Apologetics evolution wars

Published on August 22nd, 2011 | by Gary DeMar


Rick Perry Questioned About Evolution and Science

Did you see the video of Rick Perry being questioned about evolution? The Texas governor was responding to a question from a little boy in New Hampshire. The child is not asking on his own account. He was being used as a prop by his mother. You can hear the boy’s mother whispering questions to ask Gov. Perry. The first question was about the age of the Earth: “How old do I think the earth is? You know what? I don’t have any idea. I know it’s pretty old. So it goes back a long, long way. I’m not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how old the earth is.” Perry gave a reasonable answer that is shared by many Bible-believing Christians. I’m sure the mother expected or hoped that he said “six thousand years.”

Not all young earth creationists teach that the Earth is only six thousand years old. For example, on the last page of The Genesis Flood, first published in 1961, there is this admission: “A careful study of the Biblical evidence leads us to the conclusion that the Flood may have occurred as much as three to five thousand years before Abraham.” (Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961), 489. For a contrary view, see Don DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005), 174.))

Perry deserves credit for not ignoring the questions or dismissing them as being irrelevant as something akin to the boxers v. briefs question.

There’s a huge debate among Bible-believing Christian over the age of the Earth. For example, the great 19th-century Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon believed the Earth was millions of years old:

“In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, ‘And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.’ We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be — certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath, and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder.”(1)

There are many modern-day evangelical, Bible-believing scholars who hold to an old-earth position on the age of the earth. Gleason L. Archer (1916–2004), who was a staunch defender of the inspiration and authority of the Bible, held the old-earth position(2) as did Arthur Custance (1910–1985) in his book Without Form and Void. His detailed analysis of the position can be found here. There are many others.

Perry deserves credit for not ignoring the questions or dismissing them as being irrelevant as something akin to the boxers v. briefs question that candidates get these days. Is questioning evolution “anti-Science,” as this boy’s mother intimates? Here’s part of what Perry says:

“I hear your mom was asking about evolution. That’s a theory that is out there — and it’s got some gaps in it.”

Absolutely true, although hard-core materialist evolutionists would deny it. But you don’t have to go very far to know that there are more gaps in the theory of evolution than there are in the Nixon Watergate tapes, and the explanations for them are just as silly.

Let’s consider the gaps in the fossil record. The late Ernst Mayr (1905–2004), one of the 20th century’s leading evolutionary biologists, wrote, “Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting  jumps (saltations [Latin: ‘leap’]) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?”(3)

Evolutionists Niles Eldridge and Ian Tattersall offer the following extended comments on the subject of gaps in the fossil record:

That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, . . . prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search.  . . . [More than] one hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor’s new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.(4)

The biggest gap in the theory of evolution is the one from nothing to something. One of the first lessons a student in biology class learns is that something cannot and does not come from nothing. Spontaneous generation has been disproven so many times that it is no longer seriously considered, unless you’re a die-hard Darwinist and you need to “prove” the theory.

In 2010, the darling of everything materialistic, Stephen W. Hawking argued that the laws of physics allow for the universe to have created itself . . . from nothing. In his latest book, The Grand Design, Hawking states: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” This is science? Laws don’t create anything. It’s like saying that economic laws made Warren Buffett a billionaire. If they did, then why isn’t everybody a billionaire? C. S. Lewis gets to the point when he writes that laws “produce no events: they state the pattern to which every event – if it can be induced to happen – must conform, just as the rules of arithmetic state the pattern to which all transactions with money must conform – if only you can get hold of the money. Bookkeeping, continued to all eternity, could never produce one farthing. . . .  Bookkeeping needs something else (namely, real money put into the account . . . before any income . . . can exist.”(5) It would be like saying that gravity made Paul Anderson the strongest man in the world.(6)

Hawking is speculating, but because he is a noted scientist whose speculations fit what atheists want and need to believe, some people are willing to believe him. “Stephen Hawking said it; I believe him; that settles it.” This is religion not science. A number of scientists are not buying what Hawking is selling, and yet it didn’t stop the Discovery Channel from showcasing Hawking’s new religion. It doesn’t matter if there is any science behind anything Hawking says on the subject, as long as they hear him say, via a voice synthesizer designed and created by someone, “I think Science can explain the Universe without the need for God.” Consider these comments from Ervin Laszlo writing on the very liberal Huffington Post site:

In saying this, Hawking doesn’t speak like a scientist: he speaks like a (speculative) philosopher. . . . To say that [the universe crated itself] spontaneously is not an answer: it’s an excuse for an answer. When Hawking says that the spontaneous self-creation of the universe “out of nothing” is evidence that a creator was not involved, he is not speaking as a scientist. He is not making a scientific statement. His statement is pure theology — of the negative kind typical of atheists.

And yet, Hawking’s assertions are taken seriously as scientific fact while someone who questions the theory of evolution is made out to be anti-science. Following the child’s prompted questions, his mother whispered to him again, “Ask him why he’s anti-science.” If a person has questions about evolution, then he is by definition anti-science. The evolutionists have been spouting this nonsense for decades. They liken it to the denial of the holocaust or a belief in a flat earth. There are thousands of credentialed scientists who question the theory of evolution. You can review the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” list here.

This mother is doing a disservice to her child. She is implying that to question what scientists say is being anti-science. The history of science is the questioning of science. In fact, you’re not being scientific if you are not questioning what scientists claim. For example, Louis Pasteur put to rest the generally accepted theory of spontaneous generation, ironically in 1859, the year Darwin published On the Origin of Species. ((Francesco Redi (1626–1697), an Italian physician, also deserves credit. In his day, it was widely believed that maggots arose spontaneously from rotting meat. Redi believed that maggots developed from eggs laid by flies. To test his hypothesis, he set out meat in flasks. Some were open to the air, some sealed completely, and others covered with gauze. The experiment showed that maggots appeared only in the open flasks because flies had easy access to the meat where they laid their eggs.)) Some scientific assertions are beyond dispute. These laws of nature are “based on an observed regularity.” Some of these observed regularities are the effect of gravity on objects, the sphericity of the Earth (something the church has always believed), and the impossibility of spontaneous creation. But as the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” list shows, there are all kinds of scientists who object to any number of evolutionary assertions because there has never been any observed regularity. In fact, evolution has never been observed!

Jon Huntsman, a former Utah governor who is also seeking the GOP presidential nomination, responded to Perry’s comments on Twitter: “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.” Ok, Jon, I will. “You’re crazy.”


