Chapter
9
WHEN CHRISTIAN
STUDENTS ASK ABOUT THE TIME
OF THE ORIGIN AND APPEARANCE OF LIFE
A large number of
conservative (or evangelical)
Christians have abandoned the idea that the creation of the universe occurred
approximately 6000 years ago (4004 B.C., according to Bishop Usher, as
indicated in the original Scofield Reference Bible).
In an attempt to explain fossils, some
Christians have argued that when God commanded the earth to bring forth all
living forms, some of them got stuck behind rocks, or were put there by Satan
to deceive us (A.D. White, 242-243).
Others have claimed that all fossils were relics of NoahÕs flood.
In order to believe the
earth is more no more than 6000 years old requires the abandonment of all known
geological dating methods. Some
claim that the Christian who tries to derive scientific information from the
book of Genesis is as much in error as the scientist who sees nothing of GodÕs
design in the natural universe.
But the Biblical view of nature is that God not only initiated, but He
continues to work in and through His creation. (B. Ramm, ÒThe Christian View of
Science and ScriptureÓ, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1954, 178).
Ever since the 16th
century, investigators have found a world of fossilized animal and plant life
buried in strata of the earth.
Many of those early investigators interpreted their fossil findings as
the result of NoahÕs flood.
However, as time passed, geologists began to realize that fossils were
due to forces at work over very long periods of time.
A relatively small
number of Òflood geologistsÓ hold that even if the world was created many
millions of years ago, huge waves (possibly due to an asteroid impact which
caused the flood) moved all forms of life, depositing them in deep layers of
mud which hardened into rock. They
believe that processes (which most geologists hold occurred over a period of three
billion years or so) actually took place during a worldwide flood which lasted
only little more than a year. (G. Price, ÒThe New GeologyÓ, 1923)
There appear to be at
least three basic errors in flood geology (Ramm, 183) (1) Flood geologists feel compelled to discredit virtually
all geological dating processes in their simultaneous effort to discredit
biological evolution. (2) They
assume the reason our world is as zoologically impoverished (as it now is) is
because of the large number of species that went extinct at the time of the
flood. (Some could then ask: If that happened, then why werenÕt more
of those species protected by bringing them into the ark before the
flood?) (3) Flood geologists do
not seem to understand the physical conditions and the average time required
for layers (strata) of rock to be form and subsequently fold because of stress
forces. (Even laboratory models have shown that mountain formation probably
occurred by processes that do not
require water.)
Geological evidence now
exists for the processes required to turn river mud into rock. The weight of one mile of sediment must
press down upon that mud from above.
It is also of interest to note that 100 feet of loose plant matter is
required to make one foot of coal.
Sufficient plant matter to form all known coal deposits in the world
could not possibly have existed at one time (such as the time of the
flood). Also, in Yellowstone park,
two thousand feet of exposed strata reveal 18 successive forests, each
demolished by lava from a different volcanic eruption.
Both gypsum and salt
deposits require the evaporation of salt water. It has been shown that the formation of an 8 inch layer of
gypsum would require the evaporation of one thousand feet of sea water. Even at the fastest known rate of salt
water evaporation (10 feet per year in the Dead Sea), the 1500 foot thick layer
of gypsum in West Texas and New Mexico would require 500,000 years of
evaporation.
Flood geology requires
radioactive dating methods to be at least 99% wrong. But radioactive dating methods help to confirm dates held by
archaeologists for Biblically important events and periods in Old Testament
history. For instance, Abraham
most likely lived in the 20th century B.C., and David and Solomon
seem to have lived in the 10th century B.C. Radioactive dating methods used by
archaeologists help to date these periods. The same can be said for early pyramid building in Egypt,
and the construction of Stonehenge in England (roughly 3,000 B.C.)
Geologists use at least
seven dating methods: (1) tree ring analysis, reliable up to 3,000 years, (2)
clay analysis, reliable to 3,000 years, (3) radiocarbon dating, reliable to
300,000 years, (4) sedimentation analysis, (5) erosion analysis, (6) analysis
of weathering effects, and (7) analysis of chemical changes in the material
studied. If all methods used in a
particular study are consistent, then the flood geologist has a very serious
problem when he finds it necessary to hold that all methods are seriously
flawed. It would seem quite
difficult to believe that more than 99% of all professional geologists in the
world are more than 99% wrong when it comes to geological dating.
