We’ve got 2 more chapters to go through. In chapter 3, Dr. Ball took the opportunity to look at some evidence (that in the past) was presented to support a young earth. What happens when a scientist, who believes in evolution, views evidence through their lens of evolution? You guessed it, they see evolution and deep time everywhere. Let’s looks specifically at Dr. Ball’s statements about evidences for a young Earth. His comments are in red, with my reply following directly in the default black
At this point, it may appear to the reader that conspicuously missing from the list of scientific evidences are the evidences for a young Earth. I can assure you that it isn’t an oversight.
I addressed this kind of thinking in my article which scrutinized Dr. Ball’s work in Chapter 2. Essentially, there’s no “evidences for an old Earth” or “evidences for a young Earth”. There’s just evidence. Everyone interprets evidence in accordance with their worldview. For Dr. Ball, his worldview is that the Bible is pliable to whatever the latest conclusions from the modern academic paradigm tell him. For Young Earth Creationists, we hold the Bible to be the highest authority, and we view the evidence through the lens that what God has revealed in the Bible as true.
Short Period Comets
Short period comets appear to suggest that the solar system is only a few thousand years old, since comets actually burn away each time they pass close to the Sun, where they interact with the solar wind in producing the fiery tails we observe
Yes, I covered this in Chapter 2. And as expected, Dr. Ball proposes an unseen hypothesized ring of extra solar system objects. Unscientific.
Thickness of Lunar Dust
estimates (if billions of years old) of dust accumulation both on the Earth and on the Moon had been made as early as 1960, using mountain measurements of nickel dust fall [31], which suggested that there may well be an extensive layer of Moon dust, as much as 145 feet…In fact, only about two inches of Moon dust was found at the landing site…This was then hailed as evidence for a young Moon (since accumulation would have only been happening for about 6000 years)…This was then hailed as evidence for a young Moon
This argument has not been used by young Earth creationists in over 30 years. In 1993 (a decade BEFORE Dr. Ball wrote his book), the preeminent young Earth creation organization, Answers in Genesis, wrote an article telling Christians not to use this argument, as it is flawed. Since Dr. Ball considers himself a man of science, there’s no reason that in the next edition of his book, he will have been able to address the latest and most advanced arguments from AIG, Creation.com, and ICR.org rather than trying to defeat an argument that has not been used since before Al Gore invented the internet.
Decay of the Earth’s Magnetic Field
At the present rate of decay, the magnetic field may actually go to zero in a few tens of thousands of years from now…Since the field appears to dying, one can attempt to extrapolate backwards in time to some plausible upper limit to the field strength to calculate an age for the Earth. As expected, such estimates lead to an age for the Earth no more than 10,000 years
Dr. Ball cites the work from Paul Taylor, p50 in the Illustrated Origins Answer Book in 1992. Much work has been done regarding this field of research since 1992. This article from CMI directly addresses Dr. Ball’s objections and shows that rather than the conclusions to which Ball came to, the conclusions of a young Earth are more appropriate. Another from AIG shows that the problems of the old earth models persist given the assumptions that Dr. Ball takes. Dr. Ball’s primary objection to the conclusion of a young Earth with regards to the Magnetic decay relies on radiometric dating, which as we discussed in Chapter 2, are both filled with assumptions and are wildly inaccurate
The rock layers can also be radiometric dated, so that we can determine when the magnetic north pole was near which geographic pole
There’s no reason to accept the conclusions about magnetic decay from Dr. Ball as they are both discordant with the biblical timeline and the conclusions from scientific evidence
Radio Halos in Primordial Rock
Dr. Ball explains the reason why young Earth creationists think that the decay of Polonium in granite is evidence for YEC
The discovery of radio halos by Oak Ridge laboratory scientist Robert Gentry was touted as a clear counterexample to the claims of antiquity made for the oldest primordial rock layers in the Earth. Such halos were claimed be formed from the decays of Polonium-218, which has a halflife of only 3 minutes. They can only form in hardened or crystallized rock. If such halos were found in the oldest rock layers, which as we’ve discussed in the last chapter required a long period of time to cool off sufficiently before solidifying, then how did the Polonium-218 get inside of the rock after it formed? Young Earth proponents claim this is clear evidence that God instantly formed the rock layers of the Earth
Then Dr. Ball explains why he doesn’t like this evidence:
To examine this evidence properly is difficult, since the discovery of various types of halos in rock is still being investigated
Of course it is still being investigated. Those, like Ball, who hold to an old Earth belief, do not like the obvious implications of the rapid cooling of pre-Cambrian rock and the presence of halos from fast-decaying radioactive elements. In the same way that Dr. Mary Schweitzer did not like the implications of finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones, so she repeated the experiment SEVENTEEN times before finally accepting the results. To protect their worldview, they have to try to find a rescue device. Dr. Ball continues with the proposed rescue devices:
Geologist Jeffrey Richard Wakefield carefully examined the locations indicated by Gentry and concluded that each one was actually a younger infusion of igneous rock into the older primordial rock layers…At least one recently discovered mechanism involves a slow gradual process, favoring a much longer period of time in their development
The panic is real. Dr. Ball says that the location is particularly a problem and there might be other ways to explain the data…though he gives no details. Dr. Ball continues:
But the bigger problem I see here is the attempt at using some complex phenomena, without the benefit of a more thorough investigation into its mechanisms, to support a particular age of the Earth
I’ve been told that creationists aren’t REAL scientists, yet Dr. Ball says here that Dr. Gentry is examining “complex phenomena” to make conclusions. Dr. Ball may not like the conclusions, but the research is definitely being done my qualified scientists with qualified investigative methods. I also find it somewhat rich for an old Earther to criticize a scientist making conclusions about the age of the Earth based on the perceived lack of “thorough investigations” considering the failed evolutionary arguments from the last few decades given thorough investigations:
It is a common question of young Earth creationists: “how did light get to Earth in only 6000 years if the light source is billions of light years away?” Dr. Ball asks this question without a very careful investigation of the 1 possibility he critiques or the other possible solutions
Finally, we consider a recent cosmological model claiming support for a young Earth, a model proposed by Gerald Humphries in 1996 in his book, “Starlight and Time”
“Gerald Humphries”?!!?!? Perhaps he means Dr. Russell Humphreys, who wrote the book in question.
