describes, “that life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex
forms of life” (127). Life began with a simple organism, perhaps a unicellular organism or
possibly something simpler, which overtime evolved into a new set of organisms with great
complexity, who then also evolved into a new set of organisms with even greater complexity,
who eventually evolved into the modern organisms we see today (including humans). The third
thesis is the “Common Ancestry thesis.” This thesis infers that all living things are related to
each other in some way. All of life supposedly has a common ancestry who lived long ago and
is the organism (or group of organisms) from which all life has originated. This is best
illustrated in the evolutionary tree in which the organisms present today (the more complex and
evolved organisms) reside in the branches of the tree, while our common ancestor resides in the
trunk. The fourth thesis, as Platinga puts it, is “Darwinism.” Platinga explains that evolutionary
theory is dependent upon Darwin’s theory in which organisms evolved through a process of
natural selection which is driven by random genetic mutation. Although evolutionary theory has
grown from Darwin’s original theory, Darwin still remains at the heart of “The Grand
Evolutionary Story.” The fifth and last thesis Platinga reveals is the “Naturalistic Origins
thesis.” This thesis describes the evolutionists view that “life itself developed from non-living
matter without any special creative activity of God but just by virtue of the ordinary law of
physics and chemistry” (127). Alvin Platinga’s “Grand Evolutionary Story” helps further our
understanding of the evolutionist perspective which will later help us critique both the
evolutionist and creationist views.
Solum 5
Creationism
As Christians (especially protestant Christians) we accept sola scriptura and the fact that
we must “trust in the Lord with all (our) heart(s)” (NIV, Proverbs 3:5-6). Creationism is the
belief that is necessary to apply this absolute trust by interpreting the creation story in Genesis as
a scientific and historical account of the beginning of the universe. Creationists attest that the
Bible must be read in the way that the original author intended it to be read, whether historical,
poetic, etc. Creationists argue that the Genesis account was written as historical and scientific
literature and was meant to be read literally. In addition, the reading of the Bible should not
“impose” outside knowledge (e.g. evolution, the ancient age of the earth, etc.) on the text (Get
Answers: Creationism). According to the creationist, this restraint of “outside knowledge”
allows for the clearest, most accurate interpretation of the Bible. This interpretation suggests that
the earth is around 6,000 to 10,000 years old, a yearlong flood occurred 4,000 to 5,000 years ago
which destroyed all life except those upon Noah’s ark and that God punished humans by creating
different languages at the Tower of Babel (Get Answers: Creationism). Creationists argue that,
much like how naturalism is not a scientific discipline but still frames evolutionist ideas and
facts, creationism is a theological view that guides scientists in how they interpret data.
creationism, unlike evolutionism, bases its science completely on faith in the literal interpretation
of the Bible.
Creationist Arguments Followed by Evolutionist Rebuttal
Since the Bible is a framework for how creationists view scientific data, creationists
argue that scientific evidence points towards a literal interpretation of the Bible. Furthermore,
creationists explain that evolutionists distort the data to fit into their own naturalistic ideology.
Solum 6
creationists claim that through God, all things are possible, and therefore the Bible’s description
of creation must be true.
Evolutionists, on the other hand, have a different train of thought. Douglas Futuyama, a
noteworthy proponent of evolution once said, “Faced with the unknown, as all scientists are, the
scientists who invokes a miracle in effect says “this is unknowable” and admits defeat. It is only
through confidence that the unknown is knowable that physical scientists have achieved
explanation, and that biologists have advanced understanding of heredity, development, and
evolution to new heights scarcely hoped for just a few decades ago” (Scott 204). Secular
evolutionists do not believe in God or miracles and therefore reject Creationist theories.
Although these evolutionists are biased, they are also backed by significant scientific evidence.
The Flood: Creationist Perspective
Creationists agree that much of the supposed evidence for evolution can easily be
explained, not by a process that takes millions of years, but instead by a single cataclysmic event
known in the Bible as the Flood. Such an event would have enormous effects on geology, life
and human history. First, if the flood did really occur, there should be stories of it around the
world that transcend cultural boundaries, and there are! There are stories of a world-wide flood
in which a family builds a boat and is able to survive the waters in upwards of 200 cultures
around the world including the Middle East, South America, the Philippines, and many other
locations (Morris). Second, if a flood did occur, it would have enormous effects on the fossil
record. It is well known that fossils of sea creatures have been found in areas high above sea
level, even as high as the Himalayas. This suggests that at one point water levels reached high
above earth’s mountains, allowing sea creatures to live above today’s sea level (Snelling, High
and Dry Sea Creatures Flood Evidence 1). Additionally, the massive amount of water, powerful
Solum 7
enough to move huge amounts of sediment and rock, would be perfect conditions for forming
fossils. Fossils are produced when organisms die, and then are quickly covered by sediment.