  1. Charles Spurgeon, “The Power of the Holy Ghost,” The New Park Street Pulpit, 1:230. No. 30 preached on June 17, 1855 on Romans 5:13. The online version can be found at http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols1-3/chs30.pdf).()
  2. Gleason L. Archer, The New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001).()
  3. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 14.()
  4. Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), 45–46.()
  5. C. S. Lewis, Miracles (London: Fontana, 1974), 63, 90–91. Quoted in John C. Lennox, God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway? (Oxford, England: Lion Hudson, 2011), 42–43.()
  6. In 1956 Paul Anderson won an Olympic gold medal in weightlifting in the heavyweight division. Based on his back lift of 6,270 pounds in 1957, the Guinness Book of World Records credited him with lifting the most weight ever lifted by a human being.()
Print Friendly

About the Author

Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. He is the author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, His most recent book is Exposing the Real Last Days Scoffers. Gary lives in Marietta, Georgia, with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and four grandchildren, Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).

40 Responses to Rick Perry Questioned About Evolution and Science

  1. Rev. Tony Guasco says:

    Hi Dr Gary one quick and easy question, is there evidence that Nero’s persecution was empire wide? The reason I ask is because I haven’t found any info to support that. I’m in a life long quest to understand all positions about eschatology, not to accept but to understand. I was raised pretrib, I have studied post mill and like a lot in it, now I’m reading post trib George eldon Ladd stuff. Is the empire wide persecution vital for the reconstructionist position? Sorry that was more than 1 question.

  2. Matthew says:

    RLG, in your view, what does preterism have to do with old v young earth?

    • RLG says:

      That is a good question. Sorry for the delayed response, but here is my answer.

      Preterism teaches that the end of the Bible is covenantal in nature. I believe the beginning of the Bible should match the end in nature. So if the end is covenantal, then the beginning is also covenantal. Futurist are consistent when they say that creation is physical/literal and eschatology is also physical/literal. Some preterist are inconsistent seeing the beginning as physical/literal, but then saying that the end is covenantal/spiritual. I believe that the creation and consumation are both covenantal/spiritual, not physical/literal. I see the Bible as a covenantal book from beginning to end. The beginning and the end must match.

      It is wrong to read Genesis from a modern-day Western culture, Greek scientific viewpoint. These are ancient writings and should be read from a Hebrew covenantal point of view. I cannot recommend enough the book Beyond Creation Science by Tim Martin and Jeff Vaughn.

  3. RLG says:

    I used to be a Young Earth Creationist, but in light of the truth of Preterism I now believe the Earth is billions of years old. The scientific evidence suggest a very old universe. God is the author of science. The problem with Christians’ understanding of the creation account in Genesis is due to the fact that they try to read The Bible from a Western, Greek, scientific viewpoint. The Bible needs to be read from an Ancient Near East, Hebrew, covenantal point of view. The Bible is a covenantal book, not a science book.

    For those Christians who are serious about the creation debate I recommend the following:

    Beyond Creation Science by Tim Martin and Jeff Vaughn
    A New Look at and Old Earth by Don Stoner
    Noah’s Flood, Joshua’s Long Day, and Lucifer’s Fall by Ralph Woodrow

    Problems With Taking The Creation Account Literally are:

    * The sun and moon were created on the fourth day, so how do you have evening and morning before the sun and moon are created?

    * How do you have light on the first through third day before the sun was created?

    * Why does day 7 have no evening and morning?

    * Hebrews 4:4ff associates God’s day of rest with resting in Christ’s salvation

    * “Day” in Genesis 2:4 is not literal but is the same word “yom” in Hebrew as in Genesis 1. The entire creation week is compared to one day in Genesis 2:4.

    Genesis 2:4 (King James Version)

    4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

    * Genesis 2:4 says the creation of the heavens and earth involved “generations” plural, not a literal 7-day week.

    * Literalism pits Genesis 1 and 2 against each other. The order of creation is opposite in these two chapters. In Genesis 2 the order of creation is man, garden, animals.

    * Both Adam and Eve were created on Day 6 in Genesis 1:27. But according to Genesis 2, many things took place between the creation of Adam and Eve. All of these things took place in one literal 24-hour day?

    * What about the problem of incest? If Adam and Eve were the first literal people, their offspring had to mate with each other.

    * Where did Cain get his wife in Genesis 4:17? Was she Adam’s daughter? If she was, would Adam let Cain marry his daughter (Cain’s sister) after Cain had killed Adam’s son Abel?

    * In Genesis 4:17 Cain was building a city. Where did all the people come from to inhabit a city?

    The creation account is probably written in Hebrew poetry. It is a type of apocalyptic writing. This is evidenced by the fact that the creation account repeats itself.

    The phrase “Evening and Morning” in Genesis 1 is not to be taken as a literal 24-hour day. It is used much like we would say the store is open day and night. We mean the store is always open. The words “evening” and “morning” are used throughout the Old Testament where they clearly do not mean a limited 24-hour day, but are instead used to denote an undefined period of time. Here are some examples:

    Exodus 18:13 (New King James Version)

    13 And so it was, on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening.

    Exodus 27:21 (New King James Version)

    21 In the tabernacle of meeting, outside the veil which is before the Testimony, Aaron and his sons shall tend it from evening until morning before the LORD. It shall be a statute forever to their generations on behalf of the children of Israel.

    Leviticus 24:3 (New King James Version)

    3 Outside the veil of the Testimony, in the tabernacle of meeting, Aaron shall be in charge of it from evening until morning before the LORD continually; it shall be a statute forever in your generations.

    Job 4:20 (New King James Version)

    20 They are broken in pieces from morning till evening; They perish forever, with no one regarding.

    1 Samuel 17:16 (New King James Version)

    16 And the Philistine drew near and presented himself forty days, morning and evening.

    1 Chronicles 16:40 (New King James Version)

    40 to offer burnt offerings to the LORD on the altar of burnt offering regularly morning and evening, and to do according to all that is written in the Law of the LORD which He commanded Israel;

    2 Chronicles 2:4 (New King James Version)

    4 Behold, I am building a temple for the name of the LORD my God, to dedicate it to Him, to burn before Him sweet incense, for the continual showbread, for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Sabbaths, on the New Moons, and on the set feasts of the LORD our God. This is an ordinance forever to Israel.

    2 Chronicles 31:3 (New King James Version)

    3 The king also appointed a portion of his possessions for the burnt offerings: for the morning and evening burnt offerings, the burnt offerings for the Sabbaths and the New Moons and the set feasts, as it is written in the Law of the LORD.

    Ezra 3:3 (New King James Version)

    3 Though fear had come upon them because of the people of those countries, they set the altar on its bases; and they offered burnt offerings on it to the LORD, both the morning and evening burnt offerings.

    Psalm 55:17 (New King James Version)

    17 Evening and morning and at noon I will pray, and cry aloud, And He shall hear my voice.

    Daniel 8:14 (Young’s Literal Translation)

    14And he saith unto me, Till evening — morning two thousand and three hundred, then is the holy place declared right.