Dr. Ball was critical of Dr. Humphrey’s model, but he used arguments, that if applied consistently to his own Big Bang model, would have destroyed it. He didn’t mention how he solves the problems:
Obviously, Dr. Ball could not have known about the fulfilled YEC prediction that was confirmed by the James Webb Space Telescope in 2022 since Dr. Ball wrote his book in 2003. But I added it to the list a a further complication for his foundational assumptions for this article. Dr. Humphreys has been met with fierce opposition to his proposal and has answered many of his critics with technical papers. Dr. Ball may not have known that the answers to many objections have been forthcoming since he didn’t even know Dr. Humphrey’s name.
Neither did Dr. Ball address the many other solutions to the light time travel “problem” that have been proposed by creationists:
Again, I will note that Dr. Ball couldn’t have known about all of these proposals since many of them have emerged as valid solutions in the last few years. The point is that scientists, who hold the Bible as the highest authority, have done and continue to do real scientific work without compromising the fidelity of the specially-revealed Word of God
Here lies the problem with Creation Science. It is not an attempt to understand the physical universe through application of basic laws and principles
This is not the problem, but the foundation. While the shifting conclusions from naturalistic assumptions will constantly change as new paradigms come and go, the eternal word of God will never change. It doesn’t need to change. Because God knows everything, his revelation cannot be overturned. The comment from Dr. Ball could be better said as: “Here lies the beauty of Creation Science. It is not an attempt to understand the physical universe through the eyes of unbelievers, but by accepting the history of the universe that God revealed in his word, creation scientists employ the application of basic laws and principles to make discoveries and solve problems.” As this graphic the humorously represents this principle, the universe has aged faster than the “speed of light”. Notice that the believed age (according to the reigning paradigm of the time) of the universe has changed through the decades and most times, the changes have been outside the previous supposed “error bars”:
Looking through the lens of evolution and the modern academic paradigm, Dr. Ball and other old Earthers will always see old Earth. When we look at the world through the lens of the Bible, we will be able to make sense of what God intended. Reality makes sense and the evidence is fully affirming of the YEC view. There is no logical reason for Christians to think that the constantly-changing theories/stories from old Earthers need to be used as counterfeit authorities to redefine the clear teaching of the highest authority: the Bible.
Dr. Steven Ball is a physics professor at LeTourneau University, a Christian university in Texas. He has written a few papers advocating for old earthism, that could use some cross-examination. His first paper is titled “A Christian Physicist Examines the Age of the Earth”. I will note his comments in red with my comments directly underneath in the default black. Any bold or underline in Ball’s quotes are my own and not in the original. Each of his chapters will be divided into a distinct blog post to keep the posts from being too long. You can read my review of chapter 1 here.
You don’t have to have an eyewitness account from someone to determine when something in the past occurred. You simply need sufficiently trustworthy evidence left behind in order to make an intelligent determination. For example, a coroner can determine when a person may have died based on the body condition and its temperature compared to both the surrounding environment and the original living body temperature. Although there may be complications, which increase the uncertainties in the actual time of death such as a changing temperature of the environment, it is still possible to make reliable estimates. In fact, the evidence left behind can be a more reliable source than a living eyewitness with a watch, as the next example will show.
I have 3 key issues with Dr. Ball’s assertion about evidence.
The myth of neutrality. Dr. Ball tacitly asserts that evidence just speaks for itself and any observer can come to evidence and just make an unbiased conclusion to determine truth. This is not true, because there are no unbiased observers. EVERYONE has a worldview through which they view evidence. Christians should view evidence through the lens that God is the Creator, Sustainer, and Author of the historical account of his revelation in the Bible. Christ is LORD over everything, and even those, who claim to be neutral or unbiased have a bias denying Christ’s definitive claim as Lord. Dr. Bahnsen has a tremendous lecture series on this which I recommend for all Christians to inject.
