The validity of the assumptions made in the beginning of a venture determine the validity of the conclusion. This is preeminently true in the creation-evolution debate.
Science Undermined
At the beginning of modern science, foremost scientists like Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, and Pasteur accepted that the world was created. Isaac Newton affirmed this when he said that we must ultimately go outside mechanical causes to creation ex nihilo by a First Cause which is not mechanical.1 Incorporated into this belief was the firm position that the earth was young, less than 10,000 years old: there was no pressure from either the data or the scientific community to demand a billion year-old earth.2 Crucial understanding of the fundamentals in many areas of science flourished at that time.
Charles Lyell, with others, (early 1800s) proposed an idea that had a far-reaching impact on scientific thinking–that present processes, which could be observed and measured, are keys to the past. That is, the natural processes, now an established part of our scientific arsenal, have in the past been operating in the same way. Consequently, all that is needed is to apply today’s knowledge backward over time to discover the “how” of events which have occurred over the earth’s history. In a word, uniformitarianism. Lyell’s idea was not based on scientific investigations, but merely on materialistic and naturalistic thinking which precluded the existence of an outside, divine Creator.3
The similarity to the concept mentioned in 2 Peter 3:4 (“all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation”) is striking. This philosophy spread rapidly, possibly because it allowed scientists to do what they liked best: conduct studies in their laboratories, freely engage in intriguing, creative thinking, speculation, and fascinating calculations–without their perceived restrictions from either God or His Word. However, once God is removed from the picture, the sense of moral responsibility declines, then virtually vanishes,4 leaving the one that is seeking the truth from nature with unbridled reason “free” to create philosophies to suit their fancies. Was it “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,”5 all over again?
We Need More Time–Or do We?
It was quickly recognized that natural processes without extraordinary intervention–such as special creation–would require very, very long periods of time to bring about the earth and all that’s in and around it, throughout the universe. Lyell’s idea was soon followed by efforts to find evidence of an old universe, old enough to allow natural phenomenon to form all the features of nature. Finding the scenarios which demonstrate the earth age at billions of years was (and is) a tremendous challenge that provided an opportunity for brilliant imaginations and impressive scientific missions.
In reference to his earlier years, Charles Darwin said: “I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible.” After he viewed the great canyon of the Santa Cruz river and the Condor Cliffs in southern Argentina, he related: “No possible action of any flood could have modeled the land…” What happened? Reportedly, he was reading Lyell’s “Principles of Geology” during that time and, it is suspected, applied Lyell’s simple idea to his observations6 to describe the formation of this canyon in millions of years. On the same Beagle voyage, he applied the old-earth thinking to biological observations. After this trip, Darwin announced to the world, eager to receive his philosophies, both the geological and biological evolutionary notions.7 If he would have known “about the physical process of cavitation and the sudden large magnitude erosion…he would have no problem retaining his belief in a young earth when he saw Conder Cliffs.”8
Further, if Darwin would have had the results of the Mount St. Helen eruption (May 18, 1980), he may not have given a moment’s thought to altering his professed belief in “the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible.” We now understand that during this and subsequent volcanic actions great amounts of volcanic ash, steam, and mud came flowing down the mountainside at high velocities to the area below, building up some 600 feet of minute layers of material. Two years later, another eruption brought mud slides down the mountain and across the land, catastrophically cutting intricate canyons 100-140 feet deep into solid rock–gouging out a 1/40-scale Grand Canyon in essentially one day.7
Examination of the layers of material on these new canyon walls near Mount St. Helen revealed formations identical to those geologists have proclaimed to have taken millions/billions of years to form. This alleged process included first laying down the soil in the familiar layered structure, or strata (millions of years), and then later cut away to great depths (and widths) by a river eroding the earth, a few grains of sand at a time, to form the canyon. The assumption of an old earth for geological effects is evidently not necessary, or even desirable, as the Mount St. Helen’s observations show. Other findings at the Mount St. Helen site further exhibit the error of the old-earth assumption. Additionally, the concept of canyon development through slow erosion by a river–as Darwin proposed and as textbooks have taught for decades–is being set aside by many Grand Canyon scientists who are thinking more of catastrophic glacier effects.7
Additional examples dealing with old-earth vs. young-earth discussions could be cited; repeatedly, the answer is the same, prompting Dean Griffith to write: “Relax, young-earth Creationists, there is no reason for you to change your position today any more than there was for those early scientists in the days of Darwin…. The truth is, there just isn’t any empirical evidence saying that the earth is billions of years old; no facts exist that suggest the young-earth Creation model must be changed! There is no reason for you not to believe that this earth was created! There is no reason for you not to believe in a young-earth model!”9 To the devoted believer of the Holy Scriptures, this statement was not only no surprise, but it was confidently expected. True science will come around to the truth, though it may take time.