The flood would be a means to create the large amount of fossils that are seen today in the fossil
record. Proof of this is that around the world there are “fossil graveyards” where large numbers
of organisms are found fossilized together. Specifically, one in Tasmania has shown fossils of
both sea creatures and land mammals mixed together (Snelling, The World’s a Graveyard). To
Creationists, the flood is the only explanation that could possibly relocate these organisms to be
in the same place.
Although many people would argue that there is not enough water to cover the entire
earth, creationists have ascertained theories. One theory, outlined by Dr. Andrew Snelling from
his article High and Dry Sea Creatures Flood Evidence Number 1, looks further into the verse
where the Bible states, “all the springs of the great deep burst forth” (NIV, Genesis 7:11). Some
creationists believe that earth, prior to the flood was much flatter than it is today, meaning that
the altitude of dry land was much closer to the floor of the ocean than it was today. In addition
to this, there was significantly less water because a percentage of it was kept in pockets deep
under the earth’s crust. At the time of the flood seismic activity broke up the earth’s crust, not
only releasing the huge underground vats of water, but also introducing large amounts of magma
into the earth’s oceans, causing the sea floor to rise. This combination of an increase in water
and disturbance in ocean depth caused huge amounts of water to flow over the low altitude dry
land. Under this theory the water would have only had to rise 3,500 feet for it to envelop the
entire globe. This seismic activity continued on during and after the flood, forcing ocean floors
back down as well as raising continents higher above sea level. The resulting earth is how we
see it today, with its high peaks and deep oceans.
Solum 8
The Flood: The Evolutionist Retort
Creationist flood science, which explains that many aspects of earth can be attributed to a
global flood around 6,000 years ago, is backed neither by accurate science nor by the Bible. The
article How Should we Interpret the Genesis Flood Account explains that flood science was first
formed by a self-taught geologist by the name of George Price. In 1923 he published his book,
The New Geology, in response to other geologists and theologians such as, Edward Hitchcock,
Hugh Miller, and Reverend John Pye Smith, who were uncovering evidence that did not line up
with the global flood, so decided to support evolution. There is much evidence against the global
flood ranging from Biblical interpretation to hard scientific evidence. First, the article continues,
there is a conflict in the interpretation of the original Hebrew text. Many English translations say
that the flood covered the “whole earth”. This phrase was translated from the Hebrew “kol
erets”. In English “erets” is generally translated as earth, but in Hebrew it is also used to mean
“land” or “country”. This suggests that the Biblical account may have been referencing a flood
that did not cover the whole earth, but instead a localized “country” or “land”. If in fact the
Biblical writers wished to convey that the flood covered the entire earth the word “tebel”, which
means “whole expanse of the earth, or the earth as a whole” (How Should we Interpret the
Genesis Flood Account) would have been used. Furthermore, ancient people did not fully
understand the expanse of the earth. The Babylonian Map of the World, the oldest world map
ever discovered, depicts two circles with cities such as Assyria, Babylon, and few others
surrounded by ocean. This tendency to see the entire world consisting dominantly of your
homeland was a normal idea for ancient people. To ancient people, who had yet to explore and
discover the earth and lacked the speedy transportation to reach far places, their homeland and
the surrounding areas was their whole world. The article says that “kol erets” “would have been
Solum 9
an appropriate way of referring to the entirety of the earth and its population in a manner in
which ancient Israelites would have been familiar.”
In addition to Biblical interpretation, as outlined by Dr. Greg Davidson and Dr. Ken
Wolgemuth in their article Christian Geologists on Noah's Flood: Biblical and Scientific
Shortcomings of Flood Geology, there are significant scientific problems of the flood account.
First, in the Bible, it is established that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers existed prior to the flood,
but these rivers continue to exist today. If the flood had occurred globally, the displacement of
rock and sediment would have eliminated the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Second, the Ark could
not have possibly held all 2 million known species of animals. Creationists (as we will discuss
later) rebut by saying that the only specific representatives of each “kind” entered the ark, who
later evolved through microevolution to the diversity we see today. Even with this argument it
would be impossible to fit all the “kind” representatives on the ark and would require an
unexplained accelerated evolution to reach the diversity we see today. Not only that, it would
also require significant man power and even more space to supply the necessary food, water and
sanitation for yearlong survival on the Ark. Third, the fossil record does not support a massive
flood. Many creationists believe that all animals from simple to complex lived together prior to
the flood. Once the flood came, many of the species went extinct, such as the dinosaurs. This
suggests that when the flood came it would have buried and mixed all the species of dinosaurs
and modern animals together, creating a fossil record where a triceratops fossil reside next to
human remains. This is not what is seen in the fossil record. Instead scientists see an ordered
sequence of fossils, where simpler single-celled organisms are at the bottom, roughly followed
by dinosaurs, then by mammals, and then further followed by current organisms. If a flood
really did occur, this ordering of fossils would not have transpired and we would have a mixed
Solum 10
and disordered fossil record. Instead, the fossil evidence seems to show that organisms gradually
change overtime. Although creationists seem to have a scientific explanation for the flood, it is
not backed by scientific evidence.
