Across time and space, authority has shifted from one perceived power to another. Who or what was able to make authoritative statements to which there was no greater appeal? Let’s look at how authority has changed hands over time and see how we as Christians should handle authority.
Might Makes Right
Throughout history we have seen world powers demand compliance because of the might of their armies. From the Assyrians, to the Babylonians, to the Persians, to the Greeks, to the Romans…those with the mightiest armies have said what is right.
In the midst of these world powers, we have records of the Hittites, the Huns, the Mongolians, and the Turks kill people who disagreed with them.
Should a soldier in a Roman army force you to carry their gear 1 mile, there was no recourse or appeal. If the Roman centurion came into your village and told you to join the legion as a soldier, you were conscripted. Whatever they said had authority because of the might of their arms
Authoritative statements were proclaimed by the kings and commanders of those armies. There was no appeal higher than those with the most might
Roman Catholic Church Magisterium
Power shifted from armies to theologians as the Roman Empire was both consumed by its own depravity and picked apart by barbarians. Authoritative power began to be condensed within the walls of the Vatican and its sister in Byzantium. Proclamations from the bishops of those ecumenical ivory towers carried the greatest weight. Peasants and princes alike fell into step when pushed by the papacies. Christianity was established as the dominant ideology throughout western civilization. Amidst this shift from military power to the church, the seeds of the scientific revolution were planted. As that unchecked authoritative power grew, so did the corruption among the bishops. Indulgences, worldliness, and idolatry weakened the power in Rome…while the militant barbarism of the Muslims crushed the power of Byzantium/Constantinople in the East. Anyone (like Martin Luther, Jan Hus, William Tyndale and others) who questioned the authority of the Roman Catholics was met with swift and brutal retribution. Luther escaped death, but the others were killed for questioning the authority of the Papacy. Until the Reformation, there was no appeal for justice or truth higher than the Papacy.
Scientism
As the scientific revolution matured, it began to grow in influence, the authoritative power of the Roman Catholic church waned. What scientists said carried unquestioned authority. Anyone who dissented from what scientists said were summarily and ruthlessly expelled from academia. You hear this authority being expressed even today as “the science says…” and “the science is settled” and “it’s been peer-reviewed”. The priesthood garments of the Roman Catholic’s authority shifted to the white lab coats of the scientists. Anyone wearing a white lab coat was seen as having unquestioned authority in claims about truth. The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic bishops, priests, and deacons were similarly transformed to the peer-review journals and accompanying gatekeepers. Those, who wished to produce “sacred” texts into the peer-review journals must swear “fealty to Saint Charles Darwin”. Anyone, who questions the “most holiest” of ideologies in scientism (natural selection acting on random mutations produced all biodiversity) were viewed as heretics and denied entrance. As with those, who questioned the authority of the Papacy from the previous era, anyone, who makes the slightest inquiry about evolution, is swiftly and prejudiciously expelled from academia by the gatekeepers of scientism.
Statism
Governments in the 20th century began to take power from the scientists in matters of authority. From the monumentally destructive policies of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, the federal government metastasized far beyond its intended borders. It wasn’t a complete transfer of authoritative power from the scientists to the state, but with the military and financial power of the American government, scientists began subjecting themselves to the funding and judicial authority of the state. Funding subservience is evident in the way that scientists have requested grant money and structured their requests from the public funds. We also see that many scientists have capitulated to the narrative of global warming. Public funding for scientific solutions for energy problems went almost completely to “green energy”, so the authority was logically in the hands of those holding the purse strings (the state) rather than the scientists. Judicial subservience was highlighted most obviously in the Dover trial of 2005. When the evidence for scientific advancement was strongly favoring the intelligent design movement, the scientific gatekeepers appealed to what they viewed was a higher authority: the state. In the trial, it was determined by a rogue judge that intelligent design was not a scientific theory, so he denied educators from questioning the theory of evolution.
Experts and Artificial Intelligence
Statism devolved rather quickly to the belief that “experts” have the greatest authority to which there was no higher appeal. In the 21st century, authoritative power began to be accumulated in the hands of experts. The power of the “experts” reared its ugly head in 2020 when they told the world that a bio-engineered virus was simply a natural pathogen that got into the food supply from a market in China. They told the world that this most deadly of human contagions could be solved by shutting down all businesses, wearing a thin cloth mask, and standing 6 feet apart. None of those things were true yet the “experts” retained their power over the government and the populace. Experts were interviewed by the media for issues like the epidemics, economy, climate, health/medicine, philanthropy, politics, and the environment. Sadly, “expert” isn’t an objective measure by having so many expertise points or expertise units…it’s a completely subjective title – and many so-called experts have shown themselves to be unqualified as paper-tigers. With the advent of artificial intelligence, everyone with a phone can now be an “expert”. Authority in the information space is now manifest in the gargantuan processing power of super computers (and the programmers that have built the response algorithms.) If you’ve spent time making searches and questions of AI apps, you’re sure to recognize the biases that have gone into their “authoritative” responses. As artificial intelligence is still in its infancy, it has yet to be determined how large an impact AI will have on culture, the economy, politics, industry, and humanity itself.
As Christians, what should we view as our ultimate authority?
The Bible
Over and over in the Bible, we read “Thus says the LORD…” and “The LORD said…” and “Jesus said, Truly I say to you…”
The Bible records the very words and expectations of the Creator. What the omniscient omnipotent God has said cannot fail to be correct. All of the Bible has been inspired by the word of the Holy Spirit. Worldly authorities like armies, ecclesiastical fiefdoms, nations, and experts can claim to have the standard of truth, but only God’s eternal Word “will not pass away…remains forever…will stand forever…endures forever…”
Jesus claims to be “the Truth” and that if you hold to the teaching of Jesus as his disciple, “you will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.” As Christians we should believe what Jesus has said in his eternal word: our ultimate authority. Now before anyone accuses me of being a bibliolater, we worship God alone (not the Bible), and we trust the revelation of God in his written word.
In the early 21st century there are competing authorities vying for the title of magisterial. The aforementioned Roman Catholic Church claims to be the only authoritative entity from which all truth resides. Sadly, they have proven to be a false authority with their false teachings of Mariology and the prevalent breaking of the 2nd commandment. The RCC disqualified itself as the authority for truth by fabricating the sale of indulgences to substitute money/works in place of time in purgatory. Scientism, has corrupted itself with bias and self-indulgence. While the scientific method is good and works because Christianity is true, scientism is a self-defeating ideological assumption. The State continues to demand obeisance in matters of right/wrong even though states are frequently the most corrupt and wicked entities. Experts are biased and can ignore the truth when it suits them. Other competing authorities are “the science“, culture and autonomous reasoning. Each of these claim to be proven truth or the “right side of history” or “just common sense”. But in every case, they fall short of Truth as revealed by God. In some cases, these counterfeit authorities want the facade of the Bible to hide their deficient epistemology, so they try to inject their teachings into the Bible, so that their advocates can say:
In my recent discussion with Adam about whether young earth creation (YEC) is a cult, we came to agreement that YEC is NOT a cult. This conversation happened in response to Adam’s poorly titled video where he inferred that many who believe YEC are in a cult.
You can see that with the definitions, his entire case was reliant upon anecdotal experience, and not any actual evidence. The definition of Mere Young Earth Creation (YEC) is:
Days of Gen 1 were 24hr days – in accordance with scripture
God directly created all creatures as fixed kinds – in accordance with scripture
Adam/Eve were the parents of the human race – in accordance with scripture
Creation was created good free of sin’s effects – in accordance with scripture
Order of events in days 1-6 is chronological – in accordance with scripture
Universe is 6000-10000 years old – in accordance with scripture
Flood covered the entire earth – in accordance with scripture
If you get nothing else from this discussion, the following quote is the KEY point in this whole debate: At base, the denial of young earth creation is the failure to uphold scripture’s primacy in the face of competing authorities. These competing authorities were (and are) the modern academic paradigm (which some conflate as science itself), culture, and human reasoning. Nothing changed in the Bible. What changed was competing authorities.
YEC upholds the Bible as written to be the magisterial authority. From the reading of the text and for the first one thousand eight hundred years within Christendom, there was no competing authority for influence. In the renaissance era there was a reformation of Christianity, art, and the birth of the scientific revolution. Unfortunately, the scientists of the 19th century craved exemption from the historical boundaries of the Genesis account. It didn’t fit their naturalistic theories of self-development. Their naturalistic ideology began to be conflated as science, and has persisted today as dogmatically authoritative. This new authority began to systematically crush all dissenters…especially those who held to historical biblical creation…as unscientific. Yet the scientific revolution was literally catalyzed by young earth creationists. There’s no conflict between science the YEC. The disagreement is between this modern academic paradigm and historical Christianity to the point now that the modern academic paradigm has been regarded as science and historical Christianity is now regarded as a cult.
I can’t emphasize this enough: YEC is the historical Christian understanding of the Bible prior to the Holy Advent Of Darwin’s Cherished Theory. Here are the answers from Christian history:
Notice how in ALL of these examples Christianity was FORCIBLY changed by the modern paradigm of evolution and its cascading beliefs. Sadly, Christians capitulated to a competing authority. While Adam does not hold to biological evolution, his views have been the result of the 20th and 21st century propaganda of scientific materialism making its way into biblical interpretation…looking for ways to bring the Bible into concordance with modern sensibilities.
In the section of the debate that centered on Adam’s claim that “there’s not a single Bible verse to support that interpretation (there was a change at the fall)” starting about 1:13:00, he doesn’t argue against the verses that I brought up. He figuratively waves his hands as if they don’t exist. It reminds me of the meme of the guy in the chair, and once shot, there are no more arguments against the shooter. If you ignore all of the Bible verses about significant changes to creation (including animals) because of the fall, then there are none.
As I mentioned in the conversation with Adam, the modern academic paradigm (MAP) is being treated as if it is the science itself. Rather than revelation from God, MAP is viewed as the dominant authority. If MAP is “science”, it’s the same “science” that says:
Boys can be girls
The earth has only 10 years remaining due to either an ice age or global warming
The earth is billions of years old
Evolution is true
Science has disproved the Bible
The most deadliest virus in all of history can be stopped with a cloth mask
Eat more carbs and avoid animal proteins
Christians should reject this tactic of redefining the scientific method into some political touchstone to which everyone must bow and give unquestioning allegiance.
