Evidence of various kinds for evolution

TalkOrigins has published an extensive on-line document, free to use, on the many evidences for evolution. No doubt there are some flaws, but it's pretty extensive, and seems to cover the ground well.

The Six-Day War in Creationism, by Gene Nouhan

There are several books that seriously criticize Young-Earth Creationism, as it is taught by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis (AiG), and others. The Six-Day War in Creationism: A New Critique of the Young Earth Reform Movement and Its Excesses is the most thorough such book that I have read. It's also the longest. The length and content of that title gives a hint of that thoroughness, and length. 

Author Gene Nouhan  carefully considers the meaning of the Bible's original languages, and concludes that the Bible wasn't meant to say that the earth is but a few thousand years old, and doesn't. His related main criticism of the Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) movement is that its advocates do not usually explicitly claim that you have to agree with them for your eternal salvation, but that they argue so strongly for a YEC interpretation (never mind the lack of evidence) that the message that comes across is that only YEC believers can be saved.

Nouhan doesn't attempt to rule out a six day creation by examining scientific evidence. Others have done so, explaining that a young earth isn't consistent with geological, biological, or paleological findings. Nouhan's base is the original words in the Bible, as far as we can know them. I am not a scholar of biblical language, but Nouhan seems convincing. He calls upon logic and common sense.

Two other books that I recommend are not as thorough, but seem sound in Biblical scholarship, and make some important points. (Mis)interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern Context of the Bible, by Ben Stanhope, deflates claims from AiG that the Bible teaches that dinosaurs were contemporary with people in Noah's time, based on his analysis of the language of the Old Testament. Why does AiG make such claims? One possibility is that they genuinely believe that the Bible teaches that. Another possibility is that, as a culture, we are excited by dinosaurs -- see Jurassic Park, etc., the Flintstones, news reports on newly discovered fossils, and many other phenomena -- and that AiG is using this fascination to raise interest, attendance, and money. Stanhope considers archaeology, and some of the sciences, as well as history. An important sample is 

It’s historically outrageous to suppose a global flood ... [is] supposed to have managed to blast out the Grand Canyon in North America and fossilize the dinosaurs in Uzbekistan but couldn’t put a dent in the Sphinx at Giza or other hundreds of Egyptian sites and entire civilizations constructed far earlier and well documented as alive and well through this period. If you accept the calculation that a global flood occurred in 2300 BC, you absurdly end up having to compress or explain away nearly all of the world’s chronological and archaeological evidence dating to before the middle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom period.

The Heresy of Ham: What Every Evangelical Needs to Know About the Creation-Evolution Controversy, by Joel Edmund Anderson, argues that AiG believes, and teaches, that Young-Earth Creationism is one of the foundational beliefs of the church, which belief is a heresy. Here's a quotation from the book:

... heresy is not limited to simply wrong teaching about something. It also can involve undue emphasis of a particular theological point or view, and actually elevate a secondary or non-essential issue to a level of primacy, equal to the resurrection of Christ.

And Anderson (and Nouhan) believe that AiG and those it influences and agrees with have done exactly that.

Nouhan's book is not perfect. There are a few things that the editor missed, such as using "tenant" when "tenet" was what was meant. The acronym SDWC is commonly used, but never expanded. (It means "Six Day War in Creationism," of course. There are hundreds of footnotes. Some of them, to web sources, don't give the UUL but give the site's name (Answers in Genesis, for example) and the date. Some of those sources would be hard to fine. Some footnotes are not to an outside source, but give part of Nouhan's argument. I'm not clear as to why these are not part of the main text. Finally, Nouhan overuses italics. When it doubt, italicize, seems to be his thinking. These are minor flaws, or maybe flaws at all. It's a good book.

Thanks for reading!

The following graphic does not directly relate to this post, but it's my blog. It's impossible to take Genesis 1 and 2 as two straightforward sequential lists of events:

 

"An Open Letter to Ken Ham"

The Sparks blog has posted an open letter to Ken Ham, which is well worth reading.

Is Genesis straightforward historical narrative, part 2

In recent post on this blog, I argued that Genesis is not straightforward historical narrative. Many Christ-loving Bible scholars had already said this, for many reasons. My principal reason was that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 cannot be straightforward historical narrative, because there are discrepancies between these two chapters. See graphic:

There is another important reason for doubting that Genesis 1 and 2 are straightforward historical narrative. That reason is that the firmament, or expanse, mentioned in Genesis 1, does not exist. The Hebrews of Bible times believed that there was a solid, transparent dome above the earth, which held up the heavenly bodies, as well as water, in its various forms. They thought wrong. Genesis 1 and 2 reflects the beliefs of the writers/readers/listeners. That doesn't mean that the Bible is in error. Genesis does not say that you have to believe in a firmament to please God. There is no reference to an expanse or firmament in the commonly  used creeds of the church. The churches of today do not expect belief in a firmament/expanse as a requirement of members.

Genesis 1 and 2 were written, not to teach astronomy, but to emphasize the existence of an all-powerful Creator, who is deeply concerned about the fate of humans.

Thanks for reading.