Species vs. Kinds: The Creationist Perspective
An important foundation for the creationist and evolutionist argument is the difference
between the modern day term “species”, and the biblical term “kinds”. Evolutionary theory
often describes the evolution of life as like a tree, with a common ancestor residing in the base of
the trunk. Creationists on the other hand “postulates a “forest’ of organisms in which each ‘tree’
began with an original created pair designed with vast genetic potential for variation but with
discontinuous with (not relate to) the other created ‘kinds’” (Hennagin). Creationists believe that
animal “kinds” are not congruous with the term “species” and instead are more like the modern
taxonomy term, “families.” They argue that each “kind” has its own “common ancestor” that
with the aid of microevolution, leads to the diverse amount of animals we see today. John
Morris says that, “normal variations operate only within the range specified by the DNA for the
particular type of organism, so that no truly novel characteristics, producing higher degrees of
order or complexity, can appear” (Scott, 208). Creationists agree that animals can evolve, but
they can never evolve in a way that creates “novel characteristics” and morphs them into a new
species. Macroevolution, a creationist would argue, would require an expansion of the gene
pool, or in other words, for a “kind” to become a different “kind” it would need additional genes
that it does not already have; microevolution, on the other hand, uses the genes the organisms
already have (Parker). Creationists use this idea of “kinds” to explain how all the animals fit into
the ark (Ham, Lovett). Instead of every single species of snake, dog, and fly, God only had one
species of snake, dog, and fly, which after the flood became the beginning of all the different
Solum 11
species of snake, dog, and fly to come. These species will never change from being a snake,
dog, or fly, but will be the beginning of every different form of snake, dog, or fly. Creationists,
therefore, accept natural selection and speciation but only in terms of microevolution as long as a
“kind” does not morph into another “kind”. This distinction between “kinds” and species is
necessary for understanding the creationist viewpoint and their interpretation of the Bible.
Evolutionist Rebuttal: Discussing the Difference between Macroevolution and Microevolution
The main issue between macroevolution and microevolution in the creationist versus
evolutionist debate is the idea that organisms can evolve to include “real novelties” (Scott, 208).
Eugene Scott explains that many creationists argue that molecular biology proves that each
“kind” contains a variety of genes, of which all their adaptations comes from, but never can
“kind” actually change into something “novel” or inherently different. In actuality, Scot
continues, molecular biology mutations have been proven to affect genes and chromosomes in a
way that produces new gene sequences that can dramatically change an organism. This can be
done by duplication of preexisting genes, and nucleotide exchanges. “Even slight genetic
changes can provide enzymes with new biochemical functions; can alter size, shape, and growth
rate of every feature of an organism’s body, and can produce changes much like those that
distinguish different, related species” (Scott, 208). This means that an organism’s adaptation and
complexity is not limited by its gene pool. Evolutionists then go on to say that there is no
maximum complexity, because complexity cannot truly be defined. A lower jaw bone that is
smaller than the higher jaw bone is certainly not a very complex attribute, but is a defining
characteristic of mammals. There are thousands of slight variations that distinguish different
species, families, classes, etc. that are merely “a collection of individual features” and are not as
deeply complex as they at first seem. Denying that macroevolution exists is simultaneously
Solum 12
denying that microevolution exists because they are essentially the same thing; macroevolution is
merely microevolution over a long period of time. They both use the seemingly simple changes
to cause creatures to drift apart and become new organisms.
Fossil Gaps: Creation Perspective
Another argument that creationists like to use is the fossil gaps argument. This argument
is based on the lack of transitional fossils found that are necessary to evolutionary theory.
Charles Darwin once wrote, “Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of
such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic
chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory”
(Sarfati, Matthews). According to theory, there should be an innumerable amount of transitional
fossils in the fossil record, but the ones that have been found show minor transitional properties.
In the article Refuting Evolution 2, Jonathan Sarfati and Michael Matthews show that many of
the commonly stated transitional fossils such as the Pakicetus or Ambulocetus (both used to
prove that whales came from land mammals) have incomplete fossils. Creationists argue that
evolutionists have overly elaborated the known remains to make them appear as if they were a
land and ocean hybrid. For example, Sarfati and Matthews explain that the Ambulocetus
skeleton is missing its pelvic girdle, which is essential to finding out how the animals moved:
walked, or swam. Even though this essential piece is missing, scientists still promoted that it
was an aquatic mammal. For creationists evolution has consistently lacking evidence for it to be
credible.