    Daniel 8:26 (New King James Version)

    26 “ And the vision of the evenings and mornings Which was told is true; Therefore seal up the vision, For it refers to many days in the future.”

    Also, the word “day” in The Bible does not necessarily mean a 24-hour period.For example, “the day of the Lord” is not referring to a 24-hour day.

    Noah’s Flood Was Local, Not Global.

    * The local flood view is not new.
    * Josephus believed Noah’s flood was local.
    * Ancient people did not think of the world the way modern people do. To them, “world” and “earth” meant the known world.
    * Noah’s flood was a covenant judgment against the line of Seth, not a judgment against the whole world.
    * Nephilim were separate from Noah’s family and they lived before and after Noah’s flood.(Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33). Therefore flood was not global.
    * The division of labor existed before and after Noah’s flood (Gen 4:19-22). Noah’s family alone could not have maintained the division of labor.
    * The water in Noah’s flood only rose about 20-30 feet (Gen 7:20).
    * The olive tree would have been destroyed in a global flood (Gen 8:11).
    * Genesis 8:13-14 says, “earth was dried.” Did all the oceans dry up? Or does “earth” refer to local land?
    * Tigris and Euphrates rivers would have been destroyed by a global flood.
    * Noah’s ark landed in the same area as when the flood began.
    * How could a global flood place fossils neatly in a geological column?
    * There is no way Noah could have taken all the animals (2 of each) into one ark. The amount of food to feed two elephants for that long would fill many arks.
    * 95% of all animals that have ever lived are now extinct. Why would God tell Noah to save all these animals only to have them go extinct?
    * Global flood advocates assume many miracles, but also want to use science to explain the flood and fossil record.
    * Global flood advocates would have to believe in evolution more than Darwin did. They would have to believe in hyper-evolution. Before the flood, according to global flood advocates, there was no desert or ice caps. Where did the specially adapted animals like penguins and polar bears come from? Why would they exist before the flood if there were no ice caps? After the flood, penguins would have to migrate down through Africa to Antarctica which did not even exist before the flood according to global flood advocates. There are simply too many animals with specific adaptations to their specific environment for a global flood to be true.
    * The Tower of Babel was built around the time of Peleg about 101 years after Noah’s flood. If the flood was global and the Tower of Babel was global, where did all the people come from in only 101 years?
    * Nimrod was Noah’s great grandson and was involved in building the Tower of Babel. Nimrod built 8 cities after the Tower of Babel was destroyed. Where did all the people to build these cities come from if there had been a global flood? Did they all speak different languages?
    * The Septuagint says that Methuselah died 17-18 years after the flood, disproving a global flood.
    * The seemingly global language of the flood account in Genesis is not global at all, but local. “Erets” is the Hebrew word for “earth.” It does not denote the whole physical world. “Erets is translated as “land” over 1000 times in the Old Testament. (Gen 12:1; Ezra 1:2; Hab 1:6; Jer 47:2; Isa 24:1-2)
    * The phrase “face of the earth” is local, not global. (Gen 4:14; 41:56; Exo 10:4-5,15; Num 22:5; Ezek 34:6; Dan 8:5; Zeph 1:2-3, 18; Luke 21:35).
    * The phrase “under heaven” is not global.(Duet 2:25; Acts 2:5; Col 1:23)

  4. Roger Oliver says:

    The thing that struck me was a mother teaching her child an atheistic dogma from the cradle. What a contrast to what I happened to read in another article by Marvin Olasky. Quote:

    “Pastor John Piper and others have told the story of 19th-century evangelist D.L. Moody visiting Scotland and opening his talk at a local grade school by asking rhetorically, “What is prayer?” To his amazement, hundreds of children’s hands went up.

    Moody called on a boy near the front, who promptly stood up and answered, “Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God, in the name of Christ, by the help of His Spirit, with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of His mercies.” Moody, recognizing that as the answer to question No. 78 in the Westminster Catechism, responded, “Be thankful, son, that you were born in Scotland.”

    Should our children be thankful that they were born in America?”

  5. Alex Alexander says:

    Two great articles for the price of one!
    Thanks Gary AND Michael (Earl Riemer).
    Alex A

  6. mlb says:

    Psalams 118:8

  7. Chanda says:

    Get a grip. Evolution is not a theory. its a fact.

    • Matthew says:


    • Len says:

      I might be tempted to believe evolution if you can explain how sometning which didn’t exist was able to create itself out of nothing.

      • Matthew says:

        Mother Earth and Father Time used their magic wands to turn frogs into princes, but only after they got married and had Baby New Year.

        • Jim says:

          I’m replying here since the other thread is unreadable now.
          1. The difference is in the ability to predict various geological phenomena that enable, for example, oil companies to spend the least amount of time and money exploring for oil deposits. I’ve read several pieces by geologists in the energy industry where they started out as YEC’s but what they saw in their work became so incongruous with what they believed about geology that it produced a serious crisis of faith. They actually became very schitzophrenic in this area. When they were at church, Flood geology helped support their YEC. When they went to work, they had to adopt conventional geology so they could do their job.
          2. The article is interesting, but I don’t see anything in it that would warrant abandoning an OE view. First, the variation talked about is very slight. Nowhere near the change necessary to get uranium to go from a 3.5 billion year halflife to 6,000 year halflife. Second, again, such a drastic change would result in such dramatic increases in heat that the entire earth would be molten, and if it happened during, say, the Flood, it would vaporize the oceans. The Bible is clear that this did not occur. Third, I agree that it is a good reminder that we need to be careful about how absolute we are in our statements, but no one in the scientific community beyond a few cranks like Dawkins would make such statements, and even he, if pressed, would qualify them. So the article, while interesting, doesn’t seem to challenge modern geology in a way that creates an opening for YEC.

    • Michael Earl Riemer says:

      In the following article, along with its’ appendix, there are no “man of straw” arguments used. This article exposes the core, and lays bare the very bedrock of the faith that evolutionists rest upon. There is not an argument of, no substance, advanced in order to confuse or twist the so-called facts cultivated by the evolutionist. The teachings of the faithful, the evolutionists, have not been distorted, deformed, misapplied or misrepresented. The musings of those who espouse evolution have been portrayed accurately, howbeit, in a simplified form so that a person of normal intelligence or even a Harvard educated evolutionary professor could understand.
      In most government schools, the following could well be an actual exchange between an intelligent and well informed eighth grade student and their somewhat dippy biology teacher.