“sufficiently trustworthy evidence” – By what standard does a person determine what is sufficiently trustworthy? While it sounds reasonable on the surface, when pressed even a little, the claim devolves rather quickly into item 1 addressed just above. A person can easily say that such-and-such evidence (or source) isn’t sufficiently trustworthy due to an arbitrary or biased standard. That’s not to say that all evidence has equal weight or that every eye-witness is equally trustworthy, but the claim itself (if it were to have universal applicability) must have a transcendent standard by which to compare which Dr. Ball leaves unanswered.
This is verifiably untrue as was pointed out in the Chapter 1 review regarding Mt. St. Helens. In 1992 the rocks from Mt St Helens were radiometrically dated anywhere from 350,000 years old to 2,800,000 years old depending on the method. But the ACTUAL date of the rocks was 12 years. The eye-witness account is dozens of orders of magnitude more accurate than the radiometric dating extrapolations from the forensics practitioners. Just considering Ball’s assertion about the ability of a coroner to determine the when a body died would only be possible within the first few hours after death when the temperature would equalize with the surrounding environment
In experimental high energy physics research, it would be rather absurd to stick a person inside of our detector region, near where high energy particles are collided and numerous new particles are generated from this energy. Beyond the problem of intense radiation exposure, this person would be a completely worthless witness.
He makes an analogy to a worthless human eye-witness, but Ball is unfortunately trying to compare this worthless human eyewitness to the Almighty. God is the One, who revealed his creative acts to Moses. Why would Ball work so hard to demean the original Eyewitness to the creation? Strange indeed for a self-professing Christian.
One can calculate the rate of fuel being burned inside the core of a star and estimate its lifetime, approximately 10,000,000,000 (10 billion) years for our Sun, of which present indicators reveal that nearly half of its lifetime supply of fuel is exhausted
Speaking of extrapolation, how does Ball solve the Faint Young Sun Paradox? Essentially, in the old earther’s view, as Solar has aged, it radiates more light and heat. In their view 3.8 billion years ago when they presume that life emerged and began to evolve, there was not enough light or heat on earth to preserve light. Extrapolation eviscerates old earther’s expectations. The point is that extrapolating deep into the past requires many assumptions and the further back in time, one hopes to predict, the more assumptions need to be made and the greater the error is probable.
The reliability of the evidence can be determined in a number of ways. First of all, since our universe obeys certain laws and principles, the evidence should be examined in light of these well-established laws and principles.
When one presumes to reject what God said in the Bible (“For in 6 days the LORD made the heavens the earth, the sea, and all that is in them”) in favor of the modern academic paradigm (MAP), to be consistent that person must reject other parts of the Bible. For instance, it would be consistent for someone to say:
“The science says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, so we have to reinterpret what the Bible says”
“The science says that virgins cannot birth children, so we have to reinterpret what the Bible says”
“The science says that dead people do not come back to life, so we have to reinterpret what the Bible says”
“The science says that water does not turn into wine, so we have to reinterpret what the Bible says”
“The science says that axe heads do not float, so we have to reinterpret what the Bible says”
But I’m sure Dr. Ball accepts at least a few of those. It’s inconsistent to deny the historical passages in the Bible because of some outside authority . As Christians, we mustn’t let MAP be an authority at the expense of the Bible. His next quote is ironic as he desires consistency in scientific work (something everyone should want).
Secondly, when several independent sources are all giving very similar answers, it increases the measure of confidence we have in the results. Good science requires both the measures of self-consistency and consistency with other independent, yet equally valid methods
So let’s look at the specific “independent sources” from different fields of science to see how they measure up to scripture itself, and offer a little scrutiny to his conclusions
Geology of the Earth
Just one glimpse of the multitude of layers of rock exposed in the Grand Canyon…The shades of color from one layer to the next going down over one mile deep from the canyon rim down to the Colorado River tells us that there is an incredibly vast and changing history associated with how these layers were deposited…We find fossils in many of these layers, showing the history of life forms going backward in time as you go down through the successive layers to earlier time periods…It is not easy to estimate the rate of rock layering, since this fluctuates greatly in time…However, it is clear that vast intervals of time are necessary to produce the layers of rock we do observe
There are indeed a multitude of layers exposed in the grand canyon. Water-sorted layers. Dr. Ball makes no mention of the effects of the global flood that is recorded in Genesis 6-9. Fossil-bearing water-sorted layers is EXACTLY what biblical creationist would expect to find in the Grand Canyon. Dr. Ball (not a geologist) is completely unfamiliar with the evidence against his view, which is that erosion/bioturbation in and between the water-sorted layers is so rare as to declare them virtually absent from the entire Canyon. Follow the link below listen to Dr. Ron Neller, who is a fluvial geomorphologist, explain why the geologic column is disconfirming evidence for an old earth…and instead affirms the biblical account of a global flood
