Where we came from has profound implications for the meaning of life, our purpose, and our ultimate destiny.

The Bible says:

• Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
• John 1:1–3: “In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
• Hebrews 11:3: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
• Colossians 1:16–17: “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”
• Psalm 33:6–9: “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.”

The Bible clearly presents the creation of our world as something that happened outside the natural order, something that happened at the express command of God. It was, and continues to be, a demonstration of His infinite power.

Accepting God as our Creator is a step toward acknowledging Him as our Lord. Psalm 100:3 says, “Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.” Knowing our origin gives a sense of place. It also gives us a sense of purpose and responsibility. The knowledge that God made us should also fill us with gratitude.

Nevertheless, things have gone horribly wrong in our world, and many people wonder if God is really there. Over the centuries many have come to doubt God’s existence, and in turn His involvement in creation.

Basic questions

In many cases a person’s doubt or animosity toward belief in creationism stems from personal experience. In my perusal of creation-evolution chat rooms on the Internet, I have often seen that a personal crisis — such as a tragic death of a loved one, or doubt about a loved one’s future — fuels the skeptic’s anger, perplexity, or fears. Another common cause is a misunderstanding of a Bible doctrine, such as hell, or supposed logical inconsistencies or factual errors in the Bible.

Of course there are those who accept evolution and other naturalistic theories simply because they believe the facts support them. I have found that those who grow up in strong Christian homes where creationism is taught, tend to regard evolution as so absurd that they are amazed anyone could fall for it. The truth is that there is an enormous propaganda machine in place that works tirelessly to promote naturalistic science. Most of those who support this propaganda seem to do so sincerely and from good will. The media with its liberal tendencies takes the word of scientists and researchers very seriously. Schools also tend to follow the fashions of science, and so millions of young people are indoctrinated in evolution year by year.

Why evolution?

Elements of evolution can be traced back many centuries, even to Greek thought and earlier ideas. But the major push came with the publishing of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species. This book presented evolution in a very scientific, methodical manner which was bound to appeal to many who were looking for a viable alternative to divine creation.

Evolution theory has two strong points which continue to be its greatest assets to this day:

1. It provides an explanation for life in its varied forms that does not require supernatural intervention. A basic tenet of mainstream science is that natural explanations must be accepted over supernatural explanations, and this is what evolution offers. Also, many people prefer an explanation that does not involve God, because it gives them another reason to deny God altogether.
2. Evolution seems to be verifiable. Fossil records exist. Organisms are known to adapt. Survival of the fittest — the process by which evolution occurs — is an accurate description of what usually happens in the natural world. Evolution makes predictions that can be observed, tested, and proven.

Besides these central points, other theories and observations provide apparent support:

• The big bang theory offers a naturalistic framework for everything in the universe, complementing evolution’s naturalistic suppositions.
• Modern dating methods seem to indicate a very old earth, much older than the 6,000 or so years believed by many creationists.
• Biology has found similarities between diverse species that is taken to imply common ancestry.
• Genetic research has yielded information that some scientists claim supports evolution.

The creationist view

Many Christians are at a loss to explain the things that science presents as evolution evidence. The Bible provides no clear information about dinosaurs and “prehistoric” life. My church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, believes that we have additional light on some of these topics through a few paragraphs in the volumes written by Ellen White. But even that additional information is not very detailed. The Flood story is our greatest asset in explaining the fossil record and the coal and oil deposits.

Adaption is a thorny issue for creationists. It is obvious on the one hand that adaption occurs. Animal breeds and bacteria adaptions are examples. But, although humanity has not witnessed any substantial changes in animal life throughout recorded history (substantial changes, as a creationist would view them), it is nearly impossible to convince devout evolutionists that small changes (microevolution) will never yield major changes (macroevolution). They simply argue that with enough time all changes are possible.

Again, Seventh-day Adventists have a slight edge on this subject through Ellen White’s writings, which in this case are loosely supported by the Genesis account. In her writings we find that mankind has greatly degenerated from its original created form. We are not as large or, as the Bible affirms, not as long-lived as our kind once were. We also reckon that the same degeneration exists throughout all of creation. Degeneration and extinction seem to be the law of life in this world from our viewpoint, directly contrary to a theory that presents gradual evolution of increasingly advanced forms.

