According to some evolutionary and old-earth Christians, the so-called young earth, anti-scientific cave people, sometimes referred to as “Fred and Wilma,” discredit Christianity by believing the creation account as literally explained in the book of Genesis. For ease of reference, I’ll refer to these evolutionary apologists as Esau and Erasmus. They claim that a literal reading of Genesis’ young-earth, six-day creation account is scientifically indefensible and fuels the evolutionary biologist wing of militant atheism. Such argument suffers from both going too far and not far enough in its thinking, while at the same time selling its theological birthright for a bowl of common pottage.
Esau and Erasmus’ argument about biblical creationism does not go far enough. They suggest Christianity would appeal more to worldly rationale and defang militant atheists if only Fred and Wilma would shut-up already about a young earth. It would not, unless Christians compromised the truths of most the rest of our faith. Even without a literal biblical creation, Christianity remains unpalatable to the self-proclaimed intellectuals at the Los Angeles Times, militant atheists, and the rest of the worldly sophisticates.
The Bible repeatedly speaks of God ridiculing the wisdom of man. Paul explained to the Corinthians that if it sounded like he was out of his mind, it was because he was talking of the things of God. Elsewhere, Paul noted that while the Gospel was a stumbling block to the Jew, it was utter foolishness to the Greek. Christianity teaches that the omnipotent, infinite, omnipresent and eternal God of all that is seen and unseen, took the form of human flesh in His creation. Instead of the heraldry due the arrival of such an eternal King, he arrived as the apparent bastard son of a peasant woman in a semi-nomadic tribe somewhere in the west-Asian backwaters of the Roman Empire. To underscore the point, God was born amongst the squalor of livestock and his first visitors were sheep herders who were roughly the social equivalent of today’s garbage collectors. To further emphasize that God does not do it “our way,” he was born to a virgin. This promised deliverer grew up in obscurity. He befriended prostitutes and tax collectors. This conqueror saved his kingdom by being beaten, tortured, and slowly and painfully executed by hated pagans. In the midst of his agony, Jesus asked for their forgiveness. Three days later, he rose again, and after a short period of teaching, ascended into the heavens. He then sent his Spirit to dwell with those who put their faith in His sacrifice. The Christian life itself also mocks worldly wisdom. As cogently described by A.W. Tozer, the Christian has nothing to offer those with whom Esau and Erasmus attempt to compromise.
A real Christian is an odd number anyway. He feels supreme love for one whom he has never seen, talks familiarly every day to Someone he cannot see, expects to go to heaven on the virtue of Another, empties himself in order to be full, admits he is wrong so he can be declared right, goes down in order to get up, is the strongest when he is weakest, richest when he is poorest, and happiest when he feels worst. He dies so he can live, forsakes in order to have, gives away so he can keep, sees the invisible, hears the inaudible, and knows that which passeth knowledge.
A.W. Tozer, The Root of the Righteous.
Compared to the Gospel of Christ, it’s easy to believe God created everything ab initio approximately 6,000 years ago, and that all life and creation pre-dated death, disease, and destruction. People believe in the Gospel of Christ, in part, because compelling evidence and testimony support the incredible claim that he was the son of God. The deity of Christ authenticates the prophets and what they wrote, to include the Genesis account.
The arguments of Esau and Erasmus regarding science go too far. They argue biblical creation is anti-scientific and evolution is reasonable. This fails scrutiny. The theory that life evolved from molecules, from atom to Adam, is no less radical and no less a religious assertion than the belief an eternal and infinite creator made everything in days. The numbers betray the lie that life randomly happened and that billions of years makes such a misguided fantasy reasonable. Esau and Erasmus argue that the universe is some 10 (to the power of 20) seconds old. The mathematical specificity of hemoglobin (one of innumerable irreducible complexities) is calculated from 7.4×10 (to the power of 654) to 10 (to the power of 850). The specificity of the DNA for the simple, microscopic T4 phage is calculated at 10 (to the power of 78,000). (David Foster, The Philosophical Scientists.)
Even assuming a chance mutation per second from the beginning of time, such complexities occurring randomly in 10 (to the power of 10) seconds is impossible. Yet, these examples vastly understate the impossibility of random evolution. The realm of living organisms display innumerable such complexities – some of which we don’t even yet understand – such as the functioning of our brains and thought. Further, creation proudly displays a pattern of perfect equilibrium, uniform mathematical constants, and interdependent complexities, from the infinitesimal realm of atomic forces, throughout our universe, and into the vastness of the cosmos. This endless pattern of redundant and interdependent complexity testifies openly that a supreme intelligence, i.e. God, created the stuff of reality.
Esau and Erasmus make exclusive claim to being “scientific,” while calling Fred and Wilma anti-science. Such claims are indefensible, malicious rhetoric. Falsifiability and control are essential components of the scientific method. For what should be obvious reasons, the origins of matter and life are not readily amenable to experimental analysis. Regarding origins, we can collect data and draw inferences, but neither side can literally test whether billions of years, massive intelligence, or combination thereof created our reality. Billions of years of random process simply cannot be replicated, however, if evolution were true, we would expect to see evidence of this creative process in action. Evolutionists point to environmentally induced variations within species, i.e. survival of the fit, but not to new species. Contrary to showing macro evolution, elimination of the weak within a species demonstrates a net loss of information within the gene pool of the species, which decreases – not increases – the complexity. The massive rate of de-speciation, i.e. extinction, over the past thousands of years also demonstrates the loss of massive amounts of information. According to the Genesis record, after the fall, the system degenerates. We should expect to find the system losing efficiency and information, which is precisely what we find.
The old-age creationists’ attempt to compromise that God took billions or trillions of years to make this reality accomplishes nothing. Whether billions, trillions or a tiny fraction of years, the miracle of creation is mathematically staggering and undeniable. Billions of years is meaningless in the face of such vast complexity. Further, the “evidence” does not require billions of years. More importantly, the old-earth creationists are apologists for a system of thought they ought to recognize as thoroughly corrupt, scientifically and theologically. They compromise more than time; they compromise the creative process. Specifically, old earth creationists accept the theory that God used the process of death, disease and violence, over millions of years, to create the life we see and enjoy. They posit a system where death and suffering pre-dated Adam and the fall of mankind. Instead of a loving and creative God directly creating a perfect, balanced and peaceful creation, they support a contradictory theory. According to these compromisers, God introduced death and struggle to His creation. You simply cannot parse Genesis to support this view. Again, the evidence does not require such a compromise.
Some critics assert there is no evidence for a young earth or that humans co – existed with dinosaurs. Such critics only prove they are unaware of or refuse to acknowledge the evidence. For the former, they should start with a trip to the Creation Museum. Regardless, we all view the same evidence. The presuppositions we hold determine how we interpret the evidence.
Some critics argue that the weight of scientific opinion is currently on the side of evolution. During such nose-counting arguments from authority, such advocates often attempts to diminish the number of PhD scientists in the young earth movement by restating how few of them are evolutionary biologists. Likely true, just as very few anti-communists were members of the Communist Party. Regardless, the argument from authority is a worn logical fallacy. Truth is not subject to popularity.
Hath God really said in six days he created? Yes, He did.