Notice from Ball’s comments that he assumes that the accumulation of the layers takes “incredibly vast” amounts of time and the “vast intervals of time are necessary”. He completely ignores the Biblical account of the global flood in his question-begging claims of extended time. Never does he consider that the layers formed rapidly during and shortly after the year-long flood. Were Dr. Ball’s view true, then there would be no distinct layers. If the layers were indeed exposed to the elements for millions of years of wind/water erosion and the affiliated periods of bioturbation, the layers would be indistinct as in figure 4 below. Be instead we find that each layer is perfectly distinct as if it were never exposed to erosion or bioturbation as in figure 1 (like we would expect from the global flood)
He did however notice that the layers were sedimentary (laid down by water) and bearing marine fossils…just as Bible-believing Christians would expect since they were deposited by the waters of the global flood
steady marine sedimentation during below sea-level periods…sedimentation rates
Fossils? Let’s discuss fossils
Only the painstakingly slow process of replacement of bone tissue with minerals from the surrounding soil can produce a true fossil…fossils can very rarely form. And since there appears to be an abundance of fossils in the Earth, it is clear that there has been an incredibly long history of life preceding us
He did say 1 correct sentence from above: “fossils can very rarely form”. Why is that? Because fossils only form in very specific conditions: flood conditions. Biological material must be buried rapidly do avoid the scavengers and corruption processes, so that fossilization (mineral replacement of biological material) can occur. He incorrectly concludes that because there are billions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the Earth – that it took an incredibly long time. The opposite is true. Because we have a correct historical account given to us in Genesis 6-9, we know that all of the air-breathing creatures not on the ark were buried by catastrophic deluge in judgment for the sin of mankind. Contrary to what Dr. Ball has claimed, ALL of the evidence is in strong support of the Biblical account of a global flood. I cover this evidence in a blog post, here. Those, who deny this catastrophic worldwide flood, are described as “scoffers” by Peter
Other geological studies have examined processes believed to be rather constant in time such as rates of coral reef build-up, tectonic plate motion, mountain building, certain weathering and erosion rates, and even the rate of continental mass build-up
Unfortunately, Dr. Ball is wrong about ALL of these items. They not only disconfirm the old earth paradigm, in which he believes, they are STRONG confirmation of the biblical timescale held by young earth creationists
Coral Reef Buildup – “Pandora Reef is approximately 10 metres in thickness; 1.8 metres of this coral has grown in the last 118 years. On this basis the whole 10 metre thickness of coral that makes up this reef would have taken only about 660 years to grow!”
Mountain Building – All mountain ranges in the world are evidently young. Were they millions of years old, they would be smoothly rounded by the erosion forces of wind/water/ice
Erosion Rates – The continents are definitevely NOT billions of years old as has been claimed. “At the present rate of erosion, all of the continents would be reduced to sea level in 10 Ma (10 millions years)”. 10 million years is the UPPER limit. If you take into account the monumental erosion rates after the global flood, the continents look exactly as we would expect if the global flood took place about 4500 years ago.
Exactly opposite of what Dr. Ball claimed, the evidence is strongly in favor of biblical creation and disconfirms the assertions of old earthers. It’s doubtful that Dr. Ball has researched the overwhelming scientific evidences of a young Earth/universe that corresponds with the biblical account, but if you’re interested, so can see 101 of them here.
Radiometric Dating
Radiometric dating is the method of using nature’s natural clocks to date events such as when rocks were first formed
Radiometric dating has many problems of which advocates are completely unaware. I covered many of the problems with radiometric dating in this article, so there’s no need to duplicate the effort here. But in short, since radiometric dating shows itself to be completely wrong on the samples that we have seen formed, why should we trust the dates that this extrapolation gives for unknown/unseen samples?
Lunar Geology
Precise dating of the birth of our Earth is difficult based only on knowledge of the Earth’s geology and radiometric dating of its rocks, primarily since primordial rocks may not have formed until long after the Earth’s initial formation
True. Based on his presuppositions (extrapolations), dating Earth is difficult. Based on my presuppositions (The Truth of the Bible), dating the Earth is much easier.
So while no rocks can be found older than about 3.8 billion years old on Earth, the Earth itself is older than this. We must go outside the Earth to get a more accurate measurement, namely the Moon
This line of reasoning is related to his assumptions about radiometric dating, but notice how even before he applies a “scientific test”, he assumes (in bold above) “the Earth itself is older than this.” Not for scientific reasons, but ideological ones
Rocks brought back from these missions (Apollo) have been dated up to 4.3 billion years old, confirmed through measurements using several different isotopes
Again, you see how even though he categorized this Lunar argument as separate from the others, it is a regurgitation of the radiometric dating argument with its unwarranted assumptions.
On the contrary, the moon is actually strong evidence that the Earth/moon system is NOT billions of years old. Because the moon recesses (moves away) from the Earth at a measurable rate in accordance with Kepler’s third law of planetary motion (conservation of angular momentum), we know that the moon could only be as old as 1.5 billion years since at that time, the moon and Earth would be touching. Again 1.5 billion years is the UPPER limit of time. Life on Earth would be impossible for much less time than that if the the distance to the moon were 1/4, 1/2, or even 2/3 of its current distance, the tides gravitational effects on the Earth would be too destructive to sustain life. So, instead of proving a billions of years old creation, the moon specifically refutes that belief and is affirmation of a young Earth.