Although the Bible clearly teaches that God created everything by His word, it does not provide an in-depth creation versus evolution debate. It seems that God has simply left it as a matter of faith that we believe He is the omnipotent Creator God, able to create the world in six days if He so pleases.

Flaws in the rationalizations

I will not go into detail about all the apparent flaws in the evolutionary view. It is my belief that the theory has huge defects. Other creationists have pointed these out in greater detail and more eloquently than I could. Evolution’s only virtue is that it is the best alternative theory to the creation account that has been put forward to date.

The biggest flaw with evolution is that it does not harmonize with the Bible. Some theistic evolutionists have argued that evolution and the Bible are compatible, but the truth is that never the twain shall meet. (I am using the term “evolution” to mean millions-of-years, amoeba-to-mankind evolution, not gradual changes we might observe today.)

I want to deal with only a few suppositions about creationism and evolutionism which I think are important for us to nail down:

• “Evolution is the fruit of science, and science has never let us down.” The truth is that science lets us down all the time. Theories change and are revised. New theories are put forward to cover holes. Evidence is found to be false or incomplete. More critically, science is used to explain things beyond the bounds of science. Science cannot cope with anything out of the ordinary (such as miracles). If God created this world out of nothing in a stable state, science has no way to prove whether this fact is true or untrue.
• “If you reject evolution, you cannot understand science or make any scientific contribution.” The truth is that a creationist scientist can grasp any practical branch of science as well as or better than an evolutionist. Only in the philosophical areas (such as origins, purpose, and moral questions) and interpretation of past events (in geology, paleontology, etc) is there disagreement. On anything that can be reproduced or done today, creationists and evolutionists agree.
• “Belief in creationism is arbitrary. If you cannot prove it, you might as well believe in Santa Claus.” If we did not know the Author, it would be quite a gamble to believe in creationism. But our belief in an active, intelligent, loving God is based on our personal experience. We have tested the Word in day to day living, and found it to be true. Naturalistic philosophy is more closely allied to Santa Claus.
• “Science is all interconnected. You cannot reject just one part.” Yes, we can reject any part that is untrue. A scientist may study a rock that has a certain radiation level. He may conclude that the rock has the radiation levels we might expect from a rock that had been created 400 million years ago. On the radiation levels and all observable and verifiable facts we can agree. But to insist that the rock is 400 million years old is going too far. How can we know that the rock was not created with radiation levels nearly the same as they are now? “But,” someone will say, “if you argue like that, then we can know nothing.” This is also untrue. We can accept with reasonable confidence anything that does not contradict the Bible. However, even in commonplace things scientists, because of their limitations and mistakes, do not conduct flawless research. Scientific facts — especially new or controversial ones — must always be taken more-or-less tentatively. It is plainly wrong to say that all scientific views must stand or fall together.

Unlike some creationists, I do not believe creationism or intelligent design can be “proven.” As Hebrews 11:3 indicates, I think we have to accept the Bible’s account by faith. Not a blind faith, of course, but a faith or trust that is grounded in a personal walk with God.

Ultimately we must make up our own mind about what we believe. If we accept God’s Word as true, we are shielded from error and we are set to walk in faith with Him. If we doubt God’s Word, we prove we do not know its Author and we disqualify ourselves from coming to know Him. What we think we know of God will be stolen from us by whoever receives the trust belonging only to Him.

It is my earnest prayer that we will believe the Bible.

---

Resources

Books

I have found the following books helpful:

The Wedge of Truth

By Phillip E. Johnson. Johnson is a very readable author. He is best known in creationist circles for his break-in book, Darwin on Trial (now regarded by some as too dated to be useful in the creation-evolution debate), to which this book is a successor. The book makes a good case of why evolution is inadequate. A bit philosophical at times, but once I started it I could not put it down.

Edited by John Marks Templeton. This book is not about creationism per se, but about intelligent design. Each chapter is written by a different scientist, and the scientists represent a number of disciplines. I highly recommend it, with two caveats: Some chapters are quite technical, and you have to really concentrate to get some of the points in those chapters; and some of the scientists are theistic evolutionists (they believe God guided evolution). Even so, chapters 2, 3, 6, and 9 were so good that I’d recommend the book just for those. I think chapter 9 was my favorite.