As Adam admitted under cross examination, when you deny YEC the only course that one can believe is that death, suffering, misery, cancer, starvation, parasites, and predation are very good. It’s a sad state to declare the curses of sin to be good
Back to the title of my post. YEC is definitely historic Christianity and has been maligned as if it is a cult…even if Adam is walking back somewhat on the title of his video. Now to MY claim:
ANE is a cult
What is a cult? From my conversation with Adam, these were the definitions we came up this:
Adam: “Authoritarian leadership. We know better, and everyone just needs to listen to us. 2. Discourage other people from questioning their teachings. 3. Us vs them mentality. 4. Controlling, manipulating emotional tactics.”
Merriam Webster: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious
Britannica: a religious movement that exists in some degree of tension with the dominant religious or cultural inclination of a society
Dictionary.com: a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader
What is ANE? Ancient Near East hermeneutical interpretation of the Bible. This is a fashionable method for interpreting the Bible based on what some archeological finds from ancient near east dig sites that scholars have proposed is MORE basic than the Bible. In their view, these cultural findings demand that the Bible must not mean what it says. The text of scripture is now subject to whatever these pagan cultures (that God marked for destruction) meant in their writings. These pagan cultures wrote about certain themes and archetypes, so in the view of these guru scholars, the authors of scripture must have meant the exact same things with their types and symbols. With that hermeneutic, they presume that there was no material creation, no historic fall into sin, no worldwide flood, no historical ages for patriarchs, no tower of Babel…The Pentateuch (particularly Genesis) is barren of history but is instead full of polemics and poetry in accordance with pagan near eastern cultures. Why do I call it a cult?
According to the definition of a cult, there is a (or multiple) authoritarian leadership (gurus). Prior to John Walton and Michael Heiser circa 1990, this idea that the Bible must conform to pagan writings was unheard of within Christianity. For nearly 2000 years no Christian scholar accepted this type of thinking, but with Walton’s and Heiser’s writing we hear: “trust us, we’re scholars”. It’s no longer SOLA SCRIPTURA…it’s Sola Scholara.
Secondly, ANE exists in tension to mainstream Christianity. Unfortunately, their controlling tactics have been persuasive to many Christians and the pendulum is swinging left in a hurry
Thirdly, these gurus are discouraging people from trusting the Christian fathers of the last 2000 years and your very own eyes. You can read what the Bible says for yourself, but these gurus propose that your ignorant eyes can’t see the deeper meanings in the text. You have to incorporate their special interpretive lens. The trendy scholars have secret knowledge that they are sharing with the masses. This secret knowledge is available for those, who will buy their books and watch their content.
Fourthly, the ideas that they espouse do NOT come from the Bible itself. It comes from the gurus. They found some pagan writings, and they want their special views to be brought into scripture. It’s the opposite of traditional hermeneutical methods, which would instead teach us that only scripture interprets scripture. We should get our understanding from the scriptures themselves, but these ANE gurus tell us that their ANE views must be brought INTO the text
YEC is not a cult, but ANE is
Correction: At about 1:12:00 I should have said theodicy not theophany
In my most recent journey through the Bible, I’ve made a list of phrases that in the past have been used as colloquialisms in American culture. Because of the general biblical illiteracy in 21st century America, I thought it would be a good idea to identify some of these common phrases as having origin in the Bible, since most people would probably not recognize their origin or its basic meaning. Here are the ones I’ve come up with:
Genesis 3:19 “for dust you are and to dust you will return”
Exodus 3:8 “a land flowing with milk and honey”
Exodus 21:24 “eye for eye, tooth for tooth”
Deuteronomy 32:10 “the apple of his eye”
Job 19:20 “I have escaped by the skin of my teeth”
Proverbs 13:20 “He who walks with the wise grows wiser, but a companion of fools suffers harm”
Proverbs 16:18 “Pride goes before destruction”
Proverbs 17:22 “A cheerful heart is good medicine”
Although not a direct quote, we see the source for the colloquialism “Laughter is the best medicine” as coming from Solomon’s wisdom
Proverbs 17:28 “Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips he is deemed intelligent”
Abraham Lincoln is believed to have said “It is better to be silent and be thought dumb, than to speak and remove all doubt.” Whether he said it or not, the quote clearly has its origin in the Proverbs
Proverbs 27:17 “As iron sharpens iron”
Proverbs :29:24 “The partner of a thief hates his own life”
You can see the colloquialism: “there’s no honor among thieves” as having its genesis in Proverbs 29
Isaiah 22:13 “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”
Isaiah 40:31 “They will mount up with wings as eagles”
Ecclesiastes 1:9 “there is nothing new under the sun”
Ecclesiastes 1:17 “chasing after the wind”
Ecclesiastes 3:1 “For everything there is a season”
Ecclesiastes 3:2 “A time to be born and a time to die”
Ecclesiastes 3:20 “All are from dust and to dust all return”
Similar to the Genesis 3 phrase, Americans, who have watched movies that have funerals or have attended a funeral will be familiar with the phrase the God created Adam from dust, and while our souls are immortal, our bodies return to the dust in death
Ecclesiastes 4:12 “a cord of 3 strands is not quickly broken”
Ecclesiastes 5:15 “naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will return”
Jeremiah 13:23 “Can a leopard change his spots?”
Daniel 3:27 “Not a single hair on your head is harmed”
Daniel 5 “The writing is on the wall”
This exact phrase does not appear in Daniel, but the promise of impending doom is clearly communicated from God’s hand to Belshazzar for his rebellion and wickedness. The colloquialism is clearly understood to be an inevitable calamity
Hosea 8:7 “reap the whirlwind”
Matthew 3:12 “separate wheat from chaff”
Matthew 5:39 “turn the other cheek”
Matthew 5:43 ” Love your neighbor”
Matthew 5:44 “Love your enemies”
Matthew 6:24 “You cannot serve 2 masters”
Matthew 7:3-5 “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
Matthew 7:10 “Do to others as you’d have them do to you”
Matthew 15:14 “blind leading the blind”
Matthew 25:32 “separate sheep from the goats”
Matthew 27:24 “he took water and washed his hands before the crowd saying ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood'”
Again we don’t see the exact phrase, but we hear people say “I wash my hands of this” as if to declare themselves innocent/unaffiliated of/with a failing or guilty entity
Mark 8:36 “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul”
Mark 12:17 “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”
Luke 14:27 “anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy to be my disciple.” The colloquialism is usually phrased “It’s my cross to bear” or something similar
Luke 16:10 “Whoever can be trusted with very little can be trusted with much. Whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much”
Acts 20:35 “More blessed to give than to receive”
1 Corinthians 15:32 “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”
1 Corinthians 15:33 “Bad company ruins good morals”
I’m sure there are many that I missed. Feel free to add them in the comments. The idea behind this post is the importance of an understanding of the Bible. At one time, the American populace had a much greater knowledge of God’s eternal word. So colloquialisms that appeared in the lexicon were well understood because of how familiar Americans were with the scripture.
Fathers, read the Bible. Fathers, read the Bible with your family. Make sure that your family has a deep and abiding knowledge of the Bible
Fitting evolution into Christianity is like forcing a square peg in a round hole
Although much ink and digital pixels have been spilled on a possible answer to this question, what follows will be the definitive answer to the question. No need for anymore searching or endless debate: THIS is it!
Well, perhaps not. Long after I’m gone, I’m sure theistic evolutionists will still be trying to syncretize worldliness into the Bible, but there’s really no need: the Bible is clear – evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Let’s investigate
Definitions
First we need some definitions. What is Christianity? In my personal definition, Christianity is the logical understanding and application of what God has revealed in the Bible. Wikipedia defines Christianity as
This definition will do as there is plenty of overlap between the 2.
Now for the more difficult one. What is evolution? From the various atheists and theistic evolutionists online definition 1 might be something like:
“Evolution means you’re not the same as your parents”
“Evolution is science. No theory has more evidence to support it than evolution”
Who could argue with the idea that biological creatures change? No one. Creationists and evolutionists agree that creatures change. Who could argue with the idea that allele frequencies change within a population over time? No one. Creationists and evolutionists agree that allele frequencies change. Who could argue with the idea that you’re not the same as your parents? No one.
Regarding the claim that “evolution is science“, I heartily disagree. Science is the “system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method.” Creationists agree with this definition of science…in fact it was young earth creationists like Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Joule, Lister, Pascal and Kepler that helped kick start their respective branches of science. A common pejorative from theistic evolutionists to their creationist brothers is “science-denier” as if to impugn a denial of physics, zoology, mathematics, chemistry, magnetology, geology and the like simply because we reject biological evolution. It’s an ad hominem fallacy aimed at discrediting arguments from Christians, who uphold the Bible as the magisterial authority, so that theistic evolutionists can escape from dealing with the arguments themselves. Now, there are *scientists* who believe the whole theory of evolution (defined below), but the scientific method cannot duplicate a dinosaur becoming a bird via natural selection acting on random mutations or a land vertibrate changing into a whale with numerous successive slight modifications. That is all assumed, and since the scientific method cannot repeat this process, evolution (as shown below in Definition 2) is not science. It is an ideology, and as we all well know, it is a tyrannical ideology that suffers no dissent.
Alleles
Sidebar: What is an allele? Wikipedia defines it as “a variant of the sequence of nucleotides at a particular location on a DNA molecule.” An example of an allele would be eye color or blood type. There is variability in the DNA that can produce different eye colors, but not every variant is expressed in each phenotype. Genetics has shown that changes in allele frequency produce different eye colors in different generations due to the existing variability stored within the alleles. Evolutionists love to say that “evolution is simply the change in allele frequency within a population over time.” And creationists agree with this. So what’s the big deal about alleles? Evolutionists believe that alleles have been constructed by an accumulation of random mutations. It’s very much akin to the belief that the operating system that controls the hardware on a phone was aggregated by random keystrokes. Creationists do not grant this origins story of alleles to the evolutionists. Yes, alleles exist. Yes, alleles contain variability, but this variability has existed from the beginning. It has not been cobbled together randomly. Yes, we see the variability of eye colors, hair colors, and blood types because that information ALREADY EXISTS in the genome. Natural selection is a descriptive process of the selecting of existing information for preservation, but this results in a LOSS of information…not the creation of it. Since there is no evidence for the construction of alleles via natural selection acting on random mutations, we (creationists) do not grant the use of alleles to evolutionists. They cannot account for alleles.
