Creation

IS CREATION CORRECT

By Rev. Joel C. Gerlach, based on material from his book, The Word is Now (Northwestern Publishing House).  This study was reproduced for LivingBold.net by permission.  Do not reproduce or print.

 

Part I - Fact or Fiction

At least fifteen billion years. That's the latest estimate some scientists are offering for the age of the universe. It wasn't that long ago the estimate was a couple billion years. A few decades ago it was only in the millions. Apparently, the more we learn about the universe the more complex we realize it is. Scientists feel a need to add more time to explain how everything developed so intricately.

That's quite a change from Genesis 1 and God's account of how old the universe is. God's been sticking to his story of six normal days. But, based on what astronomers, paleontologists, archeologists, botanists, and many others say they "know" about the universe, can we trust God's word on creation?

This Bible study tackles that question. Are Christians foolish for believing the Bible rather than scientific discoveries and explanations? What about the Bible's creation account? Is it myth or is it historical fact?

1) Is the creation account a parable or literal, historical fact?

The point that some modern misbelievers try to make is this: Not everything in the Bible is to be understood literally. So why must we understand Genesis 1 literally and accept it as historical fact? Why can't we interpret those verses as a "story;" a religious myth; a quaint, superstitious understanding of the world.

Scripture does contain passages which are not to be understood literally. From them we learn that when God's Word presents something that is to be understood in any way other than the literal sense, Scripture itself indicates that. For example,

  • The parables of Jesus. Here Jesus is clear that he is using word pictures to make his point. Notice how hetells us, "The kingdom of heaven is like ..." Matthew 13:24-47
  • Jesus' descriptions of himself. Throughout John's Gospel we hear Jesus use pictures to help us understand who is he. He said, for instance, "I am the vine; you are the branches" (John 15:5) and "I am the door" (John 10:9).
  • Paul uses picture language to teach spiritual truths in his epistles. In Galatians 4:24 he says the difference between the old covenant of Moses' law and the new covenant of grace "may be taken figuratively."

The Scripture passages which speak of creation, however, must be understood in the literal sense. Scripture never indicates that they are to be interpreted figuratively. In fact, Scripture understands the events of creation as historical fact.

  • Exodus 20:11 explains why the Sabbath Day is to be honored, "In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."

    If God didn't create everything in six regular days, God's Old Testament command to rest on the Sabbath Day wouldn't have made any sense.
  • Nehemiah 9:6, "[God,] you alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you."

    According to this passage, are there any parts of the universe that God didn't create?

    Are there any life-forms God isn't responsible for?
  • Matthew 19:4-5, "Haven't you read," [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,' and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?"

    Notice how Jesus refers to God as "Creator."

    What should we learn about how much we can trust the Bible when Jesus quotes it as an accurate description of creation?

    If life evolved, Adam and Eve would not have existed. But Jesus obviously talks about Adam and Eve as having lived. So either Jesus is right about them or he is mistaken or he is lying. Which answer lines up best with trusting Jesus as our Savior, with trusting everything else he tells us?

The Bible will not allow us to interpret the account of God creating the universe as anything less than "the way it happened."

  • So what would you think about a Lutheran confirmation manual for junior high students that says, "Genesis is a theological story, not scientific.... Perhaps no one can say how these first chapters of Genesis are to be understood"? Think about that for yourself.
  • Why do some teachers wish to emphasize that the Genesis account is non-scientific? If we agree with what that catechism author says about Genesis 1, what are we conceding about all of Scripture? Think about that for yourself.

Part II - Did God Just Help Evolution Along?

Dr. James Limberg, a liberal Lutheran theologian, authored a Bible study for adults on the basics of Christianity. When he discusses creation and evolution, he suggests that "the biblical creation accounts can be harmonized with an evolutionary theory of the origin of the human species" (Search, unit 3, p. 34). Limberg opts for theistic evolution.

Theistic evolution is the belief that God used the process of evolution to create the universe. At first, theistic evolution seems to be the answer to the contradiction between the Bible's account of the beginning of the universe and evolution's theory. But can we agree with Dr. Limberg?

The answer hinges on the word "day" in Genesis 1. Does it mean "a long period of time," like an epoch or age? Or does it describe a normal 24-hour day?

1) No one can argue that there are times the Bible uses the word "day" where it obviously does not mean a period of 24 hours.  Here are three examples.

  • Isaiah 2:12, "The LORD Almighty has a day in store for all the proud and lofty, for all that is exalted (and they will be humbled)."
  • Isaiah 22:5 refers to the time when Israel would be destroyed by the Babylonians. "The Lord, the LORD Almighty, has a day of tumult and trampling and terror in the Valley of Vision, a day of battering down walls and of crying out to the mountains."
  • Zechariah 13:1 describes the time after Jesus' death and resurrection, "On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity."

2) Genesis 1 compels us to understand the six days of creation as six regular days.

  • If you tell your friend you will see her in a day, when would she expect to visit with you again? Obviously, tomorrow. In the context of your conversation, a roughly 24 hour day would be the only thing to make sense. If, however, the two of you were about to graduate and were dreaming about the careers you'll have, then "day" would mean something different if you said, "That'll be a great day."