If you are looking for more information about creation science or the creation–evolution debate, try these sites:

• Answers in Genesis
• Creation Science
• Creationism.org
• Detecting Design
• Evolution Facts, Inc.
• The Institute for Creation Research

Note: There are places on the Internet where creationism and evolution are hotly debated. I advise to avoid these debates entirely. Unless you are a scientist — and I mean a real scientist — you are most likely to get roasted by hate speech, intimidated by condescending remarks, and overwhelmed by loads of jargon and “facts” that your knowledge and experience are not prepared for. It is hard to share any light with people who are on the offensive. Read Matthew 7:6.

Over the years I’ve heard reports of problems in our school science departments, but had always assumed it was a single rogue teacher here and there. From all that I’ve personally seen, the church leadership and its official publications have remained firm on the traditional Adventist view of origins.

Recently the well-respected, young pastor-evangelist David Asscherick of ARISE dropped a bombshell when he wrote a letter to church leadership, drawing attention to the teaching of evolution at a particular SDA school, La Sierra University (LSU). Somehow the letter slipped from one of several people he had sent it to for review, into general circulation. It was forwarded as an “open letter,” and spread like wildfire.

Subsequently, the president of LSU responded with an open letter of his own. Unfortunately this letter did little to stop the rising tide of indignation. No doubt this is partially because he did not deny Asscherick’s basic accusation. His letter could be summarized like this: “We are not atheists. We are a Christian school, we do mission projects, we are engaged with the SDA church. Students get baptized here. We believe in diversity and not telling our students what to believe.” (My very loose paraphrase.) No word in defense of Genesis 1.

Shortly thereafter, others responded openly to the president’s letter, and noted its shortcomings in owning up to the alleged endorsement of the Darwinian worldview given by members of its biology and religion departments. A website, lasierrauniversity.net, sprang up to discuss the matter (not affiliated in any way with LSU — quite to the contrary!). [Update: LSU subsequently took ownership of the lasierrauniversity.net domain; the former website is now hosted at educatetruth.com.]

I was very surprised when the board of Adventist Laymen’s Services and Industries (ASI) decided to weigh in with a letter. ASI is the strongest network of officially recognized ministries and independent but supporting entities within the church. It’s a very influential and deeply respected organization within the church. Usually ASI seems to shy away from any controversial topics. But now they boldly called the church’s leadership to account over the drift of various unnamed educational institutions towards Darwinism.

On the heels of all this, while attending 3ABN’s Ten Commandments Weekend, I heard Nathan Renner pound a nail or two on this subject. He was talking about the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal,” and in his hour-long talk spent a few minutes saying explicitly that someone teaching evolution at an Adventist educational institution is stealing, in the same sense that an employee who promotes the interests of a competitor on his company’s dime is stealing from his employer. There was a hearty wave of “amens” in response, indicating that quite a number in the audience understood what he was getting at. Renner is a close friend of Asscherick.

I’m glad to say I have never personally heard a fellow Seventh-day Adventist advocate the view of evolution over millions of years. I attended Adventist schools all the way through college; but the high school and college I attended were private, “self-supporting” schools. I certainly heard about evolution, both in my classes and in other venues (popular TV, magazines, museums, etc.). Some of the biological aspects (heredity, genetic variation, survival of the fittest, etc.) were clearly taught as scientific facts in my classes. But these were always moderated by class instruction about the limitations of evolution to account for all the diversity in life, and about the weaknesses in data used to support the evolutionary paradigm (how we interpret carbon dating, rock strata, fossils, etc.), and about the Bible’s plain teaching on the subject. I firmly believe there is no way to blend Darwinism into the Adventist theological package — or with Christianity, for that matter.

It will be interesting to see how all this shakes down. To be honest, I cannot see any possible win-win outcome.