I’m Glad You Asked
The naturalist may sincerely ask the believer, “How did your God make all the things that we see here and throughout the world and the immense universe from the gigantic stars down to the subatomic particles?” Or, “How could He put all of this material into the innumerable, intricate systems (physical, chemical, biological, electrical, etc.) and integrate them into one vast universe?” The believer can only answer, “I don’t know how He did it, but knowing something of the kind of God He is, it is evident that He did it.” “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). We humbly and reverently bow before His great Majesty quite contentedly.
In turn, the believer may reasonably ask: “How did this universe come to be by naturalistic means without the aid of the all-wise, eternal Almighty God who has the perfections described in the Bible”–but then may need to stand back to catch a barrage of answers, some of which are new because the old ones have been found to be wrong during recent space and earthbound studies. Included in these responses might be large numbers of articles written by conscientious scientific experts in their field, each referencing the other to add credibility to their position while, perhaps unintentionally, covering the erroneous assumption of an old earth.
We, as believers, can understand the natural man’s aversion to readily accepting a Creator, because One with the ability to create such a complex and elaborate universe with systems working in precise harmony and perfection must also have attributes beyond any of us. And that starts men on a short road to coming face-to-face with the moral perfections of God. For totally sinful man to do that is a terribly difficult thing; no doubt the first response is denial. The second may be refusal. The best response is, of course, to join the believer in genuine humility before the Almighty Creator-God who now he can see as his great Benefactor and Friend.
How often does that happen? Lang has observed that in more than three decades of presenting creation facts to unbelievers, none have ever surrendered to the facts alone; it is only the work of God and His Word that changes man’s thinking and leads them to believe the truth and reject the error.10
Assumptions are critical
Whether we start out assuming (believing) that there is a God or that there is no God determines our conclusions on creation and evolution. These are watershed assumptions. To state it another way: Do we start with the assumption (belief) that an eternal God has infinite wisdom and the ability to create the entire universe without expending any effort and, additionally, has attributes of absolute holiness, infinite love, grace, righteousness, truth–and more?
Or, do we start with the assumption that inanimate matter (origin?) has some secret ability through time, chance, and environment (though each are common and usable to us they have no inherent creational power)10 to produce the ever amazing microscopic and macroscopic worlds with all their intricate, inter-linked, and incompletely understood content, principles, and processes?
Or, from a different view: Do we give God the glory and honor for the existence of the universe and all that is in it–or do we give glory and honor to lifeless substance and the creative ability of the mind of natural man?
Personally…
The answer is easy–it requires too much faith to accept evolution, even if it didn’t conflict with Scripture; it’s too uncertain and changeable to risk resting your life and afterlife on! Besides, God has provided eternal redemption through His Creator-Son that overwhelms everything else imaginable both now and forevermore! This is the message we ultimately have to proclaim: “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17).
Endnotes:
1. Smith, Crosbie & Wise, M. Norton, Energy and Empire, New York: Cambridge, 1989, p.92.
2. Griffith, Dean, “What ‘Time’ Is It?” Proceedings of the 1992 Twin-Cities Creation Conference, St Paul, MN, 1992, p.37.
3. Loc. cit.
4. Romans 1:21-32.
5. Genesis 6:5.
6. MacKinney, Paul M., “Discovering Darwin’s Deception,” Proceedings of the 1992 Twin Cities Creation Conference, St Paul, MN, 1992, p. 202.
7. Austin, Steve, “Mount St. Helen,” video, Institute for Creation Research, (PO Box 2667, El Cajun, CA).
8. MacKinney.
9. Griffith, p.39.
10. Personal communication with Walter Lang, Founder, Genesis Institute (Minneapolis MN, 1995).