Meteorites
While iron meteorites have been found not to have the long-lived radioactive isotopes needed for dating, they are invaluable for dating the Earth, since they provide us with pristine samples of primordial lead, whose isotopic ratios yield the original lead isotopic ratios on Earth, which have since then been modified by the daughter products from Uranium and Thorium decays. By this method we find the Earth to be 4.6 billion years old
Dr. Ball again relies on radiometric dating for this line of evidence. So there’s nothing new here. But if we’d like to talk about the philosophical implications of objects orbiting the sun, how do they scientifically account for short-term comets? Many comets disintegrate completely in only a few trips around the sun, yet these short term comets persist. If the solar system were truly billions of years old, there would be no more short term comets. Their rescue device for their old universe view is that some unseen source provides new comets every now and then. It’s unscientific, but they try to protect their worldview from falsification.
Stellar Astronomy
Are there non-radiometric methods, which can be used to determine such vast ages? Yes, and the natural clocks they depend upon are very reliable…Nuclear fusion is a powerful source of energy we can understand…This energy conversion has been occurring steadily in the core of our Sun, where temperatures are sufficiently high enough, for as long as Earth has been around, thus bathing the Earth with heat. From the rate of energy produced and the supply of fuel initially inside the reaction core of the Sun, we can determine its lifetime. As mentioned previously, this is approximately 10 billion years
What were the initial conditions? What was the Hydrogen:Helium ratio when the sun was created by God on Day 4? How do you know that the rate of fuel consumption has always been the same for nearly 5 billion years? How do you overcome the Faint Young-Sun Paradox?
Other stars have been dated to be much older than ours, up to 14 billion years old. In fact, innumerable stars have already exhausted their supply of fuel and met their deaths. A star dies by running out of the very fuel that sustains an outward pressure to prevent its own self-gravity from collapsing it. The larger stars die rather violently, in a process called a supernova
The remnants of supernova are supposedly visible for many millions of years after their demise. Over time astronomers have measured the rate at which supernova occur, and can make predictions on how long a galaxy has existed based on that rate. If the Milky Way is billions of years old as Dr. Ball and the atheists think, there should be about 7500 super nova remnants in various stages of decay. If the Milky Way galaxy is only as old as the Bible says (about 7000 years old) then there should be only about 125. How many do we actually observe? About 200. By this “clock” the biblical predictions are much closer, while Dr. Ball’s predictions are off by a factor of about 40
The Universal Expansion
How do we extract an age for the universe? Astronomer Edwin Hubble demonstrated in the 1920’s that the universe is expanding; by showing that the further away a galaxy is from us the faster it appears to be moving away from us. This expansion rate tells us how long the universe has taken to expand to the immense size it is today. But it has been very difficult to determine this expansion rate accurately until recently…Combining measurements of several different distance indicators such as variable stars and distant supernovae, we have narrowed down the age of the universe to approximately 14 billion years old, uncertain to 0.5 billion years
I’m not quite old enough to remember when the scientific consensus agreed with the Bible that the universe was about 6000 years old, but the scientific community believes that the universe is aging faster than anything else in existence. I asked Grok to collect data from around the planet across time on how quickly the universe has been (supposedly) aging, and this is what is has come up with:
1800AD – the universe was 6000 years old
1840AD – the universe was ~100,000 years old
1850AD – the universe was ~1,000,000 years old
1860AD – the universe was ~10,000,000 years old
1870AD – the universe was ~20,000,000-100,000,000 years old (±10-50 million)
1880AD – the universe was ~20,000,000-100,000,000 years old (±10-50 million)
1890AD – the universe was ~20,000,000-100,000,000 years old (±10-50 million)
1900AD – the universe was ~100,000,000-1,000,000,000 years old
1910AD – the universe was ~1,000,000,000-2,000,000,000 years old (±.5-1 billion)
1920AD – the universe was ~1,000,000,000-10,000,000,000 years old (±1-5 billion)
1930AD – the universe was ~2,000,000,000-10,000,000,000 years old (±1-5 billion)
1940AD – the universe was ~2,000,000,000-5,000,000,000 years old (±1-2 billion)
1950AD – the universe was ~3,000,000,000-6,000,000,000 years old (±1-2 billion)
1960AD – the universe was ~10,000,000,000-20,000,000,000 years old (±5-10 billion)
1970AD – the universe was ~10,000,000,000-20,000,000,000 years old (±5 billion)
1980AD – the universe was ~10,000,000,000-20,000,000,000 years old (±3-5 billion)
1990AD – the universe was ~10,000,000,000-15,000,000,000 years old (±2-3 billion)
2000AD – the universe was ~13,000,000,000-14,000,000,000 years old (±1-2 billion)
2020AD – the universe was ~13,800,000,000 years old (±.02 billion)
2025AD – the universe is 13,800,000,000 years old (±.02 billion)
The parentheses in the above notes are the error bars. Error bars are the estimated error possibilities on either side of the possible date range. I do think it’s extremely humorous how the error bars in 1960 included the original Biblical timeframe of about 6000 years and how each new “age”, was outside the previous “age” error bars. It confirms that as biological evolution began to have a greater effect on the modern academic paradigm, the universe/Earth had to age at an appropriate rate to accommodate its assumptions. In 2019 a scientific paper claimed that the universe was only 11.4 billion years old. The error bars at this time was only 20 million years, but suddenly over 2 billion years went missing?!?!?? How could billions of years suddenly go missing? They must have found those years, because the it’s back to 13.8 billion. In 2024, there was a peer-reviewed paper saying that the latest findings showed that the universe is a whopping 26.7 billion years old…almost 14,000,000,000 years OUTSIDE the error bars. What’s a few billion years between scientific allies? To be fair, this paper has not been widely accepted, but it goes to show that atheists, naturalists, and sadly some Christians are always looking for more time in the universe to accommodate their evolutionary (whether galactic, chemical, stellar, planetary or biological) beliefs.