    So how does Genesis 1 use the word "day"?
  • Exodus 20:11 insists, "In six days the LORD the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them." There's no reason to think those six days are anything different than regular Sunday through Friday days.
  • Each of the six days of creation are described as being an exact length. They each began at evening and lasted through the next day. For example, Genesis 1:5 says, "God called the light 'day,' and the darkness he called 'night.' And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day."

3) Quotes for Comment

  • We quoted Dr. James Limberg earlier. He wrote, "The biblical creation accounts can be harmonized with an evolutionary theory of the origin of the human species."

    Since Genesis 1 and other Scripture passages insist that the days of creation were normal days, is he right? Can we be faithful to what the Bible tells us and agree with Dr. Limberg?
  • Mark Ellingsen is an ELCA pastor and assistant professor of theology at the Interdenominational Theological Center, Atlanta. He writes, "The big-bang theory, which holds that the universe exploded into existence 15 billion years ago, is consistent with the Christian idea of creation out of nothing"

    How could 15 billion years of evolution and God's account of six days of creation be "consistent"?
  • As we've seen, some Christians choose to explain away the Bible's account of creation because it seems unreasonable in light of scientific theory. What other biblical truths might we want to reject or change if we want everything the Bible teaches to be reasonable?

Part III - Problems With Evolutionary Theory

April, 2000- "The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association affirms that evolution is a basic component of many aspects of anthropology...and is a cornerstone of modern science, being central to biology, geology, and astronomy. The principles of evolution have been tested repeatedly and found to be valid according to scientific criteria."

Proponents of evolutionary theory often sound certain about their proofs that evolution has occurred. They cite established scientific methods as supporting their beliefs.

But there are problems with their proofs. Here are several examples.

  • Evolution fails to provide an explanation of the "ultimate cause." Even if the universe began billions of years ago with a "big bang," who or what made the material that exploded? Evolution can't answer that question.
  • Evolution fails to provide an explanation of the origin of life. Louis Pasteur's experiments in the 1800s showed that existing life can only come from pre-existing life. Until Pasteur's studies people thought "spontaneous generation," that life just happens, was possible. No one has proven Pasteur wrong.
  • Evolution claims that gradual mutation (adaptation) explains how one species can eventually form another. But mutations do not provide a satisfactory explanation. To be believable, the evolutionary theory needs evidence of one species growing out of another species. That evidence doesn't exist. We do know, however, that mutations are generally harmful and lead to degeneration, not evolution.
  • Evolution cannot account for the mutual dependence of the vegetable and animal kingdoms. Animals eat vegetables; vegetables need animals for pollenation and fertilization. How could the one exist without the other for billions of years?
  • Evolution does not explain how humans became rational beings, how they became aware that they exist as unique individuals, where the human sense of moral responsibility came from, why our sense of beauty developed, or why humans have a desire for immorality. Evolution, of course, doesn't want to deal with these concepts because they are all associated with the soul.

Not only are there logical problems with the theory of evolution, there are scientific problems. Evolutionary theory demands that the laws of science at one time were different than they are now. For example,

  • The theory of evolution says inorganic (non-living) matter is the source of organic (living) matter. Evolution insists on the possibility of spontaneous generation even though Pastuer disproved that theory a century ago.
  • The second law of thermodynamics (which proves that matter is in a process of change and this change is always for the worst) contradicts the evolutionary theory. (Notice the difference between the law of thermodynamic and the theory of evolution. One has been proven; the other remains an educated guess.)
  • The geological record contained in fossils does not provide evidence of the gradual evolution of plant and animal life. What fossils do reveal is fully developed organisms which display all of the typical characteristics of the groups to which they belong.

Evolution-trusting scientists raise their own concerns about the possibility of God creating the universe out of nothing. Here are answers to two key objections.

Objection: Creationism is based on blind faith and on acceptance of the Bible as an absolute authority.

Answer: The evolutionary theory is based on blind faith. Evolution is not scientific. It is a philosophy. There is no true scientific evidence to indicate that evolution is a fact. Those who believe in evolution believe in guesses.

Objection: Creationism is invalidated by evidence that the earth is billions of years old.

Answer: All of these so-called evidences are explained by the fact that God created a mature and functioning world. If it would have been possible to see the space our universe occupies on the day before creation, there would have been nothing there. Six days later, the entire universe would have been in place, everything working like it does today. Creation takes away any need to believe in billions of years of evolution.

Scientists, of course, are right in saying that Bible-believing Christians trust God's Word as their absolute authority on all the issues it addresses. In fact, trusting the Bible is at the heart of our Christian faith. Hebrews 11:2 says, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

  • What does this passage teach about the special meaning of the word create in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created..."? Think about that for yourself. Then check this answer.
  • How does the passage contradict theistic evolution?
  • What does this passage teach about the proper attitude of a Christian toward how the universe came to be? How do we know that the world was created? (For a definition of faith see Hebrews 1:1, "Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.")