So that my detractors do not think I have misrepresented evolution in my shortened definition, here is Wikipedia’s definition of evolution. They too recognize the key elements of
single common ancestor of all life (hypothetical as evidence for LUCA is missing)
natural selection acting on random mutations is the mechanism
billions of years are necessary
all biological life including mankind are the result of the natural processes that require no intelligent intervention
If we want to determine by Darwin’s own metric of what makes his theory possible (“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”), then all biology must be able to be explained by natural selection acting on random mutations (even though Darwin was unaware of the specifics of mutations, his theory includes the modifications which we now know is mutations)
THIS (definition 2) is what Christians, who accept the Bible, are arguing against when we say that evolution is not compatible with Christianity. Definition 2 focuses on the historical nature of biological life on earth, and has nothing to do with what’s measured/repeatable in the laboratory. Many times, theistic evolutionists join their God-denying colleagues in claiming that evolution is science, but this is the motte-and-bailey fallacy. When Christians rightly voice that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, both theistic evolutionists and their comrades declare with mockery “Evolution is just change! How can you deny change? Are you the same are your parents? You’re driving people away from Christianity if you tell them that they can’t trust science!” Notice below how theistic evolutionist, Bishop, decries the idea that me, a Christian, would question evolution when he defines evolution as science itself…and the atheist ankle-biters snuggle in warmly to those who embrace evolution.
Definition 1 is the motte: an easily defensible position that is uncontroversial. They retreat to the motte and throw rhetorical stones at the Christian “heretics” for denying something obvious. When in reality the Christians, who accept the Bible, are using Definition 2 of evolution, (in this case, the bailey) which is completely at odds with the Bible. Since everyone agrees that change happens, we will no longer consider Definition 1 as part of this article. Henceforth, Definition 2 is the only idea that is considered when referencing evolution.
To elucidate just a bit more about the theory of evolution, we should talk about natural selection, which is a description of the survival of the fittest…or more recently “the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype”. Essentially, natural selection is the idea that the those creatures, who are less fit, are removed from the population. Those creatures with the greatest number of offspring are said to have higher fitness. The culling of the less fit is central to the theory. Richard Dawkins employed the phrase “red in tooth and claw” (which arose in Darwin’s day to describe the pitiless indifference of nature) to summarize the cruel behaviors of the doctrine of survival of the fittest. For the fittest to pass on the traits that make them the most fit, the death of their lesser peers must take place, and it takes a great deal of time to get fixation within a species. Death and time are the heroes of evolution
Compatibility
Let’s look at what the Bible says about the past as opposed to what advocates of evolution teach. The chart below shows some of the differences:
1 Cor 15:45 and Gen 3:20 confirm that Adam and Eve were the original human pair from whom all humans descended
Between 250K and 350K years ago a population of between 1000 and 10,000 (depending on which theory you believe) anatomically modern humans were mostly isolated from populations of erectus and habilis…although there was some interbreeding between the non-human homo populations
Acts 17:26 confirms that all humans are descended from one man, Noah
About 600K years ago, Homo Heidelbergensis emerged. From this stock along with some cross-breeding with other pre-human hominins produced a population of homo sapiens
Caveats
As a Christian, who accepts the Bible in its literary context and genre to mean that God created the universe in 6 calendar days about 6000 years ago, I recognize that there are Christian brothers and sisters, who disagree strongly with me. They have worked hard to bring into concordance with the Bible, the teachings of evolutionists. So, my caveat is that while theistic evolutionists laboriously strive to harmonize Christianity with evolution, it does not mean that they are not Christians. One is not saved by the quantity of correct information that one believes. One is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ our Redeemer alone! This article is intended to show their inconsistencies and failed attempts to ‘put a square peg in a round hole’.
Objections
Let’s now analyze the differences from the table above and the attempted rescue devices that theistic evolutionists employ.
Difference 1: The order of creation in the Bible is different than the order taught by advocates of evolution. The theistic evolutionist is left with 2 choices:
“The Bible is not a science textbook. It wasn’t intending to tell us a specific order of creation. It’s just a theological treatise telling us that God is the Creator.“
“Since Moses didn’t know about modern science, he could only write from what he knew. And since God’s revelation in the book of nature in evolution is right, we can correct Moses’s ignorance. Moses is just writing poetically as a polemic against pagan creation narratives.“
The 1st attempt at a resolution is both a category error and shows a low view of scripture. I agree that the Bible is NOT a science textbook…it is mostly a history book (although it is so MUCH MORE than a history book), but in questions of history, historical documentation is the better tool for answering than forensics (extrapolation). The assumption exists that science must answer questions about the past, but when we want to know the age of the statue of liberty, Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, or the founding of Jerusalem, historical documentation trumps scientific extrapolation every time. The theistic evolutionist might counter with “But those are all examples that exist in human history. What about pre-human history?” And the answer is that there were only 5 calendar days prior to human history according to the Bible, and Jesus confirms that mankind was created at the beginning of creation. Why disagree with Jesus?
The 2nd attempt at a resolution (very much like the 1st attempt) takes a very low view of scripture. As Christians, the Bible is our magisterial authority, but theistic evolutionists would rather take what modern academics are saying and redefine the Bible to bring it into concordance with the modern paradigm. Genesis is written as history. It does not resemble the Hebrew poetry of the Psalms. All of the biblical authors regarded Genesis as history.
Difference 2: The Bible says that the original human pair, Adam and Eve, are the progenitors of the entire human race. Theistic evolutionists (for the most part) do not accept this and are left with 2 choices:
“Adam and Eve are just figurative archetypes. Because the science tells us that the genetics requires a population of about 10,000, there’s no way that an original pair could produce all of the variance we see today.“
Dr. Swamidass “It’s just a genealogical ancestry…not a genetic one. In this scenario, Adam and Eve are created de novo by God (from dust and a rib, as per Genesis) in a distinct act, separate from the evolved population. Their offspring then intermarry with this outside group, and over time, their genealogical lineage spreads universally.“
In the 1st attempt, we see again the idea that the modern academic paradigm is superior to the biblical text itself. It is a low view of scripture. They ignore what God has said in favor of what the loudest of the lab coats have assumed about the origins of humanity. If you’re interested in what Christian geneticists have said about the claims of the evolutionists, see Dr. Robert Carter’s research and Nathaniel Jeanson’s research.
While a clever attempt, Dr. Swamidass does not take into account the theological problem of death of humans prior to sin or the importance of the Kinsman Redeemer being able to atone for the sins of those to whom He is related. If there were pre-Adamite humans, they would not be eligible for redemption. It’s a low view of scripture and bad theology
Difference 3: The Bible says that the heavens, the Earth, the seas and all that is in them was created in 6 days and that mankind was formed at the beginning of creation. The theistic evolutionist, who vehemently disagrees with what the text says, would say
“Science has determined the age of the universe and the Earth to be 13.8 billion and 4.5 billion years old respectively, so the Bible needs to be interpreted in light of what the science says.“
To argue that this view is NOT a low view of scripture is illogical. Because the theistic evolutionist chooses to uphold the modern paradigm as preeminent as the interpretive authority shows clearly that although scientific paradigms have failed over and over, they’ve been deceived into believing that THIS time, the naturalistic view is correct. Scientific paradigms have been shown to be false time and again. From when the scientific consensus believed in geocentrism, to the time when the scientific consensus believed in phlogiston, to when the scientific consensus believed that blood-letting helped sick patients, to the time when the scientific consensus believed in spontaneous generation, to the time when the scientific consensus believed in an impending ice age in the 1970s, and when the scientific consensus believed that everyone should eat more carbohydrates according to the food pyramid, to the time when the scientific consensus believed that a cloth mask would protect everyone from the most deadly virus in human history…all falsified. But maybe the current tyrannical scientific consensus of evolution with work
The Bible could not be MORE clear that the days of Genesis 1 are clear 24hr calendar days. While there is flexibility in the Hebrew word for day (yom), we can look at the context of Gen 1 to find the boundaries of the word. Since the context bounds yom by ordinal sequentials and evening/morning (and all biblical examples where both of those exist require the text to be understood as a calendar day) we know that the days of Genesis 1 are calendar days. We also see from Ex 20:9-11 that God expected his people to work for the same amount of time that He did during his creative works before sabbath. Since God’s people were not expected to work for 6 epochs (as would be necessary for evolution), we have confirmation from the Bible itself that God created in six calendar days. Sometimes, the theistic evolutionists want to say that it’s just a pattern, but for that to be true, they have to interpret the same word from the same author to the same audience in the same context be interpreted completely different. It’s bad hermeneutics.
Even John Walton, who is no friend to young earth creationists, open admits on pg 90-91 of his book that the text of Genesis 1 demands that yom must be interpreted as 24hr days.
Difference 4: While the Bible says that prior to sin animals were to be vegetarian only, advocates of theistic evolution would propose the incompatible idea that evolution would never restricted animals to eating only plants.
“Creatures today consume meat, and the fossils recovered in the geologic layers have sharp teeth. So, according to evolution, animals had no dietary boundaries. The Bible must have been talking about something else. It’s not a command. It’s just saying that plants are important to the life cycle.”
Again, their attempt at a reconciliation between the theory of evolution and the Bible takes a low view of scripture. Evolution is their highest authority, so that Bible must be changed to accommodate this view of continual violence, death, misery, and predation prior to the fall into sin. The full refutation of this idea is shown here, but is essentially: since God commanded man not to consume meat in Gen 1:28-30, God gave the same command to animals. We know it was a command because God gave a clear rescinding of his vegetarian command to Noah in Gen 9:2. The theory of evolution remains incompatible with Christianity
Difference 5: The Bible says that animals are to reproduce after their kind. Typically theistic evolutionists and God-deniers have the same lazy responses (although they are not arguments) “Kind isn’t a scientific word” and “kind is just species“. If they attempt to make an argument to reconcile evolution to the Bible, it is only that the men who wrote the Bible were middle eastern goat-herders or some similar pejorative that dismisses the biblical authors as unlearned.
Again, the theistic evolutionary view takes a low view of scripture. In order to try to reconcile their view with the Bible, they intentionally subject the Bible to the modern paradigm of evolution.