      Michael Earl Riemer

      August 2000; Latest revision 8/16/11

      “Oh teacher, could you deal with some questions I have concerning the origins of life?”
      “Yes, what are your questions?”
      “How old is the universe and the earth, and where did life come from?”
      “Student, since you asked, I am going to answer your questions about the age of the universe, the earth and where you came from. Let’s start with our great, great, great, great, great grandparents; we’ll call them Mr. and Mrs. Rock.”
      “Teacher, are these people?”
      “No student, they are rocks, just like granite and quartz.”
      “Yes student, very intelligent rocks.”
      “Intelligent rocks?”
      “Well, not really intelligent rocks, but rocks that must have contained information the first living thing used to make itself a long time ago when life first began.”
      “Teacher, where did this information the rocks had come from and how was it able to organize itself into something alive?
      “They don’t know.”
      “Teacher, is this science?”
      “Well, no, but evolutionists like to call their faith science when it’s really a religion.1 Their religion teaches that all things came into existence without the help of God. It’s about a faith that teaches everything made itself. It’s the religious belief held by evolutionists of the supposed history of the earth; a story dealing with the evolutionist’s blind faith and belief in the past of things which can not be tested, can not be measured, can not be experimented on, can not be repeated, and have never been seen or observed.” Without the ability to test whether a hypothesis 2 is true or false, and which can neither be confirmed nor falsified, evolution cannot be considered scientific, but is faith in things not seen.”
      “The belief in evolution actually violates at least two immutable laws of biology. One is the law of biogenesis, “life only comes from life” and the other is “like always gives rise to like.” For it is obviously true that life always comes from other life not inorganic matter, and that ducks always give birth to ducks, penguins give birth to baby penguins, lions always give rise to other lions and humans always have babies that are human.”
      “Of course, evolutionists have to believe, and have faith that the laws of science were different when life started and that the first living things could do, what science has shown that they cannot do today, or their story would only be a fairy tail.”
      “Well, lets continue…water ran off these rocks into a primordial sea, and some of the information, that evolutionists haven’t a clue as to where it could have come from, like DNA, must have come off of the rocks, or maybe from somewhere else, because somehow, someway, once upon a time, life, maybe scum or a one-celled animal used the information that washed off of the rocks, to organize, program and design itself into a living cell; which is something more infinitely complicated and complex then any computer or man-made marvel, and it became alive.”
      “Really! How?”
      “Yes, there was probably lightning, and it hit the primordial soup and presto, life!”
      “But don’t living things die when they are hit by lightning today?”
      “Well, yes, most of the time.”
      “So teacher, how could it cause life way back then?”
      “I don’t know, but evolutionists somehow know these things and they have faith in their beliefs.”
      “But teacher, is that what we see today, life forming itself out of inorganic matter such as dirt or rocks?”
      “Well no, but evolutionists assure us that spontaneous generation 3 did happen, once upon a time.”
      “But teacher, isn’t the belief in spontaneous generation a belief that science abandoned many years ago after it was disproved by Francesco Redi in 1688, by Lazzaro Spallanzani in 1780, and by Louis Pasteur in 1860?”
      “Well, ah, yes. But now getting back to the rocks …lets talk about where the intelligence and “magic rocks” came from. The most current and popular conjured-up story, is, it came from an explosion.”
      “What blew up teacher?”
      “Well, evolutionists don’t know what it was, how it got there, where it came from, how long it was there, why it exploded, what it was made of, and how all of the matter in the known universe could have compressed itself into a tiny speck the size of an atom, but evolutionists have faith that it was that minuscule particle of matter that exploded, or as they try to explain it, “expanded like cake in an oven,” a sort of slow motion explosion, and somehow created everything in the known universe.”
      “But an explosion?”
      “Yes student, evolutionists try to explain the origin of the universe with what they call the Big Bang. However, their account really does not explain or address the cause for the universe. We know that everything which has a beginning has a cause. Evolutionists believe that the universe had a beginning; therefore the universe has a cause. And what caused the Big Bang, they haven’t a clue.”
      “Ok, so the Big Bang doesn’t answer the question of where the universe came from, for it doesn’t address the cause of the Big Bang. But I’m still puzzled about their belief; for don’t explosions just break and destroy things and turn organized structures into chaos and debris?”
      “Yes, that is what we see and observe. But student, this was a special one time event.”
      “Oh. So when and where did this happen, and how long ago?”
      “Well, in a galaxy far far away, a long, long, long time ago, maybe a billion, or 2 billion or 100 billion or maybe, ah…well, I don’t think they know for they keep rewriting their story. Then, after the explosion, the disorganized pieces of rock and matter somehow organized itself into stars, galaxies, solar systems, and planets with all of their precise movements and orbits.”
      “Well teacher, after our solar system and our planet somehow made themselves, what did earth’s first life look like?”
      “They don’t know.”
      “How long before it evolved into something else?”
      “They don’t know.”
      “What did it eat?”
      “They don’t know.”
      “What do they know for sure?”
      “They don’t know.”
      “Oh. How long before frogs evolved?”
      “Millions of years.”
      “What did they eat and did flies evolve at the same time?”
      “They don’t know.”
      “Teacher, how did chickens evolve? For you can’t get a chicken without an egg and you can’t get an egg without a chicken?”
      “I told you, they don’t know what they know.”
      “Teacher, what does any of this have to do with science?”
      “Nothing, as I told you before; it’s a religious belief, not science. Evolutionists walk by faith, not evidence. Well student, I hope I have answered your questions on how life started and where you came from.”
      “You didn’t teacher, but thank you for helping me to understand the religion which evolutionists believe and put their faith and trust in.” 4

      1. Religion – 7 a: a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and faith: a value held to be of supreme importance…and by practicing as well as preaching its doctrines. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary and Seven Language Dictionary

      2. Hypothesis – 1: a proposition tentatively assumed in order to draw out its logical or empirical consequences and so test its accord with facts that are known or may be determined… of such a nature as to be either proved or disproved by comparison with observed facts… Webster’s Third New International Dictionary and Seven Language Dictionary

      3. Spontaneous generation – “People once believed that new generations of living things arose from nonliving matter. For example, snakes were believed to arise from horsehairs and flies from decaying meat. This false idea about the production of living things was called spontaneous generation,” The Truth God or Evolution? Marshall and Sandra Hall 1974 p.17

      4. Michael Ruse is a leading evolutionist who recently published a book titled, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, which deals with the “struggle for existence” between two rival religious systems. In its prologue, he states:

      “In particular, I argue that in both evolution and creation we have rival religious responses to a crisis of faith—rival stories of origins, rival judgments about the meaning of human life, rival sets of moral dictates, and above all what theologians call rival eschatologies—pictures of the future and of what lies ahead for humankind.” Michael Ruse, The Evolution-Creation Struggle (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 327 pp.
      Addendum to: ORIGINS AND THE TEACHER

      In the short article above I have tried to address all of the major dogmas of evolution and questions that people may run into when this subject is brought up. However, I was not able to deal with one of the major flaws and the deceitful ways this religion is taught without making the article far too long. Below is an expose of this underhanded and dishonest way evolution is taught, and the way it gets used over and over to “prove” the validity of their story; so I felt it needed to be dealt with.