Fossil Gaps: Evolutionist Retort
According to evolutionary scientists the fossil record contains an incredible amount of
evidence for the earth’s past. It is well known that the deeper in the ground you go the older the
Solum 13
ground gets. In the article, What Does the Fossil Record Show?, it explains the credibility of the
fossil record for proving an evolutionary process. It explains that as we look at rock strata and
the fossils within them we find that there is an orderly sequence of fossils. The article explains
that in strata about one billion years old there are only remains of single-celled organisms. Once
we reach about five hundred million years old we find fish without jawbones; at 400 million we
find fish with jawbones. Amphibians appear in 350 million year old strata, then reptiles at 300
million, mammals at 230 million and birds at 150 million. The younger the rocks get the more
the fossils look like modern day organisms. The challenge is finding a transitional fossil
between each of these categories of organism, but fossils have been found. The article writes
that in 1998, scientists found a fossilized fin that, similar to the five digit human hand, contained
eight digits. This fin was found to be in 370 million year old rock, which is noteworthy because
land animals only begin to appear after the 370 million year old rock, and prior to this strata,
only sea creatures are found. In addition to sea to land transition fossils, there have been fossils
found that show a transition from reptiles to mammals. Mammals first start appearing in the
fossil record about 230 million years ago. Scientists have discovered that around 260 million
years ago a group of reptiles called Cynodonts first appeared. These reptiles were strange
because of their similarity to mammals. Some of these Cynodonts had a double jaw hinge,
which is similar to a mammalian jaw. Although there have been transitional fossils that have
been found, there still seems to be a shortage of these integral organisms. This happens for a
variety of reasons. First is that the process of fossilization requires specific factors and therefore
rarely happens. Second, transitional species generally have a lower population. This happens
because evolution often works when there are rapid changes in the environment. The article
writes, “the fact that transitional species have been found at all is remarkable, and it offers
Solum 14
further support of gradual, evolutionary change” (What Does the Fossil Record Show?).
Carbon Dating: Creationist Perspective
To know the age of something is essential for evolutionary theory to work, but do the
modern methods of dating really provide the dependability and accuracy needed? Many
creationists would say no. Carl Wieland in his article Carbon-14 Dating—Explained in
Everyday Terms outlines this argument. A common dating method for many scientists today is
the carbon dating method. This method uses the half-life of the radioactive element carbon-14
(C14) to determine the age of a substance. It is well known that C14 is produced by radiation
from the sun striking carbon in the earth’s atmosphere and forcing nitrogen particles to form
unstable C14 particles. These particles make up about 0.0000765% of the earth’s atmosphere (or
about 21 pounds total spread out throughout the atmosphere) and its half-life is about 5,730
years. When plants take in carbon dioxide, they also consume small amounts of C14. C14 is
then transferred to animal bodies when plants are consumed or other animals, which eat plants,
are consumed. When the plant or animal dies C14 is no longer being replenished in its body and
the carbon begins to disappear. Carbon dating is the process of determining how much C14 is
left in a dead organism compared to how much should have been present in its body when it was
alive. The significant problem with this dating method is that in order to determine how much
C14 was in an organism when it was alive, scientists must know how much C14 was in the
atmosphere at the time it died. We know that C14 is constantly being produced and destroyed
and this process will continue to grow or shrink until it reaches equilibrium. At this equilibrium
the amount of C14 being produced will equal the amount of C14 being destroyed. Scientists
calculated that it would take 30,000 years for our atmosphere to reach equilibrium, and since the
earth is millions of years old, the equilibrium was reached years ago, but creationist scientists
Solum 15
disagree. They instead point to studies by atmospheric physicist, Richard Lingenfelter, that show
that C14 levels are not in equilibrium, but instead are rising by 30-32% faster than it is decaying.
If the amount of C14 is rising, this means that the amount of it in the atmosphere many years ago
was less that it is today. The implication is that fossils that appear to look older because they
lack C14 are actually much younger, because at the time they were living there was less C14 in
the air. The farther back we look the less C14 there is, which means that fossils that seem to be
very old are not as old as once thought. This seems to point to an earth that is close to the 10,000
year range which the Bible supports.
