Many scientists and others have regarded Christianity as an absurd belief system,
or at best as a "religious," and by that they mean non-rational, faith. Why?
Often it is because the hook on which Christianity is based, the Bible, has
been said to date the origin of the universe at 4004 B.C., or some such recent
date. Seldom considered and discussed are the dozen or more different indicators
from the Bible that a literal reading of Genesis demands an ancient, rather
than a recent, creation date.
Early Biblical scholarship
Many of the early church fathers and other Biblical scholars interpreted the
creation days of Genesis 1 as long periods of time. The list of such proponents
includes the Jewish historian Josephus (1st century); Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons,
apologist, and martyr (2nd century); Origen, who rebutted heathen attacks on Christian
doctrine (3rd century); Basil (4th century); Augustine (5th century); and, later,
Aquinas (13th century), to name a few.1-5
The significance of this list lies not only in the prominence of these individuals
as Biblical scholars, defenders of the faith, and pillars of the early church
(except Josephus), but also in that their scriptural views cannot be said to
have been shaped to accommodate secular opinion. Astronomical, paleontological,
and geological evidences for the antiquity of the universe, of the earth, and
of life did not come forth until the nineteenth century.
Ussher’s chronology and fundamentalism
Archbishop Ussher’s margin notes for the King James translation of the Bible
(discussed in chapter 3) had the effect of canonizing in the minds of many English-speaking
Protestants a creation date of 4004 B.C. for the universe and the earth. However,
the accuracy or inaccuracy of this creation date did not become an issue for
the Christian faith until the scientific developments of two centuries later.
It moved into the spotlight as the fundamentalist movement began.
Fundamentalism got its start when two laymen, Milton and Lyman Stewart, sponsored
the printing and distribution of twelve small books entitled The Fundamentals:
A Testimony of the Truth (1909 – 1915). Organizationally, fundamentalism took
shape when the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association was formed at a conference
in Philadelphia in 1919.
This association went farther than to require its members’ adherence to the
doctrine of creation and of the fall of man. It also identified evolution (i.e.
Darwinism) as one of the great evils of our time, an enemy to be opposed from
every angle and on every point. Because Ussher’s short time scale was seen as
the coup de grace to evolution, Ussher’s chronology became incorporated into
their "Biblical" doctrine of creation.
Gosse’s "appearance of age" theory
As scientific evidence mounted, Christians who were scientists began to recognize
a dilemma. As early as the 1850’s, British biologist and preacher Philip Gosse
was forced to acknowledge that paleontological and physical data indicated an
age for the earth far older than that permitted by Ussher’s chronology, even if
one conceded the possibility of some gaps in various genealogies, Gosse the
scientist was convinced by the physical data, while Gosse the preacher was committed
to what he thought was demanded by the Bible. What was he to do?
In 1857 Gosse published Omphalos, an Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. In
this book he maintained that God created the earth and life with the appearance
of age-that the creation bore false records of a nonexistent past. He proposed,
for example, that God made trees with annual rings for years that never existed.
The suggestion that God had written on the earth’s rocks a superfluous lie hit
a sour note with most of Gosse’s fellow Christians. And, though his book stirred
some interest at first, it soon fell into to disfavor.
Of late, however, Gosse’s "appearance of age" idea has seen a revival. Gary
North, a prominent "reconstructionist" theologian,5 recently wrote:
The Bible’s account of the chronology of creation points to an illusion. …
The? seeming age of the stars is an illusion. … Either the constancy of the
speed of light is? an illusion, or the size of the universe is an illusion,
or else the physical events that? we hypothesize to explain the visible changes
in light or radiation are false inferences.6
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), an aggressive scientific" proponent
of Ussher’s chronology, has held to the appearance of age since its inception
in 1972.7 Dr. Henry M. Morris, ICR founder and president, tells why:
The road of compromise [on the issue of age], however attractive it seems, is
a one-way? street, ending in a precipice and then the awful void of "rational
religion," or? atheism. Our advice is to stay on the straight road of the pure
Word of God.8
For Christians to tamper with the plain meaning of the Bible in order to make
it? conform to the latest findings of this or that school of evolutionary thought
is nothing? short of disastrous.9
Evidently, tampering with the plain meaning of the facts of nature is an acceptable
dual revelation theology
Modern day advocates of Gosse’s view all hold to what is called a single revelational
view?the belief that the Bible is the only authoritative source of truth. In
other words, we must grope in darkness apart from God’s special revelation in
scripture."10 No tampering with the "literal" meaning of the Bible can be tolerated.