      Most people confuse two concepts or meanings when they discuss the Theory of Evolution. Evolutionists are masters at confusing the issue (which I believe is done purposely to deceive the public) and mixing the terms evolve and evolution, which mean two different things. To confuse the ignorant, evolutionists use two words, microevolution and macroevolution which they intermingle when they discuss the subject. Microevolution (evolve) are the horizontal changes that can take place within an animal or plant kind, changes such as bacteria becoming resistant to drugs, variations in size, color, or shape. Organisms do change (evolve). It can also be the loss of abilities or features such as wings or eyes, as in blind cave fish or flightless birds. Macroevolution (evolution) is a vertical change. Such as a fish turning into an amphibian, an amphibian changing into a mammal, or an ape-like creature transforming itself into Albert Einstein without the magic, of a beautiful princess kissing a slimy amphibian.

      Many people think that when bacteria become resistant to drugs, that is evolution. You could properly say bacteria evolve, for the word evolve simply means to unfold, develop gradually. When outside pressures, such as when drugs are introduced, bacteria do unfold, they produce another variety, which will adapt to its surroundings, but when that happens, evolution has not occurred. For no increase in information or complexity has taken place within its genetic makeup. After bacteria become resistant to drugs, they are still bacteria. If the bacteria mutated into frogs or mice, that would be evolution (macroevolution), for evolution is a vertical change from one kind of creature into some other kind of living thing. Evolutionists believe that the horizontal changes and variations we see in animals (microevolution) can lead to the upward vertical change (macroevolution) in organisms.

      Hopefully, by examining a few things scientists have actually tested and observed in the natural world, this addendum will show the difference between the meaning of the words evolve and evolution; so that when these issues come up, it will be clear that one (evolve), does not lead to the other (evolution). We know that things do evolve (microevolution), for changes and adoptions have been seen and observed. However, those observed changes do not, nor can they ever lead to the vertical changes macroevolution (evolution) requires. Those (microevolution/evolve) changes always lead; at best to stagnation, and at worst to degeneration and devolution (devolve).

      In the Philippines, in March of 2010, the National Geographic presented a television program about the mighty Congo River in western Africa. I could do little, as I watched this program, but to yell at the screen and mutter under my breath, idiots, morons, you are so blind…whenever they talked about evolution, millions of years and all the new “species” of life that are supposedly coming into existence. I know, I could have changed the channel or turned the TV off; but I have always loved watching the kind of programs that deal with God’s creation. So I sat there and watched the presentation, but I had to sift through their piffle before I could learn more about this indomitable river.

      The Congo is a river with such violent currents that the fish cannot move about freely. Because of this, populations of fish become trapped by the strong currents, which form wall-like barriers and become isolated from each other. Because the fish are now isolated and cannot interbreed with others of its kind, they now breed only within the small gene pool of its kind. What happens, because there is no longer any mixing of the larger population, the isolated varieties tend to become more specialized, less robust, and less diverse, for there tends to be a loss of genetic information within the separate population of fish. Now, because each new variety of fish has less genetic information available and is more specialized in relationship to its surroundings, it is less likely to be able to survive other changes within its environment.

      There were a number of evolutionary biologists on the program who called the Congo River a “species pump,” for it seems, because of the depths of the river (deepest river in the world with measured depths in excess of 750 feet), 1 and peculiarities of the currents in the water, which tends to isolate fish, a myriad of new “species” are now found in the river. They believe that all these new varieties (“species”) of fish show evolution in action. While it is true that the currents in the river seem to cause the isolated populations of fish to “evolve” into different “species;” however, this process is not evolution, it is just the opposite. The process of transformation (loss of genetic information) that the fish in the river have undergone is a downward spiral of life called degeneration or devolution.

      There are now many, of what the evolutionists call new “species” of fish living in the river. But let’s take a look at what has really transpired. Each so-called “new species” of fish now living in the Congo is not a different kind of creature. They were fish before they “changed” and they are still fish after their “transformation.” They have not begun to change into something else like frogs, alligators, snails or apple pie. There are now more varieties of specialized fish, each which has adapted to their specific environment. However, each new variety of fish has lost genetic information, not gained new information. For something to truly evolve (Macroevolution), for it to change into a different kind of animal requires that new genetic information, material or “programming” be acquired that its parents or other ancestors didn’t already have. For example, for a wingless reptile to grow feathers and wings would require that somehow, from somewhere, information and programming would need to be acquired, and then somehow placed within the genes and DNA. If the information does not reside in the creature, it will never be able to produce any new (new to itself) features such as a wing, hair, horns, fingers or an evolutionist’s brain (which may, or may not be, an advantage to an evolving creature).

      Devolution (the only verifiable natural process that scientists have ever seen) is the process where different kinds of creatures lose genetic information when different varieties are produced. It is the gradual change and deterioration into a less viable type. It could also be called breeding. An example of devolution is all the varieties of dogs. Breeders have been able to produce a plethora of varieties and characteristics in this animal; in temperament, in size, shape, color, and various adaptations. However, most of the varieties of dogs have hereditary defects or traits that make most breeds unlikely to be able to survive on their own in the wild.

      Populations with low genetic variation are more vulnerable to changing environmental conditions than are diverse populations, and loss of genetic variation can lead to disaster – extinction. Genetically lacking organisms increase the risk of “losing it all” when environmental variables change: for example, if rainfall levels drop or a new disease or pest is introduced. In other words, whether its nature that produces new varieties of fish as in the Congo River, or man that uses the selective breeding process for plants or animals, the net result is the same, the new variety will be less robust, less viral, and less hardy due to it’s lack of genetic diversity, making it less likely to survive in the wild.

      An animal “kind,” as used by Scripture is not, what the modern taxidermists would classify as a species. There are eight varieties (species) of bears, such as the American Black Bear, Brown Bear (Kodiak, Grizzly, Mexican Silver Grizzly-now extinct), Polar Bear, Panda Bear, Asiatic Black Bear (Moon), Sloth Bear, Spectacled Bear, and the Sun Bear (Malayan, Honey). However, whether you want to call each variety of bear a different species; and even though scientists may call them different species, and subspecies, each named bear belongs, as the Scripture puts it, to a single kind of animal, the bear kind. Though bears may change and adapt, any new variety will still be a bear and part of the bear kind, they will never adapt and change into a muskrat or other kind of beast.