Difference 6: The Bible says that the sin of mankind brought death into creation. The Bible also refers to death as “the last enemy to be destroyed”, so it is not a benign cohabiter with life in a “very good” creation. In the story of evolution, death of the unfit for millions or billions of generations brought about mankind. In their view, death is the hero. Theistic evolutionists have a few options in trying to deal with this obvious difference
“The sin of mankind only brought about the death of humans. The Bible says NOTHING about the death of animals“
“Death is not bad. We have to die to get to heaven“
“Physical death has always been a part of creation. Adam’s sin only brought spiritual death“
In bullet point 1, the evolutionist tries to belittle the bloodshed, misery, and death of animals as simply part of the circle of life. This disparagement of God’s creation isn’t as much a low view of scripture but is a low view of animals, animal suffering, creation, and the catastrophic effects of sin itself. Romans 8:20-22 paints a completely different picture than evolutionists would sketch
The effects of sin changed all of creation from one of freedom, peace, and abundant fruitfulness to subjection to futility, groaning, and corruption. Evolution dismisses the curse and effects of sin as merely spiritual. You can see and even more comprehensive rebuttal of this point here.
In the 2nd bullet point, the evolutionist argues that death is not that bad. But this is the exact opposite of what the Bible says. In 1 Cor 15:26 Paul describes death as the “last enemy to be destroyed.” Death (as a curse for sin) is an enemy. The belief of the evolutionist requires them to have a low view of scripture.
In the 3rd bullet point, the evolutionist argues that sin brought only a spiritual death, but this is naive to the fact that Jesus died the most horrendous PHYSICAL death in crucifixion. Theologically, it was his physical death and resurrection that paid for the sins of humanity. Notice the curses for sin: death, suffering, and thorns from Genesis 3. At the crucifixion, Jesus took upon Himself all of these curses to atone for the sins of his people (Isa 53). The Bible rejects the idea that Adam’s sin brought only physical death only to humans
Difference 7: The Bible says that thorns are a curse of the sin of mankind. But according to the evolutionary story, thorns were produced naturally by plants in the ever-escalating warfare between plant reproduction and herbivores. Since thorns are found in geologic layers, which evolutionists believe were buried prior to mankind, evolutionists have to try to resolve the difference. Creationists, who accept the teachings of the Bible, know that thorns are a curse for sin, and that the thorns buried deep are a result of the judgment of the global flood. How do evolutionists try to resolve the difference?
“Thorns aren’t a curse of sin. It’s just an allegory“
Again, evolutionists take a low view of scripture, because they take naturalistic interpretations from today, ignore the effects of the Genesis 6-9 worldwide flood, and redefine the biblical text.
Difference 8: The Bible clearly teaches that Adam and Eve were created directly from God via the dust and Adam’s side respectively. Evolution teaches that a small population (about 10k) of humans evolved traits to become human. To be fair, there are some theistic evolutionists, who hold to the standard evolutionary model for all biological life except humans and believe that God did specially create humanity in Adam and Eve. While they choose to uphold the Bible in this case, it is now destructive to their theory of evolution as the standard (current) model is taught as if it can account for all human traits in the same way that it can supposedly account for all other biological traits. The group that denies special creation of mankind, who accept the theory of evolution in its entirety, have to resolve this difference somehow
“The Bible isn’t a science textbook. It’s just a theological treatise about God being the Creator. He didn’t say *how* He did his creative works. We’re only supposed to know from the Bible that He started everything. There was no initial human pair Adam or Eve. That’s a myth.“
That is a low view of scripture. They mythologize a historical text simply to accommodate the teachings of the modern paradigm. It ignites serious theological problems with who is eligible for salvation through the blood sacrifice of the Kinsman Redeemer, and it incinerates the authority of scripture that teaches an unbroken royal lineage from Adam to Jesus.
Difference 9: The Bible says that there was a global flood and from Noah (the 1 man) and his family of 8, who got off the ark, God created all the nations of mankind (Genesis 10-11). Theistic evolutionists deny the global flood and much like they say in both Differences 2 and 8, they choose to believe the assumptions of evolution at the expense of the Bible. How do they resolve the difference?
“There is absolutely NO evidence for a global flood. Human lineage cannot be traced back to a single man or woman. You misinterpret the text. You think that your interpretation is the same as the Bible itself.“
Denying the global flood of Noah’s day puts theistic evolutionists as allies with the scoffers, who Peter claims will deny that “the world was deluged and destroyed”. It’s less than a low view of scripture; it’s willful ignorance…another term Peter uses. The resolution of difference 9 is much like all of the other differences: take well-understood words and redefine them in accordance with modern sensibilities rather than how the words are used in the text of scripture itself: a low view of scripture
Conclusion
Some theistic evolutionists even declare that “there are no differences between the Bible and the theory of evolution“, but as you can see: the differences are stark, and the attempts to bring resolution destroys the Bible, the theory of evolution, or language itself. THIS is what makes the theory of evolution and Christianity incompatible. Anyone, who might be unfamiliar with the theory of evolution, wouldn’t read the Bible and think “It’s clear in the Bible that God was completely absent from creation and had no interaction with material. Instead He allowed a process of gradual formation over billions of years of death and suffering to produce both the extinct and extant creatures including humans.”
In the same way, no one reads the writings of the evolutionists and concludes, “Clearly there is intricate and purposeful design from the interference of a supreme intelligence seen in every creature. We can see from nature that the supreme intelligence loves humanity and wants humanity to have dominion over the things that he/she made.”
These two opposing stories don’t fit; they are incompatible. Any attempt to bring them into concordance fundamentally changes either the biblical account or the evolutionary account or both. If a theistic evolutionist wants to bring concordance, they must redefine the biblical text, change the order of creation, and change the evolutionary story to say “God-dun-it-differently-than-He-said-but-just-like-evolution-says”. The most common practice among theistic evolutionists is the marginalize the Genesis account by declaring it to be allegory. In much the same way that Michael Scott from the Office shouts out “I declare BANKRUPTCY!!!”, shouting that “Genesis is ALLEGORY!!!” is nothing more than bluster. In fact, it is detrimental to the authority of scripture.
If one can marginalize parts of the Bible as simply allegorical just because it does not comport with modern sensibilities like evolution, then the Bible loses its authority. By the same interpretive principles that theistic evolutionists change the Bible to accommodate evolution, LGBTQ+ people change the Bible to accommodate THEIR perversions. The progressive woke “Christians” also change the Bible to accommodate their racist teachings. Paul warns Christians over and over not to allow trendy worldly philosophies to influence the gospel of Jesus found in His Eternal Word.
So, is evolution compatible with Christianity? Most definitely not
Post Script
With regards to the claim that “there is absolutely no evidence of a global flood“, there is ubiquitous evidence of a global flood. It is true that for over 100 years almost every university has taught that there was no global flood, so it’s no surprise that almost all academics would believe what they’ve been taught. But when one starts with the truth of scripture, which says that there was a flood that covered “all the high mountains under the entire heavens”, the evidence is impossible to ignore. The evidence is literally everywhere!
In this debate, my Christian friend @CuriousChristianity attempted to argue the positive for this case, and I took the much easier (and biblical) case for the negative
Opening
Americans on average go through 12 years of public school indoctrination in evolution. Those, who go to college and those who get advanced degrees get 4, 6 or 8 more years of deeper indoctrination into the ideas that animals have been dying for millions of years. Even those who don’t get advanced degrees are saturated with movies and tv shows and news bulletins and flyers and conversations among work associates that bloodshed and death are pervasive for the assumed millions of years of evolutionary development. Some would call this science, but it is at the very least a philosophical idea that is deeply ingrained in 21st century thinking. It takes courage and discernment not to drink in and believe the worldly philosophy of evolutionism as a basic assumption. My friend may or may not believe in evolution, but the influence of the philosophies of death for millions of years is both pervasive and assumed in this culture. Many Christians who have been indoctrinated in the philosophy of death for millions of years search for holes in the text of the Bible to see if there is room to insert these outside ideas of death and suffering before the fall into sin. See if in this debate, you can discern how the assumptions of death have influenced the arguments of my friend rather than starting instead with the eternal word of God.
My case will have 3 points: Good, Food and Blood
Good
My friend has the very unenviable task of building the case that the Bible teaches that animals died before the fall of mankind. It is particularly difficult since no where in the Bible will you find death before the fall. He might make some assumptions and you’ll likely hear him try to talk about how good death really is, but please pray for my friend: his case is hopeless
During the creation account in Genesis 1 God declares his creation to be good 7 times and the 7th time, He declared it to be very good. What does the Hebrew word (tove) mean? Those, who hold to the temple inauguration view (like my opponent) will say it means “functional” or “ready”. Does this hold up to a textual analysis from Moses, in the same context to the same audience?
Gen 1:31 “God saw all that He had made, and it was very functional”
Gen 2:17 “But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of functional and dysfunctional”
Gen 3:22 “Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing functionality and dysfunction”
Of course, this does not make any sense, but this is what the guru, John Walton, would have us believe from p50 of his book The Lost World of Genesis, where he says: “the meaning of the repeated formula ‘it was good’, which I propose refers to functioning properly…functional readiness”
This is the trendy tactic for Walton’s followers to get around the serious problem of animal death. If they can redefine good to have nothing to do with sin/morality or the fall, then they can accept the modern paradigm’s view that animal death has been happening for millions of years (or as they might say “for an unknown amount of time). But if good has to do with the absence of evil or the antithesis of evil/harm/destruction, then those who hold to this view have a serious theological problem.
This word good H2896 tove (tob) is used to describe God Himself at least 27 times in the old testament. Are we to believe Walton’s definition that the Almighty is functional? 40 times in the old testament tove is paired with ra (evil) H7451 as its inverse. And we clearly see from Isa 11:6-9 that the destruction caused by the fall includes predatory destruction. The Apostle Pual picks up this seamless theme in scripture that during creation week there was an absence of corruption but because of the curse of sin “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.”
If my friend’s case is true, then suffering, cancer, and death are “very good”. But I Cor 15:26 tells us that “the final to be destroyed is death”.
If good is to have any meaning at all, then it cannot include suffering, harm, destruction and death as would be necessary for my friend’s case
Food
Genesis 1:28-29 has 5 commands
Be fruitful
Fill the earth
Subdue it
Have dominion over the animals
You shall have them (green plants) for good
Gen 1:30 relates the 5th command of God to “every beast of the field, every bird of the heavens & everything that creeps on the earth – everything that has the breath of life”
Predation is shown to be forbidden. Humans SHALL eat the green plants for food & those under man’s dominion shall eat green plants. Why would we assume that those under Adam’s jurisdiction be granted a freedom to consume meat that was denied to humanity?