Single revelational theology, however, in itself contradicts the "plain meaning
of the Bible." According to Psalm 19:1-4, the "words" of God proclaimed through
the stars and galaxies have been heard by all people. In Romans 1:19-20 the
Bible declares that everyone is "without excuse" as he or she faces God’s eternal
judgment [including those people who have never read the Bible or heard the
preaching of believers] since what may be known about God has been made plain
to all through what has been made. Colossians 1:23 points out that the plan of
salvation "has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven." Table 13:1 provides
a partial listing of Bible verses indicating that God reveals Himself faithfully
through the "voice" of nature as well as through the inspired words of scripture.
Only this dual, and perfectly harmonious, revelation appears consistent with
God’s character and purpose.
For God to lie would be a violation of His holiness.11 The Bible claims that
God created the universe.12 Further; it makes God responsible for the words
of the Bible.13 Thus, no contradiction between the facts of nature and the facts
of the Bible would be possible. Any apparent contradiction must stem from human
Table 13.1: Bible verses teaching that God reveals truth through His creation
Biblical basis for
long creation days
The first chapter of Genesis declares that within six "days" God miraculously
transformed a "formless and void" earth into a suitable habitat for mankind.
The meaning of the word day; here, has become the center of a controversy. Does
it, or does it not, make for a conflict between scripture and science?
The answer to that question depends upon whether the time periods indicated
are 24 hours or, rather, something on the order of millions of years. Most Bible
scholars (and scientists, too)
would agree that a correct and literal interpretation of the creation "day"
is one that takes into account definitions, context, grammar, and relevant passages
from other parts of scripture. A careful analysis of all these elements yields
many reasons for interpreting the creation days of Genesis as long periods of time.
Here are some of them:
1. Genesis 1 fits the form and, hence, the function of a Biblical chronology.
?A study of all other chronologs in scripture reveals that events presented
in sequence are both time-order discernible and time-order significant. The
significance is to show the orderly unfolding of God’s plan and reveal His sovereign
control, while the discernibility serves to validate the message of His spokesmen.
Key examples are found in Daniel 9:24-27 (a timetable for the rebuilding of
Jerusalem, the Messiah’s coming and death, the destruction of Jerusalem, years
of desolation, restoration of temple sacrifices, the abomination, and then the end);
Daniel 11:2-45 (a chronolog of the victories and defeats of various kings and
kingdoms, including the final world ruler); and Revelation 8 – 9 (a sequential
list of dooms preparatory to Christ’s return to earth).
In the case of the creation days, long periods of time in which various life-forms
were introduced in increasing abundance and complexity are, indeed, discernible
and significant for validating the supernatural accuracy of the writer’s statements.
If all creation were completed in six 24-hour days, however, even the most sophisticated
measuring techniques available would be totally incapable of discerning the
sequence of events; and, thus, a major purpose of the chronolog would be thwarted.
2. A long period of time is clearly acceptable with the definitions of yowm,
‘ereb, and boqer.
?The Hebrew word yowm, translated day may be used (and is) within the Bible,
as it is in English, to indicate any of four time periods: a) from sunrise to
sunset, b) from sunset to sunset, c) a segment of time without any reference
to solar days (usually several years), and d) an age or epoch.
The Hebrew word ‘ereb, translated evening also means "sunset," "night," or "ending
of the day." The word boqer; translated morning also means "sunrise," "coming
of light," "beginning of day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage
(see Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980, also Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament, Chicago: Moody Press, 1980).
Some have argued for 24hour days on the basis that yowm, when attached to an
ordinal (second, third, fourth, etc.) elsewhere in the Bible always refers to
a 24-hour period. This argument is inconclusive. The Bible, afterall, has no
other occasion to enumerate epochs of time. More importantly, there is no rule of
Hebrew grammar stating that yowm attached to an ordinal must refer to 24-hour
3. The unusual syntax of the sentences enumerating specific creation days suggests
indefinite time periods.