Carbon Dating: Evolution Perspective
Creationists often argue against evolution by claiming that carbon dating is not reliable,
but this is not true. The article, Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating by Chris
Weber, explains the evolutionary argument. As explained earlier, many point to the fact that C14 in the atmosphere is not in equilibrium, but instead actually rising. Evolutionists counter this
argument by agreeing that C14 is increasing, but it has not been increasing at a consistent rate,
instead it has been fluctuating over the last ten thousand years. This is proven by looking at
bristlecone pine trees, whose one ring per year production is extremely reliable. Experts in treering dating can compare patterns, based on yearly rain fall, in live bristlecone pine trees and then
compare them to older dead trees. By comparing this dating method to the carbon dating
method, scientists have found that before three thousand years ago C14 was actually decaying
faster than it was being formed. This means that many fossils that creationists say are dated too
old, are actually dated too young. Additionally, many creationists say that coal, oil and natural
gas, which evolutionists say have been around for millions of years, still have some measurable
amounts of C14 suggesting that they are actually tens of thousands of years old. The response to
Solum 16
this is that C14 dating does not work well on objects older than twenty thousand years because
they lack so much C14 that the readings are overcome by background radiation. In normal
carbon dating, scientists must compensate for this background radiation, but for older objects
such as coal, and oil, the margin of error is more than the possible C14 still left inside.
Amazingly C14 is not the only dating method that is trustable. There are about thirteen
radioactive isotopes all used for radiometric dating, including C14. In an experiment dating
some ancient rocks in Western Greenland, scientists used twelve of these thirteen dating isotopes
(not C14 because these rocks were supposed to be beyond the twenty thousand year limit). What
came back was that all of the isotopes astonishingly predicted approximately the same age of
around 3.6 billion years (Everest). This evidence proves radiometric dating methods, including
carbon dating, are extremely accurate and prove, contrary to creationist beliefs, that the Earth is
in fact ancient.
Irreducibly Complex Systems: Creationist Perspective
Darwin once said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory
would absolutely break down (Scott, 201). Many creationists say that Darwin’s theory has
broken down with proof of the irreducibly complex system. The classic irreducibly complex
system is the common mousetrap. If the mousetrap lacked any of its parts (a wooden platform,
metal hammer, spring and the release mechanism) the mousetrap would not work. The idea of
an irreducibly complex system is that you cannot simplify the object any further or else it would
fail to work properly. Since evolution and natural selection work a step at a time and has no
foresight then it is technically impossible for evolution to create an irreducibly complex system.
In an organism, if something is irreducibly complex, creationists argue that then that thing could
Solum 17
not have evolved from something else, and therefore must be designed by God. The common
example of an irreducibly complex system in living things is bacteria flagella and the protein
compartment system in cells (Scott, 202). First, the flagellum of a bacterium contains a
“molecular motor” which allows the bacterium to use the flagellum to propel itself forward. In
order for the motor to work, dozens of different proteins and mechanism are necessary. Behe
writes, “In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be
built by the cell” (Scott, 202). Another example is the system in cells which sends proteins to the
correct subcellular compartment (Scott, 202). Inside a cell there is a traffic system of signal
chemicals turning reactions on and off that tell proteins where to go. The cell requires this traffic
system to work in synchrony or else the system fails. Many evolutionists still are baffled at how
these systems could have occurred.
Irreducible Complex Systems: Evolutionary View
A large complaint against evolutionary theory is the idea of irreducibly complex systems,
but recently evolutionary scientists have developed a theory for them. Many people who believe
in evolutionary theory have come to the conclusion that irreducible complexity is “acquired,”
meaning it has evolved and then later becomes irreducibly complex (Scott, 202-203). The
article, How can Evolution Account for the Complexity of Life on Earth Today?, outlines this
argument. It states that there are three important aspects of forming an irreducibly complex
system: exaptation, co-option and redundancy. Let us once again look at bacteria flagella. There
are many types of bacteria, each with similar but not identical flagella. Many of these bacteria
use different parts of the flagella to perform ulterior tasks. Bacteria species of the genus
Buchnera no longer need a flagellum because they now live in aphid cells. Yet, each bacterium
still has the flagellar base. It has been shown that this flagellar base is now being used to
Solum 18
transport proteins and other materials. The process of adapting a structure once used for another
purpose is the process of exaptation. When continuing to look at bacteria flagella, it is found that
a key protein in making the flagellum motor rotate is very similar to another protein which
transports magnesium. This suggests that the magnesium transport protein was “co-opted” or
taken to carry out a secondary function in which it was not originally designed to perform. This
can happen, for example, if a gene is duplicated and they both start creating the same
instructions. One of the instructions may go to its original function while the other is off to
change however it wants. This idea is the principle of co-option and it allows for the additional
parts to join into a seemingly irreducibly complex system. As flagella have been studied more
and more, it has been found that they are actually not irreducibly complex. There is a protein
called an ATPase which causes the flagellum to grow, but it has been found that this ATPase is
not necessary to complete the task. This is the fourth idea, the principle of redundancy. There
are often multiple ways for a cell to do things. When evolution works on an organism, redundant
parts may appear, in which one may form into a new and useful part. Evolutionists argue
irreducibly complex systems are formed by parts that were at one time built for something else,
but have formed with other parts to create something new. Evolutionists conclude that
irreducibly complex systems do not exist and instead we merely do not completely understand all
the complex patterns evolution can conduct nature into.