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
Additional evidence of a beginning 14 billion years ago is the leftover remnant of the initial explosion nicknamed the “Big Bang”, which was discovered first in 1965, nearly 20 years after it was predicted. This is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which pervades all of space. It is the radiation released near the beginning of the universal expansion, and has been cooling off gradually ever since, until today it is now a chilly 2.73 degrees above absolute zero temperature.
Chilly indeed, but not nearly enough. There are MANY problems with the Big Bang Theory, but #3 in the linked list shows the CMBR to be evidence NOT of an ancient universe but of a light time travel problem for naturalists. Based on their assumptions, the universe should not be so thermodynamically balanced.
So, what we have found as we’ve critically analyzed the claims of Dr. Ball is that instead of supporting an ancient universe like the atheists believe, we find that the observations are correctly seen to affirm the biblical timeline of only about 6,000 years. There’s no reason for Christians to capitulate to the modern academic paradigm. God’s Word is absolutely trustworthy as written and needs no injection of worldliness in order to accommodate their beliefs about origins. The Bible is NOT a science textbook, and that’s a good thing so that it doesn’t need to be completely rewritten every few years as new discoveries change the theories. God’s revelation cannot be refuted. I’m sure Dr. Ball is a friendly Christian professor, but his writings about Christianity trying to accommodate worldliness are unnecessary at best and deceptive at worst.
One of the giant problems for those who believe in evolution is the missing evidence for the transition of single-celled organisms into multicellularity. According to the story of evolution there was a single-celled Last Universal Common Ancestor LUCA from whom all biological life descended. No evidence for this supposed LUCA exists, but it is a philosophical place-holder for the theory of evolution to persist. If the theory of evolution is true, at the VERY LEAST, the evolutionists must have some kind of explanation for transition from single-celled creatures into the multi-cellular creatures that we see today
In an online interaction, an evolutionist made the claim that the problem was solved in 2019. Some researchers had their paper pass peer-review, and in they claim that multicellularity evolved in response to predation. At the time of this writing, their paper has been cited 181 times. Commonly, a case gets accepted simply by passing peer review. I’ve not found evidence that the experiments described in their paper have been duplicated anywhere, but it’s reasonable to cross-examine their claims to see how they stack up. This is a very biblical response to their claim:
So, let’s cross-examine, to see if there are any weaknesses in their claims and if their claims hold up to even the mildest of scrutiny:
According to the story of evolution, the algae in question has persisted unchanged for ~310 million years. That’s some pretty amazing longevity (if true). But the researchers from this paper claimed to have observed the evolution of this novel trait in the comparably instantaneous time of 50 weeks…less than 1 year. Despite it being one of the biggest problems for evolutionists, the emergence of multicellularity from single-celled organism, these scientists claim to have taken one of the most stable genotypes (having existed fixed for over 300 million years) and watched it evolve new traits in less time than it takes to complete a cricket tournament (I think…as I’ve never really understood those rules). It’s mind-numbingly absurd to believe that evolution can happen that fast considering the claims of evolutionists themselves and the well-known waiting-time problem. The biggest single leap in evolution from single to multiple cells happened right before the eyes of these researchers in under a year. I’m unpersuaded
They didn’t show that natural selection acting on random mutations (evolution) was able to produce this change, yet they use some form of “evolve” NINETY-SEVEN times in their article. I’ve been told that science is supposed to try to disprove a theory, but it’s clear that these biased researchers were good company-men…sticking with the party-line: evolution only all the time!
This is they key: The evolutionists said that predation was the selection pressure that forced single-cell algae populations into multicellularity, but they did not show that the algae developed new biological code via random mutation that produced this ‘novel’ ability. New code is needed, but evolution does not have that power
The experiments show instead that the ability to aggregate into multi-cellular clumps is a pre-existing trait. The algae were designed to cluster, and the expression of genes for multicellularity is turned off most of the time when not exposed to predation
There is no fossil evidence of unicellular-to-multicellular transition. It is an imagined transition, which evolutionists need for their theory. But it is not supported by any existing evidence.
As already noted, the evolutionists NEED this to imagined transition to be true for their theory to work. So, even though there is no fossil evidence that evolution produced this change, and there is no experimental evidence that natural selection acting on random mutations can build the cohesive interrelated interdependent functional code for transitioning single-celled organisms into multicellular organisms, they will continue to believe it
If you are interested, you can see a more robust examination of the claims of Herron’s paper here.
This is not the only time that I have scrutinized the supposed airtight arguments for evolution:
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 simply 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.
But let’s walk through the peer-reviewed paper, which an anonymous internet philosopher claims was the ‘silver bullet’ in proving evolution. Here’s some of their musing in red, followed by my commentary in the default black
“The evolution of novel traits necessitates the evolution of novel gene regulatory architecture”
True! Evolution requires evolution of evolution within evolution…all the way down
“coevolve when duplicated genes evolve new regulatory control”
Not just evolution of evolution, but coevolve evolution.
