Biblical Creation and the Theory of Evolution
Society today is teaching evolution as fact, even though it is a theory. Yet schools, universities, and mainstream websites teach and write articles every day with the assumption the universe is billions of years old. People who believe in Biblical creationism are made out to be Flat Earthers, made fun of, and ridiculed, and are often shunned in the scientific community (see the movie "Expelled" ). There is high societal pressure to believe in macro evolution without questioning anything, and anyone who wants to raise questions or analyze another scientific model for the origins is laughed at. This is far from "scientific", and ventures into simple peer pressure.
One assumption I often hear made out as fact is "The sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity, and this must prove the earth is billions of years old". But the truth is, sedimentary layers proves there are sedimentary layers, how those layers were created hasn't been proven at all. We can—and should—study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point: such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions. When we start from the Bible and examine the rocks within the framework of a global Flood, the need for long ages vanishes. In fact, if a worldwide flood as described in Genesis did occur, it would have destroyed the geological formations made prior to it.
There is lots of evidence that we can look at and evaluate to form a theory as to how old the earth is, and there is an infinite number of scientific models you could fit that evidence into. The question ultimately lies in what is your basis of truth. No one can re-create the creation of the world to observe how it was done. In that sense, the question of how old the earth is is not a scientific question at all, but more of a worldview question. We all have to interpret the evidence we find in the earth, and our worldview will be our starting point. We find evidence in the geological layers of rock for example. The rocks could be interpreted to have been created in a worldwide flood through rapid deposits, or it could be interpreted through uniformitarianism over millions of years as evolutionists interpret them. It all boils down to what worldview you begin with. This is a good article for additional study.
Prior to Darwin's theory on evolution, most of the world, including the scientific community looked at the scientific evidence through the worldview of God's word, the Bible. After Charles Darwin, there was a dramatic and rapid shift to humanism, and the worldview of science in general shifted to exclude the Bible as an authoritative source. Now - today - the scientific community has gone to the extreme in this area, and won't even consider or evaluate anything that would include a Biblical presupposition. Unfortunately colleges and universities have been very successful in this area, teaching our students that their worldview with evolution is fact, and students are accepting this as truth, even though it is far from proven. What is ironic about this, is the archeological fields still use the Bible as an authoritative source for finding things, as the Bible has proven to be one of the most reliable source they have.
So why did the scientific community quickly change their interpretation of the evidence and abandoned the Biblical account in Darwin's era?
This is a fascinating study. In a period of about 20 years, almost all of the world's scientists came to accept the Darwinian model of macro evolution as fact. This type of worldview change is unparalleled in history, and is almost supernatural. Read the book Evolution a Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton for further study. But to answer the question, scientists in Darwin's day looked more closely at the geological layers than they had in the past. Patagonia South America was a key area that scientists focused on, and they concluded that a flood could not have deposited such great formations, and so they concocted new theories about how they came to be. These old-earth geologists didn’t do any experiments to show whether the Flood waters could have produced these rock layers. And because they didn’t pay careful attention to Scripture, they had inaccurate views of the duration, violence, and complex nature of the Flood. This undermined the authority of the Bible, which in turn lead to new theories and different world views that even excluded the existence of God. Read more ...
So what alternative to long geological ages does the Bible provide? Is there scientific evidence of a worldwide flood as described in Genesis?
The Bible describes the events of Noah's flood in Genesis 6 - 9. Based on the text, it was a violent, extended, destruction of the entire earth. Rain for 40 days alone wouldn't have accomplished this, but a catastrophic, supernatural event would have. Read the following passages for an exert.
Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Genesis 7:17-24
Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. 24And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 8:1-2
And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided. 2The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.
What if God did cause a supernatural event in Noah's flood to destroy the earth, and all living things in it. What if waters catastrophically crashed down from the heavens, and waters came up from the deep. What if great shifting of the earth occurred to open up the waters from the deep, this implies earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, mountains forming rapidly - mass destruction. If this did happen as the Bible implies, then its probable the geological layers we find in nature today were deposited by the Flood. At the very least, the earth would have been transformed, and the evidence for long geological layers would have been destroyed. If the Bible is true.
Secular science in general won't evaluate the evidence we find on earth through the lens of scripture. Yet this is a fascinating study, and there are lots of Christian scientists today who are willing to look at the evidence with a Biblical worldview. The evidence is impressive, and the evidence does support the Bible. This gives people a solid place to land, knowing that the word of God is trustworthy, and God is reliable. There is a source of truth.
So why do many modern day Christian scientists and even seminary professors claim to believe in both the Bible, and an old universe? Is this even possible?
This is an interesting question, and one of the biggest issues causing confusion about the validity of scripture today. Many students are left wondering what does the Bible stand for, if we know for "fact" that Genesis is not true. I believe there are two reasons many respected Christian teachers and scientists accept the popular worldview of evolution. First is because it is popular, and people who don't accept this as fact are made fun of, and ridiculed. Scientists in particular are ostracized for accepting anything other than an old earth. Again, this is not scientific, but stoops to simple peer pressure. The second reason is ignorance. These well meaning Christians don't fully understand how serious this issue is, and what it leads to. The general attitude of many respected people I know is, "what is the big deal, God is capable of creating the universe in many different ways". This may be true, but the point is that he told us how he did it, and if that is not true, we have to question our God.
So Christian teachers and scientists are looking for ways to re-interpret the Bible to fit the "facts" of science. This is a dangerous place to go, to change your basis of truth from God's word to Man's word. It undermines the authority of God, and the definition of truth. If there is no authority, then everything is up for debate, and man's word becomes equal with God. Young people who go to college and are taught that Genesis is false suddenly come to question everything. Things like the definition of marriage, the sanctity of life, belief in universalism becomes open for acceptance, as there is no longer a basis for truth.
Despite what labels society may place on Bible believing Christians, there is no shame in holding to a position that starts with a Biblical worldview as ones starting point, rounded out with solid scientific analysis of the evidence. To try and please the world by creating a hybrid belief system, simply for fitting into a popular worldview, ends up calling into question the integrity of God's word, and has trickle down affects of much greater consequence.