Probability: Creation Perspective
Related to the irreducibly complex problem is the probability issue. Hoyle, a noted
biochemists states, “as biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of
life, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be
completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by chance” (Scott, 200). There are about 200,000
Solum 19
different proteins. If all the ideal conditions, such as in the Miller-Urey experiment, existed then
the probability of forming just one protein would be 293.5 times the 4.6 billion year evolutionist
estimated age of the earth (Scott, 201). Furthermore, the accidental creation of the 2,000
necessary enzymes for a simple single celled protozoan would be upwards of 1040000 to 1 chance,
or in other words rolling double-sixes 50,000 times in a row (Scott, 201). Creationists argue that
such astronomical probabilities necessitate a God in the creation of life.
Probability: Evolutionary View
The creationist argument of disclaiming evolution because of probability is an argument
that can easily be explained by evolution scientists. Eugenie Scott explains the probability
argument from the evolutionist perspective. The first problem is that the probability calculations
are based on chance, but evolution and biochemistry are not chance. As we defined evolution
above, evolution consists of cumulative or additive changes. This means that the prior system
mechanism determines the next. With chance, it is completely random, and therefore it
overinflates the numbers. Second, the calculations take into account the possibility of molecules
forming together to make only one protein, but there are an innumerable amount of molecules
that encourage life, not just proteins. Scott states that “any calculation of odds must take into
account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life” (203).
Thirdly, the odds assume life is as it is in its present form. We have very little idea to how life
first formed; perhaps the first life was much simpler than what we have today. If this is true then
the probability of particles coming together to form life decreases. Lastly, the current
probabilities did not take into account the fact that there were numerous particles all over the
earth all forming simultaneously. Instead it assumes only one set of particles in a specific area.
Solum 20
For evolutionists all of these factors make the probability of life forming significantly more
manageable.
Biblical Interpretation: Creationist
Creationists also use two major pieces of evidence from the Bible to prove their literal
interpretation is the correct interpretation. First, in the original Hebrew text, the term “Yom”
was used to represent “Day” (Humphrey). Though “Yom” could also mean “daylight” the
Genesis text is much more definite. In Francis Humphrey’s article called The Meaning of Yom in
Genesis 1:1-2:4, he explains that the original Hebrew, the numbering of the days is cardinally
numbered, not ordinal, as usually translated. This means that the days are not stated, in the
original text, the “first” day (ordinal), but instead “one” day (cardinal). The use of the cardinal
form suggests that the “first” day, was actually one normal day. Second, is a contradiction
between the Bible and evolution. Creationists note that when God was done with his creation he
called everything “very good” (NIV, Genesis 1:31). When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil, suffering and death was brought upon them. Creationists argue
that a world with evolution denies the fact that God created the world “very good” because it
requires humans and other organisms to progress evolutionarily through a process of death and
natural selection (Mortenson). If God creates using death, then the blame for suffering transfers
from Adam and Eve to God. This then can push us to question Adam and Eve’s sin against God
and whether or not it is true. If the Adam and Eve story is false, then what was the reason for the
death of Jesus? Evolution, according to creationists, undermines the Fall and Jesus’ sacrifice for
mankind. Creationists then argue that because of these things a literal interpretation of the Bible
is necessary.
Solum 21
Evolutionary Creationism
Evolutionary creationism is the bridge between evolutionary theory and creationist
thought, and ultimately the bridge between science and faith. As Christians we deny the secular
evolutionary story, because it provides the “how” but never addresses the “why.” Creationists on
the other hand explain the “why,” but lack explanation in the “how.” By merging both the
“why” in creationism and the “how” in evolutionary theory, we create a very powerful ideology
that can further our understanding of the world, while also humbling ourselves to God and his
power.
Before further looking at evolutionary creationism, it would be helpful to look at what
Saint Augustine says about science and the Bible. He states,
If they (non-Christians) find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves
know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how
are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the
dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their
pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from
experience and the light of reason? (Everest)
An important attribute of evolutionary creationism is that it accepts that truth can be
found both from God, through the Bible, and by the “light of reason”. Unlike creationists and
secular evolutionists who would argue that these two avenues of truth often contradict,
evolutionary creationists would reply that they instead correspond together to create a fuller
understanding of God’s love and creation. These supposed contradictions arise from
Solum 22
misinterpretation of the Bible, a lack of contextual knowledge and a deficiency of humility to
God’s incomprehensible power and goodness.