      A few of these bears, such as the Panda and Polar bear, are in danger of becoming extinct, and all the reasons for their dwindling populations cannot be laid at mans feet. Pandas have become very specialized and adapted to their habitat. Pandas have lost genetic information due too its adaptation of subsisting on little else but bamboo. If all of the bamboo were to suddenly die off, there is a good chance, because of its reliance on the bamboo plant, and lack of its original genetic diversity, that the Panda would also cease to exist. This has almost happened in the past, when, for whatever reasons, large portions of the bamboo grass died off, and the Panda variety of bear was in real danger of “biting the dust.” The Panda is an example of the downward spiral and devolution of life that occurs when organisms lose genetic diversity and information and split into many different “species.”

      Evolution is the process where creatures produce more complex adaptations and abilities that were not already present within its genes or DNA. This upward vertical process (macroevolution) is not happening in the Congo River, nor anywhere else on earth. Nor can it happen, for there is no process or way to produce information out of thin air. And if by some chance that could happen, there is no process that is available that could transform that raw data into a useful program so that the organism would be able to use it for its needs.

      The ability of bacteria to become resistant to drugs is a trait that is inherent in the organism before the drug is introduced. An increase in information and genetic diversity in an organism has never been observed in nature. Bacteria and all living organisms are pre-programmed (by God) and designed to change and adapt (within their predetermined limits) to the environment. When bacteria becomes resistant to drugs, no new genetic information is ever added to the bacteria, which would be needed to change that organism into something other then it originally was. Bacteria simply respond to drugs by using information that is already in their DNA. Geneticists know first hand that there is just so much variability in any animal or plant and when pressed beyond that limit by nature or by man it dies or becomes sterile; thereby making macroevolution impossible.

      Tests have been conducted trying to change (evolve) a living creature into some other kind of animal. Experiments have been observed, measured, tested and repeated. Scientific tests have shown that evolution cannot happen.

      “*Tens of thousands of hours had been spent trying to change the fruit fly Drosophila Melanogaster into something else. In the early 1900’s, geneticists, T.H. Morgan, Bridges, Sturtevant and Muller devised experiments to do just that. First they x-rayed the poor things to produce mutations (the backbone of evolution). They were able to change the eye color from pink to white to red and back again. They were able to change the wings, and they were able to increase and decrease the number of bristles on its body. However, two things always happened, either the mutant flies died over a period of generations or they came back to their original normal conditions. It could not be changed!” *Adapted from book by Marshall and Sandra Hall, The Truth God or Evolution?

      Microevolution is a “dead end” kind of change, for it starts with a specific kind of organism, it can produce various sizes, colors and adaptations in that living thing, but it ends with the same kind of organism, only now it has different adaptations, but with less genetic information and diversity. It is a change that leads nowhere, but to variations within the kind. Microevolution (evolve) is a change, but not the kind of change that leads to a different or new kind of creature. This process (microevolution) has been seen, tested and observed by scientists. And as science has shown, and has observed over and over, this process (microevolution), never leads to new kinds, nor can it slowly transform (macroevolution) an organism into a different kind of critter.

      Just imagine how beneficial and wonderful it would be, if your computer could produce useful information and programs out of thin air with no help or outside influence. Just think…functional programs without a programmer or without a technician to help guide the process. Just ponder…advantageous programs without any input, assistance, or contribution from you or anyone else. Just imagine…sitting down at your computer one day, and finding out, that now on your computer there is an amazingly complex new program with tons of valuable information that is just tailored to fit your needs and wants. Now, let’s just pretend, let’s just fantasize, and just imagine…a rock…that over a long, long, long, l o o o o ng period of time, acquires information out of thin air, which it then uses to program itself, so that it can convert itself into flesh and blood living organisms, which, after a long time transform themselves into your father and mother….

      As stated before, the belief in evolution is based upon things not seen. The belief in evolution is based on wistful thinking. The Theory of Evolution is a pagan myth composed of sheer nonsense. It is a religion based on faith. It is not founded on observation and is unsupported by any known facts. It is a belief about the past, and it is a faith which holds tenets that actually violate many of the known laws of biology and science. It eats away at the very core and foundation of our Christian faith; therefore, it must be rejected and exposed for the fraud and deception that it really is.

      1. According to ChaCha.com, a question answering service; in response to the question: What is the depth of the deepest part of the Congo River? Its answer was 2,457 feet!

      Michael Earl Riemer

    • Roger Oliver says:

      I understand the insult but not your argument. Because you say so does not make it true. If you can do it, I guess I can too: Evolution is a dogma, a religion, not science. Get a grip.

  8. Cromwell says:

    This issue is purposefully confused by the left to brand conservatives as “Anti-Science” which does turn off some Independent voters and fires up the base turnout for the ‘scientific’ wing of Dem voters.

    Micro-Evolution(Adaptation) is science and has been observed. Its Macro-evolution, Darwin’s “orgin of species” crackpot theory that is not science. A key distinction to be made.

    I would answer the question along those lines, without the ‘crackpot theory’ rhetoric of course.

  9. Julie says:

    After God made Adam & Eve He said it (creation) was very good. If evolution were true and in fact there had already been millions/billions of years of animals devouring one another and dying then how could God call it ‘very good’? Death did not come about until after sin entered the world.
    The biggest problem with evolution in the church is that it leads Christians down the slippery slope of choosing which parts of the bible are truly God’s word and thus to be believed and which are just ‘obviously stories’ because they don’t line up with secular science (which, we keep finding, changes over the years as scientists learn new things – and interestingly enough true science always confirms God’s Word – not the other way around).

  10. Frank Boaz says:

    In the final quote attributed to Jon Huntsman, it’s apparent where his beliefs lie. Then again, to believe the Mormon mythology, with its unmatched archaeological holes, it fits well with his theology. Clearly, the greatest danger, is the claim that it is Christian at all. One has to entitle themself to a special dictionary that redefines commonly accepted theological terms to “see” what Mormons believe, as it is NOT what many think it is. Hence, Huntsman’s belief in evolution is not surprising at all.

  11. aCultureWarrior says:

    Great article as usual Gary. Regarding Huntsman’s quote: What do you expect from an Obama appointee?

  12. R Jaynes says:

    One more comment to follow on about man is finite and God is infinite…

    I read Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” and did not understand very much of it. But, in one example of something he was trying to describe (something about time being the fourth dimension as it related to our three dimensional world – or maybe he was talking about a fifth dimension – I don’t remember and it doesn’t matter) he said something to the effect – “Now, I don’t know what this would look like but…blah,blah,blah,blah.”

    Isn’t that remarkable? He was trying to describe the indescribable and admitted he had no idea what it would look like because it is beyond our experience and capabilities. We are limited by time and space but God is not. How can we who have such limits have any idea the enormous, the gigantic, the incomprehensible, the limitless powers of God who is outside of time and space?

    Think about it.

    • Hopeful in Atlanta says:

      You are so right…how CAN we human beings…..so very limited in every way….EVER understand, or explain, or define, or decode our great Creator?
      He designed even this…for if we can ever understand, etc.. Him….then we become His equal.