?Looking at the literal Hebrew, one finds this phraseology: "and was evening
and was morning day Xth." The New International Version renders the time markers
in this way: "And there was evening, and there was morning-the Xth day." The
word arrangement, in both cases, is a departure from the simple and ordinary.
It creates an ambiguity. If "day Xth" were intended as the noun complement for
the one evening and morning together, the linking verb should appear just once,
in plural form (as the King James Version renders it) "And the evening and the morning
were the Xth day." We would expect the literal Hebrew to say, "and were evening
and morning day Xth." But, that is not the case. This syntactic ambiguity does
not constitute a proof. However, it does at least suggest an indefinite period
for each phase of the creation.
4. The seventh day in Genesis 1 and 2 is not closed out.
?Of the first six creation days the Genesis writer says (New International Version):
"…there was evening, and there was morning-the Xth day." This statement indicates
that each of the first six creation days had a beginning and an ending. However,
for the seventh creation day no such statement appears either in Genesis 1 –
2 or anywhere else in the Bible. Given the parallel structure for marking the
creation days, this distinct change in form for the seventh day strongly suggests
that this day has (or had) not yet ended.
Further information about the seventh day is given in Hebrews 4 and Psalm 95.
In these passages we learn that God’s day of rest continues even now. The writer
of Hebrews says, "’On the seventh day God rested from all his work.’ … It
still remains that some will enter that rest…. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest
for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his
own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore. make every effort to
enter that rest (4:4-10, NIV)." He indicates, here, that the seventh day of the
creation week carries on through the centuries, from Adam and Eve, through Israel’s
development as a nation, through the time of Christ’s earthly ministry, through
the early days of the church, and on into future years. King David in Psalm
95:7-11 also refers to God’s seventh day of rest as an ongoing event. From these
passages we gather that the seventh day of Genesis 1 and 2 represents a minimum
of several thousand years and a maximum that is open ended (though finite).
?It seems reasonable to conclude then, given the parallelism of the creation
account, that the first six days also were very long time periods.
5. The events of the sixth day cover more than 24 hours.
?Genesis 1 tells us that all the land mammals and both Adam and Eve were created
on the sixth day. Genesis 2 provides further amplification, listing events between
the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. First, God planted a garden in
Eden, making "all kinds of trees to grow out of the ground." Then Adam worked
and cared for the garden of Eden. After that, he carried out his assignment
from God to name all the animals. In the process Adam discovered that none of
these creatures was a suitable helper for him. Next, God put Adam into a deep sleep,
performed an operation, awakened Adam, and introduced him to the newly created
Eve. Adam’s exclamation upon seeing Eve was happa’am. This expression is usually
translated "now at length" (cf Genesis 29:34-35, 30:20, and 46:30 and Judges 15:3),
roughly equivalent to our English expression, "at last." Finally, Adam and Eve
received instructions from God concerning their responsibilities in managing
the plants, animals, and resources of the earth. Many weeks’, months’, or even
years worth of ac
tivities took place in this latter portion of the sixth day.
Some 24-hour proponents argue that Adam’s intelligence was so much higher before
he sinned that he could do all these tasks at superhuman speed. This argument
fails to account for Adam’s response to Eve, and just as importantly, the following
??????????????? 1.? ????????? There is no Biblical basis for suggesting that people of
lower intelligence are more? sinful.
??????????????? 2.? ????????? Greater intellect would not significantly impact Adam’s
sixth-day tasks and experiences.
??????????????? 3.? ????????? Adam in his perfect state would be all the more meticulous
in performing his? God-assigned tasks.
??????????????? 4.? ????????? Jesus, though He was perfect in every way, did not perform
His carpentry work and other? everyday activities at a faster than normal rate.
6. The wording of Genesis 2:4 suggests a long time span for the creation week.
?This verse, a summary statement for the creation account, in the literal Hebrew
reads, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were
created in the day of their making" Here, the word day refers to all six creation
days (and the creation events prior to the first creative day). Obviously, then,
it refers to a period longer than 24 hours. More significantly, though, Hebrew
lexicons verify that the word for generation (toledah) always refers to a long
time period, never to anything as short as a week. Note that in Genesis 2:4 the plural
form, generations, is used, indicating that even more time must have elapsed.