Is Genesis straightforward historical narrative? Genesis 1 and 2

The Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith says, in part: “The account of origins presented in Genesis 1–11 is a simple but factual presentation of actual events, and therefore, provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.” … and “The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages but are six consecutive, 24-hour days of creation; …”

Two previous posts (genre, and culture) on this blog describe the effect of genre, and of the culture of the writers, and listeners/readers, in ancient times, on what the Bible communicates. Those effects, and other reasons, indicate that Genesis 1-2, in particular, is not simple, and does not necessarily communicate consecutive events. 

 

Let’s consider the questions of simplicity and of consecutive events.

 

Genesis 1 puts the creation of humans, male and female, on Day 6. If Genesis 2 does, it doesn’t do so simply. Adam comes at the beginning, and Eve at the end, in chapter 2. It is possible to reconcile these accounts on this point, but, to do so, one must depart from a “plain reading of scripture.*” Genesis 1 also puts land plants in day 3, before the creation of humans, whereas Genesis 2 seems to put Adam before the plants. Genesis 1 puts the creation of animals on day 6, whereas Genesis 2 appears to put that creation after the appearance of Adam. Answers in Genesis, and others, believe that Genesis 2:19 should be translated to say that God “had formed” -- already done it -- before presenting the animals to Adam. Perhaps, but only four of the Bible versions given in the Blueletter Bible say that. The other thirteen say “formed,” as if it happened as they were presented to Adam. One of the four that says “had formed” gives “formed" as an alternate reading.

There are many God-fearing, Christ-believing Bible scholars who are convinced that Genesis 1 and 2 were not intended to be step-by-step historical narrative, and/or who do not think that their purpose was to establish the timing of creation. Listen to N. T. Wright, for one.

There are other reasons for doubting that Genesis 1 and 2 were meant to give us a step-by-step historical narrative of the creation. God willing, I shall continue this series.

Answers in Genesis zealously defends the Bible, if the Bible needs any defense, but they propose at least one really strange idea of how to look at the Bible.

*Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, “Pausing for a Leaven warning,” March 2, 2023, writes “we should always be suspicious when the secular world proclaims anything at odds with a plain reading of Scripture.” That phrase, “plain reading of scripture,” is claimed as the foundation of Answers in Genesis, the most influential young-earth entity.

The problem of goodness (and beauty) - poster

Please feel free to use this poster, or comment on it, or suggest revisions.

Thank you!

 

Could there have been animal death before the Fall?, 2nd edition

It is often said that the earth must not be very old, because death could not have occurred before the Fall of Adam and Eve, as told in Genesis 3. When this is said, it means death of non-humans, such as the many generations of animals that would have been needed for, say, the origin of birds from reptiles, by natural selection.

A search has led me to some web pages, all arguing, using the Bible, that there could have been, or even must have been, death of non-human creatures before the Fall. (There are also posts that deny this.)

Here they are:
"No Physical Death Before the Fall?" by Glen Kuban.

"Death Before the Fall: God Created Cellular Death Codes," by Glenn Morton.

"Creation Science Issues: Death Before the Fall of Man," by Greg Neyman. 

 "Animal Death Before the Fall: What Does the Bible Say?" by Lee Irons.

"Was there animal death before the fall?" by Jay Wile.

"Did death occur before the Fall?" by BioLogos.

I have previously posted on a related matter.

None of these take the view that there couldn't have been death before the Fall, but some of them also present reasons why some people believe that there was no such death.

See my posts on David Snoke's book, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth. Snoke argues that the Bible allows the death of animals before the Fall. Here's one such post. Click on the "David Snoke" label at the end of the post to see all of them.

This post is a revision of one from January 2008.

Thank you for reading!

 

BioLogos: New genetic information added

One of the arguments against evolution by natural selection is that information can only come from an intelligent agent. This article, in BioLogos, by Dennis Venema, refutes that assertion.

This article is not new, but it is important, and, after recently re-reading it, I wanted to call attention to it. It doesn't rule out divine activity, and, at the least, shows us, indirectly, that the God-produced systems of cellular biology are wonderfully complex, and have the power to bring about novel structures and molecules.

Thanks for reading.

The "Who" of creation, in the New Testament

The Who of creation, in the New Testament

The Bible says almost nothing about the when, where, how or why of creation. It does tell us about the Who. There are several passages in the New Testament that teach us that God the Son was pre-eminent in creation. Some of them teach that He is holding it together now.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him. Without him, nothing was made that has been made. (Scripture from the World English Bible, public domain)

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created in the heavens and on the earth, visible things and invisible things, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things are held together.

Hebrews 1:1 God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. 3 His Son is the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, who, when he had by himself purified us of our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high…

Hebrews 11:3 By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible.

Ephesians 3:9 and to make all men see what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things through Jesus Christ,

Revelation 3 may also point to the Son’s critical role in creation: Revelation 3:14 “To the angel of the assembly in Laodicea write: “The Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning* of God’s creation, says these things: …’”

There is evidence, in the creation story, and elsewhere, that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit were also involved in creation, but there’s little or no evidence for that in the New Testament.

*There is a text note in the World English Bible, indicating that “Beginning” may also be taken as Source, or Head. Some other versions have similar text notes.

(The same passage in Revelation, from the NIV: 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation)

Thank you for reading. Honor Christ, creator and sustainer!