If you doubt that the Genesis 1 command to eat only the green plants is NOT a command, we can look to the recreation language of God after the global flood in Genesis 9
Gen 9:1-3 “And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground amd all the fish of the seas. Into your hand they are now delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood”
Again we see the commands of God to be fruitful, fill the earth, subdue it and have dominion over animals. But the 5th command is freed of the restriction of animal consumption. This pattern at the creation and recreation is apparent and even if not in words, is logically denied by my friend. There’s every reason to believe Gen 1:29 is also a command for humans because this command is reversed in Genesis 9. And by deduction, we see that the animals are subject to God’s pre-fall dietary commands as well – to be vegetarian
Blood
The 1st recorded bloodshed in the Bible is the penal substitutionary atoning sacrifice of an animal in the garden by God Himself to cover the sins of Adam and Eve. The skin of this animal was used to cover their nakedness. This picture of the eventual bloodshed of Jesus was represented in the garden by the 1st recorded death of an animal. Without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness
Before the fall, God’s creation was very good – completely absent of evil/harm/destruction/predation and God promises that his creation will be restored to a state that is absent of evil/harm/destruction/predation through the redemptive work of Jesus. There was no room for animal death suffering or predation in God’s very good creation prior to the fall. As the writer of Hebrews tells us “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”. Has there been millions of years of needless suffering, bloodshed, and death in a world that God called very good as Walton tells us? Or as Romans 8 tells us, did the whole of creation become subjected to its bondage to corruption and groaning because of the sin of mankind?
It would be unexpected (according to my friend’s view) for something as meaningless as the bloodshed and death of animals to represent the atoning bloodshed of the Savior. It’s discordant with all of scripture to assume that there was some unknown epoch of meaningless bloodshed/death of animals that suddenly became the picture of Jesus’s redemptive sacrifice. But it is perfectly aligned with the teaching of the Bible that no bloodshed occurred until mankind sinned. The Spirit revealed to the writer of Hebrews how animal death isn’t meaningless as would be the logical result of my friend’s view.
Hebrews 9:13-22 “For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”
All of the Bible is about Jesus as seen in Luke 24:44-45. The picture of the bloodshed of Jesus was represented in the bloodshed of animals as recorded for the 1st time after Adam/Eve had sinned. There is a gaping theological hole in the argument that rather than there being representative significance to the bloodshed of animals, the bloodshed and death of animals is meaningless because it happened for millions of years prior to the curse of sin. It is an unwitting diminution of the blood sacrifice of Jesus
Closing
As you can see from the video, the Bible does NOT teach that animals died before the fall. You have to appreciate the effort by my friend, but he had an impossible task. The assumptions and speculations he has made are just not found in the text itself.
There is great symmetry between the old and new creation. The Bible has a clear chiastic structure which we can see when looked at as a whole. God’s original good creation was cursed by bondage to corruption and death because of man’s sin. But because of what Jesus has done as the prophets & Revelation reveal, God will restore creation to a state that will be absent of evil and harm. This redemptive plan brings glory to Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus has power to redeem all of creation from its bondage to suffering, corruption and to defeat the last enemy: death.
Be brave and discerning dear Christians. Though the dominant paradigm is saturated with worldly philosophies like evolution and deep time, we need not be captive to this kind of thinking. We have the mind of Christ, and out thinking should be shaped according to Christ’s revelation and for His glory
The Bible tells us that humans are made in the image of God. As image bearers, humans were empowered to uphold God’s dominion over all of his lovely creation. Genesis tells us that the curses for sin were thorns, suffering, and death. Jesus took each of these curses upon Himself at the cross. Denying that the curses for sin had no effect on the creation over which mankind had dominion, limits both the universally destructive power of sin AND the redemptive work of Jesus, whose power is even greater than that of sin. His death and resurrection heals not just the hearts of the repentant, but restores the relationships of the wolf and the lamb, the leopard with the goat, the calf and the lion. There will no longer be harm and destruction that has pervaded this sin-cursed creation.
Post Debate Discussion
During the debate, Adam said, “We should let God define good”. And I heartily agree. When we let scripture speak for itself, goodness is clearly an absence of evil/harm/death. God uses the Hebrew word for good (tob, H2896) to describe Himself at least 27 times in the old testament. And at least 45 times in the old testament God contrasts good (tob) with evil (ra, H7451). The Hebrew word ra means evil, harm or destruction. The definition of good is the absence of evil, harm, & destruction. So, Adam’s entire case is discordant with what the Bible teaches. So, yes – Let God define what is good
While the argument about the tree of life is a good one, it is easily shown to be insufficient to overcome the teaching from scripture that everything in creation was very good before the fall. And since the Bible (Rev 22:2) tells us that the tree of life is for the *healing* of the nations. This healing is easily inferred to be from the mortal wound of sin. Without sin, there would be no need for healing.
What about plants or bacteria or spiders (as Adam brought up several times in the debate? Plants, while categorized as alive today, are really just a self-replicating food source. As for the others, see the article here.
If you are unfamiliar with the misery, suffering, bloodshed, and harm that animals deal with, follow these accounts on X. These are the behaviors that old earthers think are part of a “very good” creation for millions of years prior to the sin of mankind
@TheBrutalNature
@BrutaINature1
@TheeDarkCircle
Some more thoughts about how God views blood as important, check out these passages:
So animal blood, while much less valuable than the blood of Christ, is shown to be valuable for covering sins. The shedding of animal blood is the picture of Christ’s blood, so it is not insignificant as would be necessary in the views of old earthism. Predation and death of animals would not be expected from a biblical view. It is only the worldly philosophies that bring in the ideas of perpetual predation and animal death prior to the sin of mankind
Don’t overlook the effects of the cultural saturation of evolution in the arguments of my friend. The myth millions of years of death and suffering are so engrained in the cultural milieu, that Adam just assumes death has been a part of history for that long. It’s definitely not a biblical teaching. It comes from outside the Bible. So, we can say with certainty that the Bible teaches that animals did NOT die before the fall
In response to the Pharisees question of whether a man can lawfully divorce his wife, Jesus responded that divorce was only permitted because of the hardness of their heart. It is recorded in Mark 10:6 that Jesus said: “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” (bold added by me)
This phrase comes up from time to time in discussions about young earth vs. old earth. Young earth creationists say that this is proof that Jesus was a young earth creationist. Old earth creationists have said things like:
“This is just the beginning of mankind”
“This is just the beginning of marriage”
“Mankind wasn’t made at the beginning – Adam was made at some unknown time after creation”
“Jesus didn’t really know the science”
All of those responses do not take the words themselves into account. Jesus said “the beginning of creation”. He did NOT say “the beginning of mankind” or “the beginning of marriage”.
But what about the 3rd bullet point: “Mankind wasn’t made at the beginning. Adam was made at some unknown time after creation” ? In this point, the old earther mischaracterizes the word “beginning” as if it can only mean the initial picosecond (what’s smaller than a picosecond?) of creation. Let’s look at a couple of analogies to show that the old earther demands a hypocritical and draconian misunderstanding of the word: beginning.
Consider the four year term of a president. The 47th president of the United States will be inaugurated in a few months. Would it be reasonable to say that the ‘beginning’ of his term includes only the first breath after taking the oath of office and nothing else? No, of course not. Would it be reasonable to say that the ‘beginning’ of the 47th president’s term included January 21st? 22nd? the first 100 days? Yes. Yes. Yes. The old earther makes an unreasonable demand of the word.
How about the 100m dash? The fastest reaction time allowed for starting a 100m race after the starting notification is 1/10 of a second. If it takes approximately 10 seconds for the finest athletes to run the 100 meter race, then the part of the race where the runner has not even responded to the starting signal is about 1/100 of the race. Commentators speak of the sprinter’s start as the first 10 meters (the beginning) of the race. After the starter’s gun goes off, sprinter’s cannot even begin to move until a 100 billion picoseconds have passed. Certainly, the beginning of the race can include 100 billion picoseconds before the athlete can even move. Yes?
Using our 100m dash analogy, if we limit ‘the beginning’ to just the 1/10 of the second before the sprinters even moved, it would still be more than 2000 times greater than the passage of time relative to the length of the race from the creation week of Genesis 1 to 4000 years later when Jesus said “at the beginning of creation”. In other words when Jesus was speaking about the beginning of creation 4000 years after mankind was formed from the dirt, that length of time is 2,000 times smaller than the 1/10 of a second when a sprinter has not even begun to move out of the starting blocks in his 100m race. Certainly it could be said that within the meaning of the word “beginning” we can reasonably include the 1st week – just as Jesus said. If we put Jesus’s words and the beginning of creation on comparative timelines, things come into sharp focus. The green line shows accurately the beginning of creation that correctly accounts for the words of Jesus.
Conversely, if the old earth view (the red line above) were true and mankind was made 13.7 billion years after creation, it would be as though the runners in a 100 meter race were the same distance as the diameter of 3 water molecules from the finish line. This renders the word “beginning” to be meaningless because in all views other than YEC, the beginning can mean all of history. It destroys the very meaning of the word “beginning”.
You can see clearly that the old earther is faced with the dilemma of either putting false words in the mouth of Jesus, declaring Jesus to be ignorant of his own creation, or destroying language. If you want to be in accordance with scripture, you’ll accept YEC. It’s the only view that is consistent with scripture. The young earth creationist from above is right – Jesus is a young earth creationist.
Yes…clearly. Here’s the definitive debate and some post debate thoughts to help clarify some things that didn’t get full discussion during our allotted time
Here are my notes for my opening:
The word ‘Trinity’ does not appear anywhere in the Bible, but we know from reading the Bible that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. And we know that God is One. Anyone who denies the trinity is not a Christian. The biblical teaching of a young earth is more clear than the trinity. While people can deny a young earth and still be a Christian, we must wonder why denial of a young earth is so pervasive. For 18 centuries Christians have universally accepted the biblical account that the earth is young. But with the advent of the modern scientific paradigm of deep time at the end of the 18th century, some in the church began to look for ways to bring the biblical account into concordance with that deep time paradigm. It’s a trendy fad with many different ideas on how to do so. From postulating that days actually mean eons to inventing a billions of years gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, the ideas have been creative. The trendiest of ideas that is hyperbolically 15 minutes old, is that Genesis is agnostic to ideas of age and does not deal with “material” creation; just its functional ordering due to the influence of the writings of the Hittites, Sumerians, and other ancient near eastern people groups that were judged with destruction for their wickedness. ALL of these trendy ideas have one thing in common – a specialized guru who tells you that the words don’t mean what they are commonly understood to mean. They mean something unique that only the guru with his secret knowledge can reveal. They say that it is the text of scripture that must be redefined so that the Bible can be brought into alignment with the emergent dominant paradigm.