This video, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, explores some of the reasons why science itself lends credibility to non-naturalistic explanations for the origin of life. In particular, it focuses on the ideas of irreducible complexity (organs that have value only in their complex, complete forms) and DNA as information (the nature of genetic code as both irregular and highly specific—markers of intelligent design). It also looks at some of the known problems with alternate explanations for how life might have begun from non-life, as well as clarifying the intelligent design view of evolutionary theory.

(Contrary to what is constantly implied in the media and in various discussion groups, nearly all creationists believe in at least some aspects of evolution. There is really not a significant creation-versus-evolution debate, but only a debate about origins, natural history, and the capacity of evolution to explain the myriad forms of life—in other words, the scope and application of evolution. However, creationists sometimes hurt themselves by engaging all unbiblical theories of origins in their attacks on “evolution.”)

This video features short interviews with various scientists who support “intelligent design”—mainly various scientists associated with the Discovery Institute, such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Phillip Johnson. It also makes extensive use of 3D graphics to illustrate some of the fundamental concepts, along with nature footage and video from microscope.

The segments illustrating the flagellum rotor in bacteria, protein folding, and DNA sequencing were the most amazing. What happens at that microscopic level is truly incredible.

Overall, I thought it was a top-quality production. For those wanting more information, I highly recommend the book The Wedge of Truth by Phillip Johnson, which delves into the concept of DNA as information in more detail, as well as explaining the shortcomings of naturalistic materialism. (I owned this book, but loaned it to someone, and it was never seen again! But I thoroughly enjoyed it.)

In April they ran this interesting map:

Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US

The map is followed by a very long and emotional string of rants, remarks, rebuttals, insults, and statements regarding the various merits of evolution, intelligent design, creationism, and so forth. The comments are a little bit interesting to read, but they pretty much follow the usual formula.

The one thing about this map that most intrigued me is how many states the map maker designated as failing to meet pro-evolution educational standards. It was more than I would have expected.

What would be even more interesting to me would be a map superimposed on this one, showing the success of graduates from each of the respective states, in the various biology-related fields. This is because I believe that not only is creationism correct and evolution wrong, but also that those in biology-related fields who see the world from a creationist worldview have an edge in their fields. They know that living things are getting worse, not better; that, apart from disease and degeneration, natural foods are perfectly designed for consumption and nutrition, and not just coincidentally so; that life cannot be created in the lab (non-derivatively); and that the natural world is a complex, interrelated order, one whose checks and balances stem from divine purpose and not from random factors. All of these views align more naturally with divine creation (and subsequent sin and the Fall) than with a philosophy of naturalistic, materialistic evolutionary ascendancy.

The counter-view of the pro-evolution pundits, that creationists have a disadvantage in the scientific world, is sheer nonsense. This is particularly true in regards to anything that can be observed and reproduced. Creationists are just as capable of understanding and predicting outcomes of such things as bacterial mutation or the radioactive decay in rocks. It is true, naturally, that creationists have very different views of the conjectural or philosophical aspects of “science” (why we are here, how we got here, whether observable nature tells the full story of nature, etc.), but it is undeniably true that these aspects of science are just as irrelevant to a scientist’s success in the lab as they are untestable in the lab. In conclusion, it is crystal clear that the current battle in the American educational system between Darwinism and its own brand of heretics, is not about professionalism or intellectual power, but about philosophy and religious belief.

Naturally, the BBC’s take is slanted towards the views of mainstream science. But it is interesting that they chose to feature the Creationist museum. I hope to visit it someday.

I might as well as add that, as a Creationist, I do not totally agree with Ken Ham’s beliefs. (Ken is the director of Answers in Genesis, the organization behind the museum.) In particular, I am not persuaded that all dinosaurs were part of God’s original design, just as I also do not believe that all animals today are identical in form to what God oringially created. However, I do believe all life was created roughly 6000 years ago, and that, while variation and degeneration occur, evolution as commonly taught does not. And I also lean towards the possibility that some animals called dinosaurs or prehistoric creatures were in fact taken aboard Noah’s ark, but not all.

Despite those differences, I am sympathetic towards all Creationist causes. The idea that all life forms arose from a single evolutionary tree (or any theory remotely related to that) is simply unscientific. I do not consider the conjectural branches of mainstream science, such as evolution and aspects of cosmology, to be within the strict science paradigm.