Seasoned with Salt

Creation vs. Evolution:
What the Bible Says

In the 140 years since Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, Christians have generally reacted to the concept of evolution either by denying the data or by reinterpreting the Bible to make it fit evolution.

Now, a growing group of "creationist" scientists are saying that the Bible, while it was not written as a science textbook, gives a scientifically plausible account of how we got here. Rather than ignoring scientific data that at first blush seem to disagree with the story of Adam and Eve, they recognize such data as consistent with the Genesis account of creation.

For example, evolutionists believe the earth to be billions of years old, but not creationists: Biblical dates and geneologies suggest a world that is less than 10,000  years old, and creationists claim that the scientific data agree with such a young earth.

How could intelligent scientists, examining the same scientific data, draw such radically different conclusions? Much of it depends on the assumptions, or biases, with one brings into the analysis.

The age of a rock, for example, is generally estimated from the amount of radioactive decay of a "mother" element into a "daughter" element. If one assumes that only the mother was present when the rock was formed, then the rock must be old enough for the mother element to have formed all of the daughter that is found in the sample. Creationists believe, however, that both mother and daughter could both have been originally present, in unknown ratios, so that this method cannot reliably tell us the age of the rock.

Creationists point to scientific data that are inconsistent with  evolutionism. For example, if evolution had occurred, one would expect to find millions of fossil species intermediate between the many types of plants and animals we see today. Instead, the fossil record clearly demonstrates the sudden, rapid appearance of fully formed plants and animals, with no confirmed intermediaries. Shamed by the lack of supporting evidence, over-zealous evolutionists periodically cook up weak or even falsified "examples" that "prove" evolution. These announcements are invariably trumpeted with prominent headlines in the mainstream press, but when the analysis is done and the "findings" are debunked, nary a peep is heard. 

The theory of evolution violates a fundamental tenet of science, called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This principle states that the disorder of the universe is constantly increasing. An explosion in a junk yard will not produce a Boeing 747, no matter how many times the experiment is repeated. A group of toddlers deposited in a parlor full of toys will not produce a tidy room.

If the earth is young, then how could the Grand Canyon form in such a short period of time? According to signage in the National Park, such a large, complex formation required millions of years to develop. Yet in 1980, mudflow from Mount St. Helens formed a canyon 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon, complete with complex sedimentary layers, in a single day. Thus, natural catastrophes, such as the worldwide flood of Noah, could easily have carved out the Grand Canyon.

How could dinosaurs fit on Noah's ark? Probably Noah took young specimens with him. In fact, the Bible describes two animals, the behemoth and the leviathan (in the Book of Job) that sound suspiciously like the dinosaurs whose fossil skeletons are being unearthed by archaeologists today.

Predictably, evolutionists decry creationism as being not science, but religion. Creationists counter that evolutionism is itself a religion, a belief system that cannot be scientifically tested nor proven. Since creation was a unique event in world history, with no human eye-witnesses, one cannot scientifically investigate nor prove how it happened. Nonetheless, Christians believe that the Bible's account was inspired by God, who was there and has told us what happened.

Since the major thrust of the Bible is salvation through the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, some Christians wonder whether it matters what one believes about creation.

Creationists respond that, first of all, the Bible teaches that death resulted from man's rebellion against God, whereas evolutionism says that death and struggle are responsible for the very existence of humans. They can't both be true. If the latter were true, then the work of Jesus Christ would not have been necessary.

Secondly, if certain parts of the Bible cannot be accepted as truth, then perhaps other parts, too, are fictional. This cafeteria approach to Biblical interpretation leaves the intractible question of which parts to accept and which parts to discard.

Finally, since science cannot disprove anything in the Bible (Indeed, it has consistently over time verified biblical accounts as historically accurate), then one should read and accept the Bible just as it was written, instead of trying to adjust one's beliefs to fit the latest fads of the scientific community.

It used to be illegal to teach evolution in the public schools. Today, it is illegal in most districts to teach creation in public schools. Creationists would like students to have all of the available scientific evidence, and let them decide for themselves which explanation fits the evidence better: creation or evolution. To a creationist, the answer is obvious.