7. In describing the eternity of God’s existence, Bible writers often compare
it to the longevity of the mountains or of the "foundations of the earth."
?The figures of speech used in Psalm 90:2-6, Proverbs 8:22-31, Ecclesiastes
1:3-11, and Micah 6:2 all serve to depict for us the immeasurable antiquity
of God’s presence and plans. If these literary devices are used appropriately
and accurately (as we know they must be, for they were inspired by God), then the
earth and its foundations must reach back at least a few orders of magnitude
beyond the relatively brief span of recorded history. Habakkuk 3:6 directly
declares the mountains to be "ancient" and the hills to be "age-old."
8. Truthfulness and a purpose to reveal truth, both in the creation and the
written Word, are fundamental attributes of God. He does not lie.
?Numerous Bible verses explicitly declare that God is truthful, and that He
does not mislead, either in word or in deed, those who seek to know the truth.
Even that desire, itself, comes from Him. (See, for example, Psalm 119:160,
Isaiah 45:19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18 and 11:6, and I John 5:6).
The implications are obvious. For God to create things with a deceptive "appearance"
of age would violate His own stated character. Whatever objects of His creation
we subject to valid and correctly applied (and interpreted) scientific analysis
will reveal their true age. While God created Adam and Eve with adult-sized bodies,
He did not put into them twenty years’ worth of deterioration. Abundant and
consistent evidence, then, from astronomy, physics, geology, and paleontology
for the age of the universe, the earth, and life must be taken seriously.
9. The Bible affirms that the creation reveals God’s existence, His handiwork,
His power, and His divine nature.
?Both Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20, among other passages, make clear that the physical
universe we see and experience is sufficient not only to prove that God really
exists and that He created all things, but also to show mankind His qualities
of love and power, provision and protection?to name just a few–so that "men are
One must conclude, then, that honest scientific investigation reliably leads
to discovery of truths about God and about His otherwise invisible qualities.
This revelation of God via the universe implies that when God does perform a
miracle, He does not remove or distort the physical evidence of that miracle.b
10. The Bible writers’ statements about the vastness of the universe also serve
as indicators of its age.
?In Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22, and Hebrews 11:12, the number of God’s children
is compared with the number of stars in the sky and the number of grains of
sand on the seashore?a "countless" number. For two reasons, this number must
exceed a billion. First, since God’s children include not only the Jews but
also all those people who ever have or will trust in Him for salvation, that
sum can be estimated conservatively to exceed two billion. Second, the Hebrew
(and Greek) numbering systems included numbers up to the billions. Thus, "countless"
would indicate a number at least one order of magnitude greater than billions,
i.e. tens of billions. Given this number of stars as a minimum, and noting that
the stars are separated from each other by distances of about 4 light-years
(not in a line, of course, but in a roughly spherical space), the diameter of
the universe must exceed 20,000 light-years. And since no material in our universe
moves more rapidly than the velocity of light, one can calculate that the age
of the universe, then, must exceed 20,000 years.
According to recent findings, the number of stars in the universe totals approximately
1023 (a number that also approximates the sum of the grains of sand on the seashores).
Again, using size to indicate age, 1023 stars separated from one another by
about 4 light-years yield a minimum diameter of 200 million light years, thus a minimum
age of 200 million years. (Note:
Though it is true that God has the power to construct the universe at a rate
more rapid that the velocity of light, the physical evidence clearly shows that
He did not do so.)
11. The sabbath day for man and sabbath year for the land are based on analogy
with God’s work week.
?God’s fourth commandment says that the seventh day of each week is to be honored
as holy, "for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and rested
on the seventh" (Exodus 20:10-11). As Hebrew scholar Gleason Archer asserts,
"By no means does this demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the
first six ‘days,’ any more than the 8-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles
proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days."14
Sometimes the sabbath is a full year (cf Leviticus 25:4), not a day. Clearly,
the emphasis in Exodus 20 is on the principle of one out of seven, not on the
duration of the days of creation.