Interpretation and Context of the Genesis Account
To misinterpret the Bible and to ignore its context would be to maintain, as Augustine
puts it, a “foolish opinion.” Contrary to what some creationists argue, interpreting Genesis, not
as a literal, historical text does not force us to read the entire Bible as completely figurative.
Instead, we must read the Bible as it was originally meant to be read. Understanding the context
and the way the passage was written is extremely important for understanding the Bible. In the
article, What Factors should be Considered in Determining how to Approach a Passage of
Scripture?, it describes the literary genres in the Bible as, “historical narrative
(e.g., Kings, Acts), dramatic epic (e.g., Job), law (e.g., Deuteronomy), poetry (e.g. Psalms), wise
sayings (e.g., Proverbs), gospel accounts (e.g., Luke), and apocalyptic writings (e.g., Daniel,)” all
of which can be interpreted different ways. Regarding Genesis, many scholars understand the
first chapters as a polemic story, “that contrasts Israel’s God with the polytheistic creation and
flood stories of the ancient Mesopotamian world in which the Hebrews lived” (What Factors
should be Considered in Determining how to Approach a Passage of Scripture?). This can be
seen when the Genesis account uses the term “lights” to refer to the sun and moon. Scholars
believe that this term was used because the Semitic words for “sun” and “moon” were names for
pagan gods. Understanding the intent of the Genesis author(s) shows that a historical and
scientific account was not the goal, but instead it was to revere a single, loving and true God.
In addition to the polemic interpretation, there is a major discrepancy in the two accounts
of creation that requires a shift away from a literal and scientific reading. This discrepancy is
outlined in the article, What Factors should be Considered in Determining how to approach a
Solum 23
Passage of Scripture?. In the first account, man was created after God had created the plants and
animals. In the first account on verse 11 it says, “Then God said, “let the land produce
vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit” (NIV, Genesis 1:11) then on
verse 24 God says, “let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds” (NIV, Genesis
1:24). Humankind is not created until verse 26 when God says, “let us make mankind in our
own image” (NIV, Genesis 1:26). Contrary to this first account, the second creation narrative, in
Genesis chapter two, man was created first and then was followed by the creation of animals and
plants. Genesis 2: 5-7 states, “Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plants had yet
sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth….Then the Lord God formed man
from the dust of the ground.” This clear inconsistency necessitates that the passage was not
written as a historical or scientific account, but instead was to relay an important about man and
his position with God.
Incarnation and the Perspective of the Bible
If the Genesis account cannot be taken literally, then how did humans acquire this
diminished and sinful nature which rebels against God? Denis Lamoureux explains this
predicament in his article Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution. Many
creationists would argue that, if the Bible could not be taken literally, then the inerrancy of the
Bible would be challenged and the question of our sinful nature could not be explained.
Evolutionary creationists agree that there is ancient science that is not scientifically true in the
Bible (i.e. the separation of the waters with the firmament), but they do not see this as a sign of
inerrancy, but instead as a glorious example of God’s willingness to “take on flesh” or to come
down to our level so that we can be lifted up. This is clearly seen with God’s greatest act of
incarnation, Jesus Christ. Lamoureux writes that Jesus, “spoke Aramaic…and He preached
Solum 24
using parables, indicating that He used the ordinary ideas and concepts of the people at the time.”
For example, Jesus refers to the mustard seed as “the smallest of all seeds” in Mark 4:3, even
though there are other seeds that exist that are much smaller, but the disciples did not know of
the existence of these seeds. If Jesus had spoken in a scientifically correct way, Jesus’ disciples
would not have understood the true message that Jesus needed to give. Jesus brought his
knowledge down to the disciple’s level so that they could understand God’s message and become
closer with God. In Genesis, God acts in the same way (and therefore shows his consistency
throughout the Bible) and uses the imperfect scientific knowledge of the day to explain concrete
truths about humankind and God. Furthermore, if we truly consider the incomprehensibility and
infiniteness of God, can we really expect a book written in a finite human language to fully
reveal the scientific explanations of God’s work? If the Bible was truly a scientific account of
creation, then we should not only expect evolutionary theory to be referenced, but also all the
future scientific discoveries regarding the creation of the universe as well as the
incomprehensible acts of God that instigated such creation. Evolution is just the tip of the
iceberg; there is an amazing amount of science and knowledge that is yet to be found, and much
of it will never be discovered. It can only be completely known by the omnipresent and
omnipotent God of the universe. Considering this, saying that Genesis is a scientific account is
not only dangerous because it suggests a very limited scientific theory that is not open to new
scientific research, but is also a dishonor to God. It limits his power to only what human beings
can express in words. Instead his power and glory are much greater than what we can possibly
comprehend. According to evolutionary creationism, Genesis is revealing a God that is willing
to come down to our level of knowledge and use that to bring us closer to him. Therefore,
Solum 25
Genesis may not be a perfect representation of what truly happened, but it is the best explanation
to bring the message of God to humankind and allow us to establish a relationship with him.