“understanding the features that coordinate gene regulation is particularly challenging in eukaryotes because it involves the simultaneous action of cis- and trans-regulatory factors, chromatin state, and three-dimensional interactions of chromatin, including the precise coordination of enhancers and promoters”
Particularly challenging indeed! Simultaneous action? 3D interactions? Precise coordination? Simultaneous is not one of the expectations or predictions of evolution. Evolution is said to have occurred via numerous successive slight modifications…not simultaneous (undefined, ambiguous) action. Three-dimensional interactions sounds very mysterious…even supernatural. But evolutionists just accept these supernatural interactions as if they were somehow truly part of their theory. And that brings us to “precise coordination”. They claim that natural selection acting on random mutations (the mechanisms of evolution) are unguided and blind. There is again the assumption that nature can somehow provide “precise coordination” though blind, directionless, and purposeless
“most VGs are thought to have evolved through tandem duplication of genes with other physiological functions”
Thought to have evolved? Doesn’t sounds like science
“the evolutionary origins of their regulatory architecture remain poorly understood“
Poorly understood indeed! But I’m sure that won’t keep them from trying to educate us. All of these evolution stories are based on assumptions, and though the actual history (AS THEY CLEARLY ADMIT) remains poorly understood, they still demand complete obedience to their story. No dissent from their narrative allowed
“that may play”
May
“have remained largely unexplored“
Largely unexplored.
“provide an example of how multiple genomic mechanisms may together establish a novel regulatory system”
May. ‘May’ again. No science…just ‘may’
“likely contributed to the evolution of novel regulatory mechanisms”
Likely? I thought we were talking about science, but ‘likely’?
“makes foundational progress toward closing a long-standing gap in our understanding of snake venom systems and their origins”
They are making progress in closing the gap in their understanding. They have not solved the problem…they just claim to have closed the gap. No science. No evidence. Hopium is a powerful drug
If it’s evidence, we should expect to see explicit demonstrations of natural selection acting on random mutations to produce information for biological traits like venom. 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. God-deniers tend to make grand claims about the power of evolution, but when their claims have been scrutinized by simply reading the peer-reviewed articles, it’s clear that what they believe to be evidence is actually a collection of assumptions wrapped in the façade of scientific language. The origin is biological traits is a well-known problem for evolutionists, so we’ve seen how these authors tried to handle the problem. They left us with the admission that they made “progress toward closing the gap in their understanding”. Unfortunately for them, the gap is 100 miles wide, and they think they built a 3″ bridge.
This is not the only time I have scrutinized their supposed airtight arguments for evolution:
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 simply 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.
I’ve been told that natural selection acting on random mutations has enough power to produce every biological trait…including sex. 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 sex, 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 sexual reproduction. 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 sex. 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, Finn, has before made grand claims about the power of evolution, but when his claims have been scrutinized by simply reading the peer-reviewed articles, it’s clear that what he believes to be evidence is actually a collection of assumptions wrapped in the façade of scientific language. The origin is sex is a well-known problem for evolutionists, so let’s see how these authors handle the problem. Do they deal with the problem using evidence or assumptions?
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’ll begin with the word count of caveat words. Goodenough and Heitman couch much of their story-telling with words that will give them a certain amount of ambiguity for escape:
“possible and possibly” – 6
“could” – 7
“might” – 16
“perhaps” – 2
“may” – 32
“likely” – 10
“hypothesis and hypothetical” – 5
“suggest, suggests and suggesting” – 16
“evolve” – 14
“evolution” – 82
This should tell you right away that we’re not dealing with any kind of evidentially-founded science here. This is a grand story wrapped in scientific jargon and ambiguous assumptions
“During the course of this evolutionary trajectory, the LECA became sexual“
It just “became sexual”. This is a post hoc fallacy: “sexual reproduction is observed, so evolution must have done it”. It’s absurd
“We propose that the transition to a sexual LECA entailed four innovations: (1) alternation of ploidy via cell–cell fusion and meiosis; (2) mating-type regulation of cell–cell fusion via differentiation of complementary haploid gametes (isogametic and then anisogametic), a prelude to species-isolation mechanisms; (3) mating-type-regulated coupling of the diploid/meiotic state to the formation of adaptive diploid resting spores; and (4) mating-type-regulated transmission of organelle genomes. Our working assumption is that the protoeukaryote → LECA era featured numerous sexual experiments, most of which failed but some of which were incorporated, integrated, and modified. Therefore, this list is not intended to suggest a sequence of events; rather, the four innovations most likely coevolvedin a parallel and disjointed fashion“
This is a long section that shows their proposal, their assumption and ultimately, not just the need for a single marvel of evolution, but multiple (coevolution) simultaneous marvels occurring in geographic proximity. Sometimes, a research (or science fiction writer) can get away with introducing a single unexpected/preposterous idea into a story. But the proposal becomes absurd when the reader is expected to believe numerous preposterous ideas (parallel coevolution of compatible corresponding functional interdependent sexual organs, systems, desires, abilities, and cascading offspring developmental solutions ALL at the same time and in the same place) in a “disjointed fashion”. It doesn’t just stretch incredulity, it mocks the readers as rubes.