12. The onset of "death through sin" places no restriction on the length of
?Romans 5:12 says, "Sin entered the world through one man, and death through
sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." Some have interpreted
this verse as implying that there was no death of any kind before the sin of
Adam, and, therefore, only a few days could possibly have transpired between the
creation of the first life-forms and the sin of Adam. However, the absence of
physical death would pose just as much a problem for three 24-hour days as it
would for three billion years. Many species of life cannot survive for even three
hours without food, and the mere ingestion of food requires at least the death
The key point, though, is that Romans 5:12 is not addr
essing physical death
at all. When Adam sinned, he instantly "died," just as God said he would; yet
he remained alive physically. He died spiritually in that he lost his fellowship
with God and gained a natural inclination to defy God. Genesis 3 records that
after Adam died (spiritually) through sin, God sent an angel to block Adam’s
access to the tree of life. In addition to "death through sin," the book of
Romans addresses several different kinds of death.
bogus evidences for a young universe
For reasons such as those addressed by North and Morris, "scientific creationists"
who hold to a 24-hour creation day insist that the evidences for the age of
the universe and the earth are inconclusive and that there is, by contrast,
a considerable body of evidence supporting a young age. Here they are sadly
misguided and are misguiding many whose science education and Biblical training
are inadequate to aid them in evaluation. All of these so-called "evidences"
of youthfulness, when investigated closely involve one or more of the following problems:
misapplication of principles, laws, and equations
ignorance of mitigating evidence
Ironically, these fallacious arguments, when corrected, provide some of the
strongest evidences available for an old universe and an old earth. Examples
Sample Argument A: The continents are eroding too quickly.
Erosion measurements show that the continents are lowered by wind, rain, etc.
at a rate of 0.05 mm per year. At this rate, the continents?averaging about
800 meters in elevation?would disappear in about 16 million years. Since continents
do still have considerable elevation, the earth must be younger than 16 million
Reply The fallacy of Argument A lies in the failure to recognize that lava flows,
delta and continental shelf buildup (from eroded material), coral reef buildup,
and uplift from colliding tectonic plates are occurring at rates roughly equivalent
to, and in a few cases far exceeding, the erosion rate. The Himalayas, for example,
are rising as much as 15 mm per year.
Sample Argument B: The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too rapidly.
The strength of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing steadily since
measurements were first taken some 150 years ago. Based on the field strength
of a typical magnetic star (certainly exceeding any conceivable value for the
earth) and on the observed rate of decay, some creationists have calculated that
the decay process must have begun no more than 10,000 years ago. Thus, the earth’s
age must be 10,000 years or less.
Reply: The oversight in Argument B is that the earth’s magnetic field does not
undergo steady decay but rather follows a "sinusoidal" pattern. That is, the
field decays, builds up, decays, builds up, etc. The proof for this pattern
lies in ancient geologic strata found throughout the world. The rocks reveal that the
earth’s field reverses its polarity about every half million year?the reversal
process itself lasting roughly 10,000 years.15
Sample Argument C: The sun burns by gravitational contraction and is, therefore,
Before the discovery of nuclear energy the only explanation astronomers could
offer for the enormous energy output of the sun and other stars was gravitational
contraction. Given the diameter and energy output of our sun, we can calculate
that its maximum age would be 100 million years?if it were generating energy only by
this process. When some measurements indicated a slight decrease in the sun’s
diameter, a number of creationists were quick to conclude that the sun’s energy
source must indeed be gravity, rather than nuclear fusion; and, thus, the sun’s age
must be less than 100 million years.
Reply: Again, the argument overlooks significant data. First, it has been shown
that if a body of our sun’s dimensions were experiencing gravitational contraction,
the temperature, pressure, and other conditions at its center would be such
as to ignite nuclear fusion. Furthermore, various measured characteristics of
the sun, including its effective temperature, luminosity, spectra, radius, and
mass, all indicate that the sun certainly is burning by nuclear fusion and that
this fusion has been proceeding for about 5 billion years.
As for the observed decrease in the sun’s diameter, the measurements cited were
later found to be at odds with other visual measurements. The conflict has since
been laid to rest completely by the much more precise work of Barry LaBonte
and Robert Howard, published in Science, volume 214 (1981), pp.907-909. Their measurements,
within a limit of 0.1 arc seconds, show no change in the solar radius over the
years from 1974 to 1981.
Sample argument D: Galaxy clusters are not widely enough dispersed.