Is it valid to consider trendy ideas to make the Bible concordant with the worldly philosophies, or should we as Christians uphold the authority of scripture as the magisterial principium? If words have meaning at all, then accepting the Bible’s clear teaching of what we now call young earth creation is self-evident. It is at the expense of denying language itself that fellow brothers in Christ deny that the Bible teaches what I will defend tonight (Does the Bible teach that the earth is young?)
The earth, the universe and everything in it was created in 6 calendar days as the Bible says
The earth was created about 6000 years ago because of the ages given in the corresponding accounts of the unbroken royal lineage of the Seed from Adam -> Abram in Genesis/Chronicles and from Abram to Jesus (Luke) as the Bible says
Jesus confirms that mankind was made at the beginning of creation as the Bible says in Mark 10:6
As Christians, we do not want to hold onto things that are demonstrably false. Genesis and the rest of scripture very clearly tells us that God created in 6 calendar days about 6000 years ago. Most of God’s word was passed to us from the Spirit inspiring the prophets and apostles, but part of the case for young earth was literally written by the hand of God in stone. This was completely undisputed but for the rarest of outliers for about 1800 years until the end of the 19th century. Suddenly when Darwin’s idea of evolution took hold of academia more time was needed to explain his biological theory, so it became trendy to see if the words in the Bible could be stretched to accommodate these naturalistic ideas.
Text: Genesis 1
“In the beginning” – This may come up later as we identify that one of the trendy tactics today is to stretch the word beginning far beyond all recognition. Hebrew grammar and narrative structure of Genesis 1 doesn’t permit a time gap between verses 1 and 2. The waw consecutive (“and”) at the beginning of verse 2 in Hebrew implies a direct sequence of events
Use of the word yom (meaning day) and it’s literally defined there in Genesis 1
Why did God not use any of the deep time words like:
Yamim (plural of yom) – Not used
Qedem (days of old) – Not used
Olam (days of old) – Not used
Some might object and say that Moses didn’t understand large numbers like billions of years, so God had to speak to the simpleton with simpleton language, but this objection would be ignorant of the covenant from Gen 22:17 “I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore”, yet God did not communicate to Moses about his creation in this way
The only reason that God would withhold using large words to describe the time it took for Him to create is because it took only 6 calendar days – just as He said
“Sequential days” are confirmed by the ordinal usage of the text. Had God wished to communicate non-sequential days, it would have been quite easy for Him to say something like “some time later” or “many years later” or “as things developed over time”. Instead, He used language that we all understand to mean sequential consecutive days. The point is clear: God was not giving some ambiguous myth. The words of Genesis have meaning of sequential consecutive calendar days
The days are bounded by evening/morning patterns to separate the days. Not eons. Not years. Not months…but only days are bounded by evenings/mornings. God was being very clear that yom means a calendar day in this context
“But Matt! Can’t yom mean a time period like in Genesis 2:4?” Yes! Notice how they always choose Genesis 2:4. No one ever chooses Genesis 1 because the context shows us that the usage of “yom” in Genesis 2:4 is COMPLETELY different than the usage of “yom” in Genesis 1. But I do agree that Yom has flexibility of usage. As faithful Christians we should look to scripture rather than some outside false authority like the scientific paradigm or modern culture or ancient near eastern cultures. Where can we look within scripture to find a usage of “yom” in the context described in Genesis 1 to give us the correct boundary? Ex 20:9-11 and Ex 31:17
“6 days you shall labor and do your work…for in 6 days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them”
In the same way that God’s people are expected to work each week, we can be certain that it took God the same amount of time to create the entire universe because of what the Bible says
Here’s the meat of the matter: Genesis 5 and 11 record the ages when those in the unbroken royal lineage of Jesus fathered their children. The summation of these ages confirm that the earth is indeed young. For those who would object that there may be gaps in the lineage, I ask “Who is missing? How do you know?” For those who would object that it doesn’t necessarily mean they fathered the direct descendant because the Hebrew word Yalad might just mean “was an ancestor of” I reply “it doesn’t matter because the age of the patriarch is mentioned whether it be father or grandfather”. To those who object “why does it have to be an unbroken lineage?” Seed of the woman vs. the seed of the serpent. Genesis tracks the unbroken royal line of the Seed of the woman as each generation looked for healing of the curses of sin. We know that the Matthew lineage has purposeful omissions for purposes of symmetry, but the other lineages (with their ages) show that Jesus is indeed the promised Kinsman Redeemer, who would crush the head of the serpent. Those, who would assume that there are genealogical omissions in Genesis/Chronicles/Luke are faced with the unenviable task of trying to show WHO is missing, how they know it, and how the line of kings remains verifiable in Jesus
Lastly: Mark 10:6 “for at the beginning of creation God made them male and female” Jesus is confirming that it was the beginning when He created everything else that He made mankind. Remember, Jesus is the Creator: He would know. Those who have fallen prey to the lure of the modern scientific paradigm may say “That passage is just about marriage”, but this objection ignores the actual words that Jesus said. Would you contend with Him, that the very specific words that He used are unimportant? If beginning has any meaning at all, then it must be referring to the creation week and not as old earthers claim 13.787 billion years after creation. To say that “the beginning” can mean anything from 14 dozen hours to 13.787 billion years ago renders the word as meaningless. It literally destroys language
Consistency
If fellow brothers who deny YEC would apply the same level of skepticism they do against Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 to other parts of scripture, you might hear:
“Of course the plagues against Egypt were just symbolic. There’s no way that an entire river turned to blood. God was just saying metaphorically that it’s the blood of Jesus that saves you. Besides there’s no record of the Nile turning to blood in Egyptian writings”
“When we look at ancient near eastern writings like the Sumerians, there are many stories like that of Samson, who had superhuman strength, so the Bible’s account of a man whose strength relied on the length of his hair is figurative in nature. Samson, while interesting, is hyperbolic of a leader, who probably existed but never pushed over a building with his hands”
“Jesus didn’t calm a literal storm. If you look at the Greek, you can reasonably surmise that Jesus comforted the storm in the hearts of his disciples. The storm was just a picture of the trauma that his disciples felt in knowing that their teacher would face persecution. Jesus’s words calmed the storm within them”
But it’s inconsistent for YEC deniers to declare “God could not have created the earth/universe in 6 days in the recent past…but it’s totally possible for a virgin to bear a child”
The text demonstrates that the earth (even though it is the oldest entity in the universe) is young, and Christians should not hold beliefs that are demonstrably false.
History
While the biblical text is the ultimate authority, is it worthwhile to see how Christians from the past have understood the text? Of course. If in my reading of the text, I ‘discover’ something that no one else in history ever thought or saw, I should question my own interpretation. To my knowledge, no Christian before the 18th century is recorded to have believed in what we would today call an old earth. To confirm the young earth consensus of the time from the earliest Christians to just over a century ago (a span of about 1800 years), let’s look back at some of those, who wrote about it (I’ll link the work of Ben Kissling in the show notes):
Irenaeus 165 AD – Earth is less than 8000 years old
Theophilus 180 AD – “All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years”
Julius Africanus 221AD – From the creation to 221 is 5499 years
Origen 248 AD identified his old earth atheist opponent with the implication that those who would deny the biblical age of less than 10,000 years are “assailants of the Christian faith”
Augustine 426 AD who wrote: “reckoning by the sacred writings (the Bible), not 6000 years have passed”
Johannes Kepler 1619 – Earth was created in 4997BC, so was less than 6800 years at the time of Kepler’s writing
James Ussher 1650 Annals of the World – Earth was created in 4004BC, less than 6100 years old
All Reformers accepted young earth (Did God Create in 6 Days? – Pipa)
Charles Lyell in the late 1800s (while not a Christian, recognized the hold that Christianity and thus the dominant paradigm of his time had on scientific studies) in his writings he wished to “free the science from Moses” which as we all know is Genesis
Jack Repcheck wrote a biography of James Hutton called The Man Who Found Time: “The age of the earth is the wedge that shattered the biblically rooted picture of Earth and separated science from theology”
As Christians, which we both are, we should want to interpret scripture consistently and rightly. Consistently by offering the same level of scrutiny to the passages that conflict with modern sensibilities (like Genesis) as those passages deemed crucial to Christian orthodoxy (like the miracles of Jesus). We’ve established that throughout all of church history before the dark times, everyone understood that the earth is young because of what the Bible tells us. And we have clearly established that the Bible teaches that the earth is young. The language demands it and we do not want to hold to teachings that are demonstrably false – especially the clear teachings of God’s Holy Word.