“Once these core sexual-cycle themes were in place“
As if these themes could just be assumed to jump into place. It’s not persuasive at all
“That said, the ability to toggle from haploid to diploid and back again is dependent on a mechanism for ploidy reduction, which, in modern eukaryotes, entails meiotic or parasexual processes“
They have identified a NEED for sexual reproduction, but that’s a far cry from showing that numerous successive slight modifications over time can meet that need. Let’s see of either of their proposed processes parasexual or meiotic processes can do the job
“we use as examples modern organisms whose mating-type-based sexual differentiation is already established. In subsequent sections we will consider how sexual differentiation itself might have originated and evolved“
Already established?!?!?? That’s like taking an existing nut & bolt and explaining how an ratcheting wrench evolved by random mutations. If it’s already established, how are you demonstrating how it came about my an accumulation of random mutations?
“One interpretation is that the functions of Spo11 have been reconfigured to play a mitotic, parasexual role. Alternatively, the parasexual cycle of C. albicans could involve some aspects of meiosis (such as Spo11-dependent chiasmata), but given the high rate of aneuploidy (e.g., 2N + 1, 2N + 2) that is generated, it does not produce accurate outcomes, and might be considered something akin to a “parameiosis”“
One interpretation indeed. In a peer-reviewed paper, we’re looking for actual evidence rather than “could have”. Parasexual processes didn’t result in the solid ground they were looking for. What about Meiosis?
“An alternative view is that meiosis arose early, without prior parasexual experimentation, as a means to generate haploid progeny from a diploid progenitor. Early meiosis was likely messy and inaccurate—perhaps only somewhat better than parasexual changes in ploidy—with more accurate mechanisms evolving subsequently“
These are clearly guesses, not evidence. Remember in the definition of natural selection, we noted that only those traits deemed most fit would be preserved. How can natural selection preserve messy and inaccurate processes as more fit than something (asexual reproduction) that works very well? Broken unformed traits cannot be preserved if they do not increase fitness according to the teachings of natural selection
“In either view, the enzymes and machinery for meiosis presumably evolved from a core set of DNA-manipulating enzymes brought in and modified as needed from prokaryotic forebears“
We were looking for evidence in this paper, but we’ve been given “presumably”. But the real focus should be on their claim that evolution can “modify as needed”. This is a wild claim, which it completely opposed to the theory of evolution. Evolution is supposed to be completely unguided with no purpose and no foresight. But they’ve tried to smuggle in the idea that evolution can solve problems with foresight by converting hammers into wrenches. It’s not science. It’s hope in the mystical forces of nature
“Recognition of self is not, of course, a eukaryotic novelty. The widespread occurrence of biofilm formation and quorum sensing in modern bacteria (Vlamakis et al. 2013) and archaea (Koerdt et al. 2010; Frols 2013) suggests that the forebears of protoeukaryotes likely engaged in such self-recognition behaviors as well. Modern prokaryotic systems feature the secretion of lineage-specific extracellular matrix materials and small molecules; their receptor-mediated perception then triggers signal-transduction cascades that modulate growth and metabolism. Hence self-recognition modules presumably existed in the protoeukaryotic gene pool that, with evolutionary tinkering, allowed like-like haploid cell adherence to trigger intracellular signals that elicited the conditions for cell–cell fusion“
Notice all of the assumptions of matter and events from a supposed billion years ago! My favorite line from that paragraph is the reification fallacy -> “with evolutionary tinkering”, as if there’s a little cobbler called Mr. Utionary..Evol Utionary. This ingenious engineer tinkers with mutations and existing proteins to construct cohesive interdependent interrelated complimentary systems of male sexuality and female sexuality from spare parts and a pinch of imagination (evolutionary tinkering). Evolution is supposed to be a “force” without foresight or goals, and yet, when described in these peer-reviewed papers, the evolutionists can’t help themselves but give evolution human-like powers
It’s wildly overstating their case to say that it’s like someone trying to construct an engine for a 2025 BMW M5 with parts available only from 100 AD…without an engineer overseeing the parts manufacturing, the assembly, the planning, or the testing
“Exciting recent studies report adaptive changes that occur in the genomes of such cross-species hybrid yeasts isolated and passaged under laboratory conditions; genome rearrangements arise repeatedly and independently“
Notice their euphoric claims that sex simply arose by chance because they observed the injection of code for an existing trait in one yeast not killing a different yeast. That’s their explanation for the origin of cohesive interdependent interrelated complimentary systems of male sexuality and female sexuality. It’s absurdly optimistic and completely unobserved
“The original self-recognition molecules in protoeukaryotic gametes might have engaged in homotypic interactions, like present-day cadherins that adhere to one another“
Might have?!!?? That’s not very scientific
Their “just-so” stories about how a DNA repair system could simply be repurposed as sexual organs is not science…it’s fiction. Their story lacked any reason to believe the nonsense, but since it is wrapped in a thin veneer of peer-review, it will be swallowed as evidence. Those reading past the headline should be able to clearly see the emptiness of the contents in the article as I’ve shown
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 simply 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.
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
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!
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
ApoloJedi 