Conclusion
The words “Let there be” define both a “why” for creation as well as a “how”.
Creationism, with its incredible conviction of faith to the literal account, understands the “why”
for our creation and for our relationship with God, but because of its faith in the literal,
creationists come to fear new data and research, concerned that it will contradict God and push
him out of existence. Secular evolutionists on the other hand, accept this new data and push the
bounds of science in order to understand our universe more completely. These scientists
understand the “how” but choose to deny or ignore the “why”. It is only through combining
both the “how” and the “why” that we can see the bigger picture of God’s creation and glory.
This combination is found in evolutionary creationism. Evolutionary creationism first accepts
the “why” by accepting the fact that the universe was created by God. It then goes further by
acknowledging that with His divine guidance, He uses evolution as a tool for His will: the
“how.” It is only with evolutionary creationism that science becomes a way of glorifying God.
Job 5:8-9 states, “I would seek God, and to God would I commit my cause, who does great
things and unsearchable, marvelous things without number”. Only through evolutionary
creationism can we both “commit (our) cause(s)” to God as well as pursue knowledge in His
“great things”.
Solum 26
Works Cited
Everest, Michael. Personal interview. 16 Mar. 2014.
Davidson, Gregg, and Ken Wolgemuth. "Christian Geologists on Noah's Flood: Biblical and
Scientific Shortcomings of Flood Geology." The Biologos Foundation Unknown (0): 6.
Biologos.com. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
"Get Answers: Creationism." Creationism. Answers In Genesis, n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/creationism>.
Ham, Ken, and Tim Lovett. "Was There Really a Noah's Ark & Flood?." Answers in Genesis.
Answers in Genesis, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-andark?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AIGDaily
+(Answers+in+Genesis+Daily+Articles)>.
Hennigan, Tom. "An Initial Investigation into the Baraminology of Snakes: Order—Squamata,
Suborder Serpentes." CRSQ Dec 2005 Article. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_3/snake_baramin.htm>.
"How can evolution account for the complexity of life on earth today?." BioLogos.org. N.p., n.d.
Web. 17 Apr. 2014. <http://biologos.org/questions/complexity-of-life>.
"How should we interpret the Genesis flood account?." BioLogos.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr.
2014. <http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood>.
Humphrey, Francis. "The meaning of yôm in Genesis 1:1–2:4." Creation Ministries
International. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. <http://creation.com/the-meaning-of-yomin-genesis-1>.
Morris, John D. . "Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood?." Why
Solum 27
Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood?. Institute for Creation
Science, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. <http://www.icr.org/article/why-does-nearly-everyculture-have-tradition-globa/>.
Mortenson, Terry . "Why Shouldn't Christians Accept Millions of Years?." Answers in Genesis.
N.p., 16 Aug. 2007. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-acceptmillions>.
Parker, Gary. ""Species" and "Kind"." Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis, n.d. Web. 25
Apr. 2014. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/species-kind>.
Pennock, Robert T.. "When Faith and Reason Class: Evolution and the Bible." Intelligent design
creationism and its critics philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001. 113-145. Print.
Sarfati, Jonathan, and Michael Matthews. "Refuting Evolution 2." Creation Ministries
International. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014. <http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2chapter-8-argument-the-fossil-record-supports-evolution>.
Scott, Eugenie Carol. "Patterns and Processes of Biological Evolution." Evolution vs.
creationism: an introduction. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2004. 187-218. Print.
Snelling, Andrew. "High and Dry Sea Creatures Flood Evidence Number 1." Answers in
Genesis. Answers in Genesis, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
<http://www/answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures>.
Snelling, Andrew. "The World's a Graveyard." Answers in Genesis. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr.
2014. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/world-graveyard>.
Snelling, Andrew A. . "Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood." Answers in Genesis.
Solum 28
Answers In Genesis, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one>.
Weber, Chris. "Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE." Answers to
Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
<http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating>.
"What does the fossil record show?." BioLogos.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
<http://biologos.org/questions/fossil-record#reading>.
"What factors should be considered in determining how to approach a passage of scripture?."
BioLogos.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014. <http://biologos.org/questions/interpretingscripture>.
Wieland, Carl. "Carbon-14 dating—explained in everyday terms." Creation Ministries
International. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. <http://creation.com/carbon-14-datingexplained-in-everyday-terms>.
Witcomb, John. "Science "So Called"." Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis, n.d. Web. 17
Apr. 2014. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/science-so-called>.
MLA formatting by BibMe.org.