Closing
Thank you Keith for hosting this debate. You’re an above average timekeeper. Thank you Adam for a brotherly conversation on this important topic. Why is this topic important? I’m a Christian. Adam is a Christian. I love God’s Word and Adam loves God’s word. It is a matter both of authority and meaning. Dear Christians, if words have meaning, if language can communicate ideas, and since God has revealed history in his word, then we must hold to young earth creation. In Today’s culture redefining words to accommodate formerly abnormal views has become pervasive and acceptable:
Abortion is healthcare
Trespassing is an armed insurrection
Sexual perversion is normalized by asserting love is love
Anything certain parties don’t like is now defined as racism
Woman is whatever a person feels in their mind
Weird was used to describe the nuclear family
Sadly, this kind of thinking has leaked into the church when the foundations of scripture are compromised:
Day has been redefined as billions of years
Good has been redefined by John Walton as “functional ordering”
God’s creation of the universe in Genesis 1 has been redefined as temple inauguration
Death/suffering/thorns have been redefined as being very good
The beginning has been redefined to be some mysterious eon of time in which virtually all of the supposed billions of years of history have been hidden
As shown tonight, the plain reading of the Bible in its context…what some call the young earth understanding of God’s revelation in the Bible is the correct understanding. Young earth creation has been clearly understood since Moses penned those words and in Christendom until the dark times, until it became fashionable to reinterpret the meanings of words to accommodate modern sensibilities. If you need a guru like John Walton or Hugh Ross to give new definitions to words that no one in Christian history has ever before believed simply to accommodate modern scientific and cultural paradigms, take caution brothers. As Paul warned the Colossians “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ”. If you start with the human traditions of evolution or ancient near east hermeneutics, it will never lead you to Christ as that is not their purpose. But the purpose of God’s word is to lead us to Jesus. Just as the Bereans were called honorable for “searching the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true”, we too should test ideas by what is demonstrably true in God’s word. The Bible tells us that God created the universe very good (completely absent of evil/harm/destruction), but sin affected all of creation – and right there in the garden after the fall, God promised a Redeemer to heal that bondage to corruption against which we still groan today. But because the Bible can be trusted about God’s revelation of the past, we can trust his revelation about the future as we eagerly await the redemption of our bodies and the end of harm & destruction when the knowledge of the LORD fills the earth as the waters cover the sea. As Christians we do not want to have views of demonstrably false things, and it is demonstrably false that the Bible is agnostic to the age of the earth because of text of the Bible itself says. And it says that the earth is young
Post Debate Thoughts
The debate was effectively over when during the cross-examination, asked Adam:
“To accommodate something other than YEC, I can think of dozens of changes that would need to be made to the Bible. Conversely, if God actually did intend to communicate to us that the earth is young, what changes to the text of scripture would need to be made?”‘
His reply was “If he eliminated the 1st two verses of Genesis.” We can deduce from his statement that all of scripture supports the view that the earth is young if you do not hold Adam’s presuppositions. Now Adam has presupposed that Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 refer to God’s assembly of preexisting materials into the planet we see today and there are eons of time hidden in those verses that prevent us from knowing how old the earth is. In order to hold this presupposition, Adam has to ignore Exodus 20:9-11 and Mark 10:6, which if you watch the debate, this is exactly what he did. He tried very hard to dismiss the obvious connections of the creation of the waters and the earth in Exodus 20:9-11 and even laughed off the words of Jesus as referring to “the beginning”. Adam’s presuppositions are also at odds with the biblical text itself. No English translation supports his view, and if you say “well, but the original Hebrew…”, then you must conclude that you know Hebrew better than the 1000s of Hebrew scholars that have translated the text for hundreds of years.
Another of Adam’s dismissals is the idea of what the church has taught exclusively for thousands of years: the earth is young. He said in the debate that it’s “irrelevant” to this debate. While it is not authoritative, it is certainly relevant. Adam and I are both Christians and we both agree that the Bible is the authority, so our difference is over interpretation. If this debate had some different opinions over the course of church history prior to the dominant and oppressive modern paradigm, he might have a point. But the young earth view is exclusive from the beginning to hyperbolically 15 minutes ago.
I’ll repeat my contention from the opening: If in my reading of the text, I ‘discover’ something that no one else in history ever thought or saw, I should question my own interpretation. YOU should question my new and exciting interpretations that no one has ever seen before. And this is what we see with Adam’s interpretation: no one has ever seen his view in all of church history.
Lastly, because there is a strong cultural pull to be in alignment with what “science” teaches, we will look to see what some of Adam’s underlying assumptions are. The allure of being concordant with the dominant modern paradigm can be enticing. You can see this enticement from Adam in his other interviews with/about young earth creationists:
“I would be all too happy to see young earth creationism to be proven correctly scientifically…The Bible is the driving force for pretty much all of this (YEC view) And not that the Bible shouldn’t be our authority…”
“The only reason that I don’t believe that (sun stood still in the sky) is because of modern day science“
“I’m willing to leave more of those discussions (age of the earth) up to the scientists”
“If I’m going to say that the earth is billions of years old, that’s clearly a scientific question. Unless someone can show me a passage in scripture, it’s a scientific question”
In matters of history, historical documentation is the primary and authoritative source for answering those questions. The Bible IS that historical documentation and Christians have abdicated the authority of the Bible in favor of the dominant modern paradigm. Adam is simply incorrect about history being a scientific question. Questions of history should be answered – not by extrapolations – but by historical documentation
I’ve been told that natural selection acting on random mutations has enough power to produce every biological trait…including eyes. I’ve put these claims to the test several times before each time with the same result…no evidence…just assumptions:
God-deniers believe that numerous successive slight modifications (random mutations)
when culled by the forces of natural selection can explain all biological traits. They do not like to be cross-examined as to how natural selection can preserve non-functioning irreducibly complex systems like biological sight, but they cope with fantastical stories of the mystical powers of evolution. Recently, a God-denier posted a link which he thought provided airtight evidence that evolution is responsible for producing eyes. Let’s put that article under some scrutiny. If it’s evidence, we should expect to see explicit demonstrations of natural selection acting on random mutations to produce information for eyes. If it’s not evidence for evolution, we will see words of assumption like perhaps, possibly, may have, likely & suggest intermixed with some clever story-telling. The God-Denier in question, Alf, has before made grand claims about the power of evolution, but when his claims have been scrutinized by simply reading the articles, it’s clear that what he believes to be evidence is actually a collection of assumptions wrapped in the façade of scientific language
Here’s how this works: The quotes from the article are in red italics and then just below/after the quote, I’ll post my analysis in the default black font. I have added bold and underline to key words from the authors throughout, so this is just a note to say that neither the bold nor underline appear in the original article.
“I do not expect to cover all the details” “I will present some concepts“ “In the prebiotic soup” – HUGE assumption “Sight is an evolutionary gift” – Mysticism “Life probably first appeared” “was likely the first organism” “probably became the first” “probably evolved” – Not 1 but 2 ambiguous guesses “probably came from a common ancestor” “Certainly” – ?!?!? Whence comes your certainty? “gradually evolved” – Just a guess. No evidence “perhaps“ “these compounds came together in an eyespot” – Guess at best “evolution co-opted the molecule for sight” – another guess and a reification fallacy “an organism discovered” – more reification fallacy “perhaps“ “could proceed” “Crystalline lenses were added later” – as if evolution could just order crystalline lenses on Amazon and plug them right into the eyespot “could form” “would likely have been” “vast spans of time permitted the tinkering necessary to fashion all manner of eyes” “Eukaryotes appeared and evolved“ “appeared “ “little is known about its genetics or visual mechanisms” “believed to have originated” “or perhaps“ “presumably“ “probably“ “This suggests“ “could be“ “might be considered” “suggesting that an eye is relatively easy for evolution to produce and that a true brain may not be necessary to its function” “likely“ “may have arisen” “may have been” “probably“ “we currently accept“ “This would suggest“ “he compound eye began, possibly in a worm-like creature” “There are at least six different models of compound eyes and it would appear that the most likely explanation is that the apposition-style eye came first and radiated into the other forms although this explanation is not completely satisfactory“ “may“ “Perhaps“ “The octopus evolved later” – Evolutionists can’t find evidence for octopus evolution, so they propose that cephalopods arrived on Earth from comets “Perhaps“ “probably“ “we must rely upon them to help us understand the development of eyes in the early vertebrate lineage” “Although controversy swirls around the question of whether the hagfish or lamprey is the oldest extant vertebrate” “has evolved and developed in many ways” “it evolved from the stock that did come ashore during that period” “probably represents the transitional form” “were perhaps the ancestors of all terrestrial animals” “evolution found a different manner of accommodation” – More reification fallacy “Although our knowledge of dinosaurian vision is limited, we can make some assumptions“ “would continue to evolve“ “It is not known for certain” – what is known for certain? “The story of color vision in the marsupials is, as of yet, not fully told” “probably“ “We know from computer models” – not evidence! “Eyes may have evolved as many as 40 times”
I hope by this point that you’re seeing the pattern: “may have been” followed by a “probably” and the ever present ambiguous phrase: “it evolved”. Not evidence. Just caveats built on assumptions believed because of the story of evolution.
Yet another article that when you read the headline: “The evolution of eyes”, you are lead to believe it will be packed with evidence for evolution. But when you read the contents of the article, it’s the story that some hard-working scientists conjured up through extrapolation based on their faith in common ancestry. No evidence was actually presented that evolution (natural selection acting on random mutations) could produce eyes or spots or anything else.
Objections
After posting these “Can Evolution Explain…articles, I inevitably hear evolutionists respond with some form of: “get your paper peer-reviewed and only then can you get your Nobel Prize for disproving evolution. Until then STFU!”
To be clear, these “Can Evolution Explain…” articles are NOT intended to disprove evolution. They are simply meant to analyze the assertions of evolutionists to see whether the subject matter is actually evidence for evolution by their own standards or not. It’s an internal critique. What I find in all of these articles is that what’s been proclaimed as “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution is really just story-telling and assumptions. We’ve seen that this article is more of the same bluster devoid of actual evidence.
There will be no shortage of “papers” that the devout evolutionists will propose that I must analyze. I don’t have the time or the desire to expose EVERY single article, but I do analyze the top authors and the articles that evolutionists THINK are actually evidence as shown above. Hopefully, given the example of my analysis, other Christians will be motivated to expose how the “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution are really massive canyons. These articles are not intended to prove creationism or anything else. They are meant to push back against the dominant paradigm rather than just blindly accepting what is being taught. If these works of evolution can survive scrutiny, then so be it, but so far, I’m finding that their claims are impotent.
Hold your breath! How long before are forced to breathe deeply of the amazing mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, argon and a trace amounts of a few other gasses?…that is unless you live in Mexico City where the other gasses are not so trace. Taking that air and converting the oxygen into usable metabolic portions for your cells are your lungs. Lungs are incredible organs that function as part of our remarkable respiratory systems.
Now I’ve been told that natural selection acting on random mutations has enough power to produce everything in biology…including lungs. I’ve put these claims to the test several times before each time with the same result…no evidence…just assumptions:
Here’s how this works: The quotes from the article in red italics and then just below the quote, I’ll post my analysis in the default black font. I have added bold and underline to key words from the authors throughout, so this is just a note to say that neither the bold nor underline appear in the original article.
Right from the start in the abstract we get the first caveat:
the origin and early evolution of vertebrate lungs remain highly controversial, particularly whether the ancestral state was paired or unpaired. Due to the rarity of fossil soft tissue preservation, lung evolution can only be traced based on the extant phylogenetic bracket
That’s quite a lot to overcome, but I’m sure they will try. Of note: Their admission that since there is no fossil evidence of lung evolution, they rely “only” on creatures that are alive today to extrapolate backwards in time with a collection of assumptions. Their words…not mine.