In order for a cluster of heavenly bodies to remain together, the gravity of
the system must be sufficient to overcome the velocities of the individual bodies
within it. Armed with measurements of velocities and masses, astronomers can
calculate (a) the dispersal time for clusters whose total mass is too small for
gravitational containment, and (b) the relaxation time (the time required for
the bodies to assume randomized velocities) for clusters whose total mass is
large enough for containment. Some creationists point out that when such calculations
are applied to galaxy clusters, the lack of galaxy dispersal indicates an age
for the clusters much less than a billion years.
Reply: The problem with Argument D is that these calculations for dispersal
and relaxation times are applicable for point sources only. Galaxies are not
point sources. In fact, their diameters are less than one order of magnitude
smaller than the average distances between them, within a given cluster. Therefore,
these dispersal-time calculations are meaningless.
By comparison, however, stars in a cluster are point sources; the average distances
between them are at least seven orders of magnitude greater than their average
diameters. When dispersal and relaxation time calculations are applied to star
clusters in our galaxy, many clusters show their ages to be greater than two
Other arguments for instantaneous creation, i.e. for a young universe and earth,
can similarly be exposed as fallacious. They are omitted only to save space.
age of the universe
There are thousands of legitimate and reliable scientific tools for demonstrating
that the creation (except modern man) is much older than Archbishop Ussher’s
chronology states. In just the last several years the age of the universe itself,
and hence a date for the events of Genesis 1:1, has been open to direct astronomical
measurement. At least eight methods now exist for determining the date of the
creation of the universe. The results of the application of these methods appear
in Table 13.2 and reveal a level of consistency that permits the secure conclusionc
that the universe is roughly 20 billion years old.
Table 13.2: Measurements of the age of the universe
age (billions of years)
expansion of the universe
ave background radiation
mass density of the universe
light element abundances
mean age =
20+/-13 billion years
advent of modern man
According to Genesis 1, the origin of the universe predates the six days of
creation, and the origin of man takes place at the very end of the six days.
Thus, the creation of the universe would be vastly more ancient than that of
man. Biblical genealogies serve as one indicator of how recently man appeared. However,
they provide only a loose measure. The problem lies in the usage of the Hebrew
words for father and son, ‘ab and ben. ‘Ab can just as well refer to the grandfather,
great-grandfather, or even the great-great-grandfather. Similarly, ben could
be a grandson, great-grandson, etc. In the book of Daniel, for example, Belshazzar’s
mother refers to Nebuchadnezzar as her son’s father when, in fact, four generations
separate them, and they are not even related. Such flexibility in the definitions
for ‘ab and ben explains why parallel genealogies (e.g. I Chronicles 3, Matthew
I, and Luke 3) are often at variance with one another. The best Hebrew scholarship
places the Biblical date for the creation of Adam between 6,000 and 50,000 years
In Genesis 1, Adam derives his name from the word which literally means "spirit
(plus soul and body) being." In other words, the Bible claims that modern man
is unique among all animal species in that he is the first to have a spirit.
By "spirit" the Bible means "aware of God and capable of forming a relationship
with God." Evidence of man’s spiritual dimension would include divine worship,
shown by religious relics, altars, and temples. From the Bible’s perspective,
painting, burial of dead, or use of tools would not qualify as conclusive evidence
of the spirit. Moreover, pre-spirit beings such as bower birds, elephants, and
chimpanzees are observed to perform these activities.
While bi-pedal, tool-using, large-brained hominids roamed the earth at least
as long ago as one million years, evidence for religious relics and altars dates
back only 8,000 to 24,000 years.16,17 Thus, the secular anthropological date
for the first spirit creatures is in complete agreement with the Biblical date.
Differences, however, between the Bible and secular anthropology remain. The
Bible would deny that the hominids were men. It also would deny that Adam was
physically descended from these hominids.