      I watched the program where Stephen Hawking TRIED so scientifically to explain away God. The more he tried the more pathetic he looked and sounded. On judgement day I would not want to be him. “The fool has said in heart, there is no God”. Psalms 14:1.
      However, maybe his old, tired mind just imploded on itself…or became a black hole….ever shrinking till one day it will just explode and lots of truth will fly out every where in all directions as he said happened at the beginning of our universe. His neuron are misfiring!

  13. Chris King says:

    Was somewhat disappointed in the first portion of this article. What difference does it make if “some” Christians believe in an “old earth”. Usually the excuse for believing in an old earth is either out of blind acceptance of the evolutionary story with no willingness to understand how they arrive at these “billions” of years or a desire to somehow “harmonize” God’s word with what the evolutionist insist must be true. There is no magic machine that can date the age of the earth.

    I do believe the earth is in fact very very old in fact it may be as much as 8,000 years old. To try an squeeze millions and billions of years of death and suffering into the first few chapters of Genesis makes nonsense of the Bible.

    If you don’t believe it then just say you don’t believe the first few chapters of Genesis but don’t try to conflate the worldview of billions of years with word of God.

    • R Jaynes says:


      Two comments -

      The Bible in no way tells us how old is the earth and I’m not sure it is relevant; I’d have to think about it some more. I suppose the age of the earth could be inferred by writings in the Bible but in order to do that I think one would also have to infer the inferred. And, the Bible is in no way meant as a science book so one should be very careful to try to come up with scientific answers to questions that are spiritual.

      Also, if the quote from Spurgeon is accurate – and I’m assuming it is – then you are in pretty good company of people with minds such as his.

      • Chris King says:

        i believe that it is relevant what the book of Genesis says regarding the creation of all things. If the evolutionists are correct in their belief system than the Bible is wrong. Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive religious worldviews. Sadly, Christians believe evolutionary dogma is “science” and that belief in the plain text of Genesis is “religion” this absolutely incorrect. Many Christians do not understand that these “dates” that are thrown around are really not “dates” at all they are inferences based on unverifiable assumptions.

        • Jim says:

          The “unverifiable assumptions” are completely verifiable. Radiometric dating is calibrated through a number of natural phenomenon, and converge with other “age” tests, a powerful indicator that they are accurate. Is there a range of error? Of course. The fact is, even Young Earth ministries like ICR concede that apart from a radical change in the decay rate of radioactive isotopes, there is no way to avoid concluding that radiometric dating is accurate. The problem with claiming that the decay rate was accelerated is:
          1. God said that the laws of physic are fixed and do not change (Jer 31:35-36).
          2. It doesn’t address the convergence with other dating methods.
          3. The only experimental data they have to support that conclusion (the RATE study) is seriously flawed in its own assumptions and even the mathematics behind it.
          4. If the rate of radioactive decay was higher, there are a host of other effects that would occur, and there is absolutely no evidence of these effects. You can’t just isolate a change in one law of physics and confine its impact.
          5. The Bible nowhere says that God did this.
          6. If the decay rate increased as they propose (at some point concurrent with the Flood of Noah), it would produce so much heat that it would melt the Earth’s crust and incinerate everything on the planet, vaporizing the oceans. The Ark and its occupants would be burned up.

          Belief in an old universe and belief in evolution are NOT logically codependent. There is nothing that demands evolution if the universe is 13.73 billion years old, and one of the reasons atheistic scientists have fought the Big Bang so hard is because even that much time is nowhere near enough for evolution to produce life from non-living matter.

          As for animal death pre-Fall, where is that proscribed in Scripture? Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 discuss human death, not animal death. Gen. 1:29-30 is not a prohibition against eating meat, and even if you take it that way:
          1. The animals mentioned could be taken to mean animals that would be domesticated and herbivorous anyway (the category described as “behema” in Hebrew is most likely referring to livestock).
          2. None of the marine animals are mentioned, yet this class is the single largest in the animal kingdom. While pictures of T-rexes using those 6-inch canines to eat coconuts are amusing, I don’t think sharks eat coconuts. There is no better example of a design for efficient consuming of animal flesh than a shark.

          In Ps 104 it seems God has no problem with carnivorous activity. In fact, He takes it upon himself to make it happen. To say that carnivorous activity is somehow a result of sin would seem to imply some evil association, yet we know God is absolutely holy.

          How about instead of making assumptions about the spiritual motivations of everyone from Spurgeon and Archer to Franz Delitzch and Walter Kaiser (The two greatest Hebrew scholars in history), we focus on dealing with those who really are out to destroy the Bible? You have no way of knowing why such men were/are motivated to believe in an old Earth, so let’s leave judgment on this to God and concentrate on what we all do agree on: a Historical Adam, a literal Fall, a literal Flood that wiped out all of humanity except 8, etc.

        • Matthew says:


          I don’t actually disagree, but for epistemological reasons consider this exchange I had w/ someone in the past:

          me: “http://news.discovery.com/space/is-the-sun-emitting-a-mystery-particle.html”

          other: “I wonder, if this discovery calls into question radio carbon dating, then is it possible that the world is only 5000 years old? Interesting article”

          me: “Too early to tell what the breadth and depth of this finding turns out to be… If it only deals with carbon dating, then it wouldn’t impact the age of the world or universe. People age the earth using different elements than carbon. Carbon is used to date human artifacts because it isn’t very useful after 100,000 years. People age the universe by looking at the distance of stars based on the assumed, constant speed of light. But, there are perhaps dozens upon dozens of ways to age the world (e.g. amount of salt in the ocean) that aren’t often used because they produce contradictory results to one another.
          I liked this article for three reasons: (1) it highlights the difference between observational science (i.e. repeat and then replicate elsewhere) v. forensic science (e.g. dig up 10% of an ancient city and then make up a comprehensive story about an entire city-state’s rise and fall); (2) it highlights some of the things we often ignore -> men (and maybe one day, quantum supercomputers) work on understanding the universe by induction… how do we ever know that there aren’t thousands of other variable just like this affecting our understanding of the world that we don’t know about, and how could we ever know if there weren’t? How can we ever know that we have a complete induction of reality and there is nothing left that we haven’t taken into account; (3) it makes us acknowledge that our world views are based on assumptions, the most fundamental of which (i.e. the axioms) we can’t be expected to prove, otherwise they wouldn’t be axioms anymore.”

        • Jim says:

          There are actually good responses to some of the issues you’re raising about other “clocks” like saltation rates, helium loss rates, etc. But I think the more important point is that if you are looking for absolute knowledge of this subject, you are asking for an impossibility. No good scientist or theologian demands such a high bar. The question is what model best explains the available evidence, incorporates new evidence best, and avoids special pleading arguments.