After giving the proper obeisance to the evolutionary story, the authors get right into it:
How this important organ (lungs) first evolved is a hotly debated topic. This is largely because lung tissue does not preserve well in fossils, making it difficult to trace how the lungs of vertebrates changed over the course of evolution
It will indeed be difficult to trace given the narrative of evolution, but because it is the dominant paradigm, it MUST try to provide an explanation – difficult or not
Lungs, the most important organ of the pulmonary complex, are rarely preserved in fossils, hindering direct evidence of how the earliest air-breathing vertebrates breathed air
I’ll take that as an admission that direct evidence is absent. We will proceed knowing that what follows from them is a collection of assumptions and story-telling
Yet, lung affinities for such structures remain elusive (Janvier et al., 2007) and could not be confirmed by anatomical, phylogenetic, or biological data (Goujet, 2011; Béchard et al., 2014). Here, we follow Janvier et al., 2007, Goujet, 2011 and Béchard et al., 2014, and consider that observable evidences are elusive and do not support the interpretation of these paired masses as a lung
Indeed, the evidence is elusive and cannot be confirmed. The available evidence consists of assumptions and unsupported interpretations. Got it
Our knowledge about the morphological and genetic development of the lung is, however, highly biased towards amniotes, and consequently the original form of this evolutionary novelty among osteichthyans remains largely elusive
Elusive = missing
One hypothesis, formed and supported by studies on tetrapods (particularly mammals and birds), assumes that the lung evolved through a modification of the pharyngeal pouch
Assumptions abound
Curiously, some living vertebrates display an unpaired organ, leaving the ancestral condition equivocal
The origin of lungs is a curiosity for evolutionists since they are forced to make up stories of their origin. And they use words like “equivocal” to hide the fact that they are left clueless as to the origin.
The so-called left lung of L. paradoxa is most likely a diverticulum or a modified lateral lobe, which might have evolved secondarily, an advantage for enlarging the surface area for oxygen-uptake, eventually enabling the obligatory air-breathing performance in the linage towards L. paradoxa
Most likely? Might have evolved? Are we talking about “the mountains of evidence for evolution” or a story? Most internet evolutionists are VERY good at searching through the headlines of articles on Google Scholar or Nature or Wikipedia for “evolution of _______” fill in the blank. But 9/10 have never read the contents of the article. If they had, they would see over and over phrases like: most likely, might have, could have, probably, perhaps, feasibly, presumably, conceivably…just like in this article
There are some very interesting charts and figures. Notice from the chart below
I modified the chart with the red/green boxes arrows and text. The upper part of the figure in green is science. The lower part in red is the part where they try to “prove” evolution, but it’s in the assumption category because there is no evidence for their claim
From this evolutionary point of view, our results lead to a new definition of the vertebrate lung: either an unpaired or paired respiratory organ developing ventrally from the foregut. Vestigial forms secondarily released from the respiratory function should be also designated as lungs (e.g. the lung of coelacanths). Some criteria previously used for discriminating lungs from gas bladders are no longer supported, including: paired/unpaired organization, position ventral to the alimentary tract (Marcus, 1937; Funk et al., 2020; Lambertz et al., 2015; Graham, 1997), as well as its function. The dorsal position of the majority of osteichthyans lungs described here may be related to its dual and secondary functionality of respiration and buoyancy control (Thomson, 1968). Actually, the only morphological characteristic that can be used to distinguish lungs and gas bladders is the ventral and dorsal origins from the foregut, respectively (Funk et al., 2020; Cass et al., 2013). This phenotypic differentiation into true paired lungs in tetrapods may be related to differential gene expressions (Funk et al., 2020; Bi et al., 2021). Nevertheless, at a level of developmental mechanism, the possibility of co-options of gene regulatory networks of the pharyngeal pouch morphogenesis cannot be excluded, as both the lung bud and pharyngeal pouch develop through the invagination of the foregut endoderm. Our results open the door for future molecular analyses to trace possible regulatory elements for the evolutionary transition from unpaired lungs to true paired lungs in tetrapods.
A long quote indeed, but it was interesting to note that they did not want to restrict anything from being a lung that might look like or was assumed to previously be like or might have once acted like or could be a vestigial form of – a lung. The organs that previously weren’t lungs are now being defined as lungs…possibly
Based on the extant phylogenetic bracket, we infer that the bilaterally paired nature of the lung evolved only in the lineage towards fossil and extant tetrapods, as a synapomorphy of this clade
Inference is not a bad thing to do. Just be sure that your worldview can justify inference due to the principle of induction (uniformity in nature). But again, inference is not evidence
Paired lungs may have been present also in early tetrapods and were probably essential to raise lung surface area and volume capacity during the evolution of vertebrate respiratory system and the air-breathing intensification at the water-to-land transition
I hope by this point that you’re seeing the pattern: “may have been” followed by a “probably” and the ever present ambiguous word: evolution. Not evidence. Just caveats built on assumptions believed because of the story of evolution.
Yet another article that when you read the headline: “Lung evolution in vertebrates and the water-to-land transition”, you are lead to believe it will be packed with evidence for evolution. But when you read the contents of the article, it’s the story that some hard-working scientists conjured up through extrapolation based on their faith in common ancestry. No evidence was actually presented that evolution (natural selection acting on random mutations) could produce lungs or vestigial lungs or air bladders or ventral respiratory organs or anything else.
Objections
After posting these “Can Evolution Explain…articles, I inevitably hear evolutionists respond with some form of: “get your paper peer-reviewed and only then can you get your Nobel Prize for disproving evolution. Until then STFU!”
To be clear, these “Can Evolution Explain…” articles are NOT intended to disprove evolution. They are simply meant to analyze the assertions of evolutionists to see whether the subject matter is actually evidence for evolution by their own standards or not. It’s an internal critique. What I find in all of these articles is that what’s been proclaimed as “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution is really just story-telling and assumptions. We’ve seen that this article is more of the same bluster devoid of actual evidence.
There will be no shortage of “papers” that the devout evolutionists will propose that I must analyze. I don’t have the time or the desire to expose EVERY single article, but I do analyze the top authors and the articles that evolutionists THINK are actually evidence as shown above. Hopefully, given the example of my analysis, other Christians will be motivated to expose how the “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution are really massive canyons. These articles are not intended to prove creationism or anything else. They are meant to push back against the dominant paradigm rather than just blindly accepting what is being taught. If these works of evolution can survive scrutiny, then so be it, but so far, I’m finding that their claims are impotent.
Not an actual photo of the original Astroctopus arriving on Earth. A.I. Artist’s rendition
If you’ve read my blog very long, you know that I’m highly skeptical of the claimed powers of evolution to explain biodiversity. All of the government schools for the last hundred years or so have taught that natural selection acting on random mutations has the power to create all sorts of traits and features in living organisms. None of that has ever been observed, but the theory has avoided extinction due to massive government funding, exclusion of dissenting views, and a desire to avoid the obvious moral implications of the Sovereign Creator.
To be clear, I lack faith in the powers of evolution 1) because the theory of evolution is in conflict with the Bible & 2) what’s been presented as evidence is highly suspect and flush with unwarranted assumptions, so I accept that evolution has no power to produce any of the biodiversity on earth. But when biologists admit that there’s no evidence for the gradual development for cephalopods they do not choose the obvious fact that God created these wonderful creatures. They instead propose the impossible: octopus eggs arrived on a comet about 300 million years ago.
I’ve linked the whole article above, so you can enjoy the whole peer-reviewed foolishness, but below are some of the quotes that I found particularly adept at producing the “best medicine” (Bold italics and underline are not in original)
“some genetic features from recent data in the Octopus and other Cephalopods provide challenging examples to conventional evolutionary thinking“
“Evidence of the role of extraterrestrial viruses in affecting terrestrial evolution has recently been plausibly implied in the gene and transcriptome sequencing of Cephalopods”
“Cephalopod phylogenetics is highly inconsistent and confusing“
“The transformative genes leading from the consensus ancestral Nautilus (e.g. Nautilus pompilius) to the common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) to Squid (Loligo vulgaris) to the common Octopus (Octopus vulgaris, Fig. 5) are not easily to be found in any pre-existing life form – it is plausible then to suggest they seem to be borrowed from a far distant “future” in terms of terrestrial evolution, or more realistically from the cosmos at large. Such an extraterrestrial origin as an explanation of emergence of course runs counter to the prevailing dominant paradigm”
“This enormous qualitative difference in Cephalopod protein recoding A-to-I mRNA editing compared to nautilus and other invertebrate and vertebrate animals is striking“
“Yet in Squid and particularly Octopus it is the norm, with almost every protein coding gene having an evolutionary conserved A-to-I mRNA editing site isoform, resulting in a nonsynonymous amino acid change (Liscovitch-Brauer et al., 2017). This is a virtual qualitative jump in molecular genetic strategy in a supposed smooth and incremental evolutionary lineage – a type of sudden “great leap forward”.”
“Unless all the new genes expressed in the squid/octopus lineages arose from simple mutations of existing genes in either the squid or in other organisms sharing the same habitat, there is surely no way by which this large qualitative transition in A-to-I mRNA editing can be explained by conventional neo-Darwinian processes, even if horizontal gene transfer is allowed. One plausible explanation, in our view, is that the new genes are likely new extraterrestrial imports to Earth – most plausibly as an already coherent group of functioning genes within (say) cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized Octopus eggs”
“Thus the possibility that cryopreserved Squid and/or Octopus eggs, arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago should not be discounted (below) as that would be a parsimonious cosmic explanation for the Octopus’ sudden emergence on Earth ca. 270 million years ago”
” Indeed this principle applies to the sudden appearance in the fossil record of pretty well all major life forms, covered in the prescient concept of “punctuated equilibrium” by Eldridge and Gould advanced in the early 1970s“
“therefore, similar living features like this “as if the genes were derived from some type of pre-existence” (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981) apply to many other biological ensembles when closely examined“
“Virion/gene exchanges thus appear to be inevitable over such short cosmic distances. The many features of biology that are not optimised to local conditions on the Earth may be readily understood in this wider perspective”
“Given that the complex sets of new genes in the Octopus may have not come solely from horizontal gene transfers or simple random mutations of existing genes or by simple duplicative expansions, it is then logical to surmise, given our current knowledge of the biology of comets and their debris, the new genes and their viral drivers most likely came from space“
“general evolutionary molecular processes, now shifts to the Cosmos and beyond our immediate solar system”
It’s sCienCe people!!!!
Notice too about halfway through the quotes (I underlined and bolded the whole quote), the admission that ALL life forms on Earth appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evidence of transitional species. This is EXACTLY what Christians have been saying because the global flood of Noah’s day is the explanation they are looking for. But they will reject the revelation of God at the expense of their own reason
ApoloJedi 