One further consideration from an altogether different perspective has to do
with the nature of creativity itself. Observe any skilled sculptor, painter,
or poet, a craftsman of any kind. Observe the painstaking yet joyful labor poured
into each object of his design. Examine the creation on any scale, from a massive
galaxy to the interior of an atom, from a glacier to a snowflake. The splendor
of each item, its beauty of form as well as of function, speaks not of instantaneous
mass production, but rather of time and attention to detail, of infinite care
a. Reconstructionism, as taught by North and others, is a doctrinal system combining
Puritan beliefs about law, politics, and Biblical end-times events with Cornelius
Van Til’s theory (called "presuppositionalism") that it is both wrong and useless
to appeal to reason and evidence in seeking to win people to Christ. For a more
thorough definition and a helpful analysis, see the article by Robert M. Bowman,
Jr., "The New Puritanism: A Preliminary Assessment of Reconstructionism, in
Christian Research Journal, vol.10, No.3 Winter/Spring, 1988), pp.23-27.
b. For example, the spectral lines of stars and galaxies are broadened (by the
random motions of intervening material) and redshifted (by intervening dust
and by the expansion of the universe) in direct proportion to the distance the
light must travel. Hence, the argument that God sent the light of the distant
stars and galaxies from points only some 6000 light years distant (not from
the objects themselves) is invalid since measurements indicate reddening and
redshifting consistent with light travel paths up to billions of light years long.
c. A description of the security of this conclusion comes from California Institute
of Technology’s physicist and Nobel Laureate Murray Gell-Mann. In testifying
before the supreme court (about the balanced treatment act) he said that it
would be easier to believe that the world flat, not round, than to believe the
universe only 6000 years old, not 20 billion.
??????????????? 1.? ????????? Free, Joseph. Archaeology and Bible History. (Wheaton, Illinois:
Victor Books,? 1950), pg. 50.
??????????????? 2.? ????????? Augustine. "The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Books Four and
Five," in Ancient? Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation.
edited by Johannes? Quasten, Walter J. Burghardt, and Thomas Comerford Lawler.
Number 41, St. Augustine, The? Literal Meaning of Genesis. translated and annotated
by John Hammond Taylor. Volume I,? Books 1 – 6. (New York: Newman Press, 1982),
??????????????? 3.? ????????? Augustine. "The Confessions, Book XIII, chapters 48-52,
in Great Books of the? Western World, volume 18, Augustine. edited by Robert
Maynard Hutchins. (Chicago:? Encyclop?dia Britannica, 1952), p.124.
??????????????? 4.? ????????? Augustine. "The City of God, Book XI, chapters 7-8, 30-31"
in Great Books? of the Western World, volume 18,Augustine. edited by Robert
Maynard Hutchins.? (Chicago: Encyclop?dia Britannica, 1952), pp. 326, 339-340.
??????????????? 5.? ????????? Aquinas, Thomas. Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas,
Volume One. edited and? annotated by Anton C. Pegis. (New York: Random House,
1945), pp. 680-681.
??????????????? 6.? ????????? North, Gary. The Dominion covenant: Genesis. (Tyler, Texas:
Institute for? Christian Economics, 1987), pp. 254-255.
??????????????? 7.? ????????? Whitcomb, John C. Jr. The Early Earth. (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Book House, 1972),? pp.29-37 and references therein.
??????????????? 8.? ????????? Morris, Henry. "The Compromise Road," in Impact, No.177
(March 1988),? p. iv.
??????????????? 9.? ????????? North, Gary., p.417.
??????????????? 10.? ??????? Whitcomb, John C. and DeYoung, Donald B. The Moon: Its
Creation, Form, and? Significance. Winona Lake, Indiana: BMH Books, 1978), p.
??????????????? 11.? ??????? Psalm 119:160, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18. The Holy Bible,
New International Version.
??????????????? 12.? ??????? Genesis 1:1, Hebrews 11:3. The Holy Bible, New International
??????????????? 13.? ??????? 11 Timothy 3:16. The Holy Bible, New International Version.
??????????????? 14.? ??????? Archer, Gleason L. "A Response to The Trustworthiness of
Scripture in Areas? Relating to Natural Science," in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy,
and the Bible. edited? by Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus. (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Academic Books, 1986),? pp.329.
??????????????? 15.? ??????? Jacobs, J. A., Russell, R. D., and Tuzo Wilson, J. Physics
and Geology. New York:? McGraw-Hill, 1959), p.135.
??????????????? 16.? ??????? Simon, C. "Stone-Age Sanctuary, Oldest Known Shrine, Discovered
in Spain," in Science? News, 120. (1981), p. 357.
??????????????? 17.? ??????? Bower, Bruce. "When the Human Spirit Soared,&quo
t; in Science
News 130. (1986),? pp.378-379.
For a catalog of materials