          The use of the word assumed in the context of the speed of light is problematic in the sense that while there may be certain assumptions involved, not all assumptions are equal. We don’t just make assumptions. We test them. One way to test them is to ask what would happen if we changed them. If we were to alter the assumption that light speed is constant, it would run afoul of virtually all of physics. I know Jason Lisle is trying to propose a way to fit a faster speed in through the “one-way” rate, but 1. It probably isn’t even testable, so it’s a dead, ad hoc theory; 2. While it may not be testable, there are tests that seem to rule out that possibility;
          3. It comes awfully close to special pleading.

          Dating methods don’t contradict each other, if properly done. All dating methods have error bars, and while you may see a discrepancy between two methods of, say a few million years, you will never see a discrepancy that allows one to come to a YEC position. And if those error bar ranges are understood at the outset, there is no contradiction.

          As for the difference between operational and forensic science, I think that’s a bit of a false dichotomy, or at least not as strong a dichotomy as many YEC’s wish to propose. Just one example: if a YEC model could better explain geology, then geologists in the fossil fuel industry would adopt it in a heartbeat in order to enable better understanding and exploration of coal, oil, and natural gas formations.

          As for the induction “problem”, the issue with making to much of that is you end up by default proving too much. It sounds good if you’re limiting it to the topic of hand, but it doesn’t stay in that box. What about textual criticism? What about our historical understanding of the New Testament? My point is that it ends up breeding the very sort of agnosticism that people like Bart Ehrman hold, which, rather than fostering a biblical worldview, actually destroys it!

          I see YEC’s using this uncertainty argument to leave an escape hatch where they can fit their argument, but I don’t think they follow it to its logical end.

        • Matthew says:

          Thanks for the reply. I have two follow-up questions: (1) Why would geologists care about an old earth v. YE in the fossil fuel insdustry? (2) What do you think of the article link and the possibility of unknown variables affecting our dating methods?

    • gazinya says:

      How old, intellectually and biologically, was the Man when God first breathed the spirit of life into him? Since the Man was created perfect, because God does not create imperfection, did the Man know everything there is to know about his creation from the ‘get go’? Being physically, intellectually and spiritually perfect did the Man know everything about his Creator? Did the Man know about genetics? How long did it take the Man to identify and name ALL Gods’ creatures? How long, since time had not been identified yet, did the Man walk with God in the garden? Did it only take an hour or so for Man to ask ‘so what’s next’? What did God talk to the Man about? How far along after the first breath of life into the Man did God decide it was time for Man to have a help mate?

      Since He and She were perfect and immortal how long did it take for the Man to begin to doubt the word of God and believe that ‘You shall not surly die but be like God, knowing good and evil’? Knowing good and evil is not the same as know good from evil. When God rested on ‘the seventh day and saw His creation was good, did that include Gods’ directive ‘to be fruitful and fill the earth’? Or did God just assume an ‘anthropomorphic’ human attitude that could explain a compression of time. Time that at the command did not exist.
      Why did God ‘feel’ it necessary to tell Woman that ‘you shall now know pain in childbirth.’ As opposed to what?

      Here’s the deal with me. I read the Bible without preconceived ideas outside of the idea that the Holy Spirit will reveal the questions and answers. I do not know one answer to any of the questions I ask but I know those questions are Godly to think about. At least for me. Do I believe in billions of years? Maybe but I doubt it. Do I believe in 8000 years? No, it doesn’t fit my belief in the Nature of God. The idea that in less than a twenty-four hour period Man and Woman could be made so perfect and ‘blow it in one day’ is intolerably vapid. And yet He could as it is ‘just read’ but not ‘studied’ have created in six days everything rested then first thing Monday morning it’s gone but is there any evidence in the scripture that would indicate He likes a little fraud every so often? Didn’t Paul tell us that His glory is ‘seen’ in His creation?

      • Chris King says:

        Do I believe in billions of years? Maybe but I doubt it.

        “I read the Bible without preconceived ideas outside”

        “Do I believe in 8000 years? No, it doesn’t fit my belief in the Nature of God.”

        So where does your belief in the nature of God come from?

        if you knew nothing of evolutionary thinking it is doubtful you would arrive at millions or billions of years with a plain reading of the Genesis 1-11 account.

        • gazinya says:

          I hope I didn’t sound ‘snarky’ but it is not my knowledge of evolution that brings these questions to mind it is those that say ‘the Hebrew word for ‘day’ 24 hrs is irrefutible’. So on day one God did this……and so on. I just thought how old was Man when he sinned? Those early creationists would have me believe that is was early Monday morning after God rested. I can go longer than one week without a cigarette and I smoke. I would think Man and Woman could go more than a week without rejecting Gods’ word. Is is possible that Man and Woman “COULD” have lived 8000 years before time and the serpent showed up? Could God put a galaxy 15 billion light years away with a thought? Of course but why would He?

          I have the time to think these things. Maybe some don’t. That’s ok with me.

    • Pepper Bruce says:

      Well, I don’t think 8,000 years fits will with the Biblical description of the hills and mountains as “eternal” or “everlasting.” The Bible seems to regard the earth as extremely old. See Hab. 3:6; Micah 6:2.

      • Matthew says:

        Maybe the Heavens and the Earth could be, but the text doesn’t make that case for everything made after verse 1

        • Jim says:

          The hills were made on day 3, when dry land appeared, so it would be dealing with events after 1:1.

  14. R Jaynes says:

    And another thing with regards to Perry’s comment about there being some ‘gaps’ in the theory of evolution. In my readings about evolution some years ago I remember some evolutionist complaining that Christians believe in a “God of the gaps” – meaning that if a Christian could not explain how the earth evolved, either materially or organically, then the Christian would simply say, “I don’t know how he did it but God created this or that”. Yes, on the surface this sounds like a weak rebuttal. BUT, if God really did create the universe by His word, and if God really is who he says he is as revealed in the Bible, then God can very easily be a “God of the gaps” because he knows exactly how to place this or that into his creation.

    People want to limit God and put him into a box, to have control over him but, really, God is so much bigger than we can imagine. We are finite; He is not.

  15. R Jaynes says:

    Some years ago I read “The Language of God” by Francis Collins which made a rather good case for the possibility of macro-evolution. However, I don’t think his conclusions have ever been demonstrated in any way, shape or form; the evidence simply does not exist at this time.

    Also, if you go to the Galapagos Islands you will soon learn that Darwin is God in that part of the world. Guides who claim to be Christians will tell you they believe in evolution, even macro-evolution; our guide explicitly stated as such. Well…perhaps. The examples he gave us about finches growing shorter or longer beaks in response to sudden climate changes made sense only to the degree that when the climate became more favorable again the beaks would go back to their former length.

Back to Top ↑