St.
Augustine believed the seven ÒdaysÓ of Genesis were not Òsun-dividedÓ days, but
rather ÒGod-dividedÓ days. He believed that each ÒdayÓ of creation was the
period of time which God chose to bring about a certain portion of His creative
plan. GodÕs view of time differs
from our view. There is little
justification for one to insist that all miracles occur instantaneously in
time. Is a world made in 4 1/2
billion years any less miraculous than a world made in a matter of days? GodÕs view of a thousand years is
expressed in Psalm 90:4 as Òbut yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in
the nightÓ. If God is the author
and creator of the time dimension itself, then He can make use of it any way He
chooses.
The Hebrew word for
ÒdayÓ in Genesis is ÒyomÓ. It is
used many times in the Old Testament to refer to a period of time other than a
24 hour day. (In fact, in Genesis
2:4, ÒyomÓ refers to the entire period during which all creation took place.)
Fossil evidence tells us
that more than 5,000 species of increasingly advanced invertebrates were
created with remarkable suddenness during the Cambrian geological period.
(Ramm, 217) How can we presume to
question GodÕs decision to create in a certain fashion as far as timing is
concerned? If a Christian chooses
to accept timing indicated by the most reliable scientific sources of evidence
(regardless of how complete or how incomplete that evidence might be), why
should he be criticized by other Christians who use different rules of
interpretation (different hermeneutical rules). This is especially the case when it involves the question of
how much weight should be given to scientific evidence. What justification could we possibly
have to choose the particular meaning for ÒyomÓ that best appeals to us, and
then force-interpret all other evidence to match that choice.
One should realize that it is neither
easy nor straightforward to reconcile a modern scientific concept with ancient
Hebrew linguistic style, vocabulary and culture. It is an attitude of pride rather than Biblical humility to
presume that oneÕs own preferred answer to a difficult question of Biblical
interpretation must be the only correct answer (i.e., the answer that God
intended when he inspired the writing of a particular Scriptural text). Conservative evangelicals should
exercise charity and tolerance when it come to discussions with other
conservative evangelicals who have a different interpretation of a particularly
difficult or problematic passage of the Bible, as long as important core
doctrinal beliefs (shared by virtually all conservative evangelicals) are not
compromised.
Both
geology and Genesis agree on the conditions necessary for life as we generally
know them: light, separation of water and dry land, and separation of the
atmosphere above land and the oceans.
Both agree that life appeared over time in a sequence of forms from
simple to complex. But science
must be silent when it comes to first (or final) causes. Genesis is also silent as far as
additional secondary causes that may have been involved in whatever processes
brought life as we know it into existence. To understand the existence of life (to the greatest degree
possible for us as humans), all causes must be considered. God, to the conservative Christian, is
not only the initiator of all processes which brought the universe, and the
life within it, into existence, but He preserves, sustains, and providentially
interacts with it as well.
We
are told by anthropologists that the earliest true civilization was
Mesopotamian. It therefore should
come as no surprise that NoahÕs ark appears to have been constructed in
Mesopotamia. The flood most likely
occurred sometime between 2,000 and 10,000 B.C. It seems possible that ice age melting (around 10,000 B,C,)
could have helped provide enough water for the flood. It is also possible that some type of geological change
in the earthÕs crust could have
sent ocean water pouring into the Mesopotamian valley. The flood record in Genesis neither
affirms nor denies that men existed beyond the Mesopotamian valley at the time
of the flood. However,
paleo-anthropological evidence for a worldwide distribution of homo Sapiens at
that time is abundant. Evidence
exists that man existed in America as far as 10,000-15,000 years ago. (Ramm
240).
At
the time of the flood, the term ÒearthÓ was unlikely to have had any meaning to
Mesopotamian Hebrews beyond the land mass with which they were familiar: a
region bounded by the Caucasian ridge and Caspian Sea to the north, the Persian
and Indian Seas to the south, and distant high mountains to the east and west.
The
question of whether the flood was local or universal has been debated for
years. That question should not be
addressed on the basis of ÒWhat can God do.Ó, but rather on ÒWhat did God do?Ó. It is a matter of hermeneutical
interpretation, not inspiration.
In Biblical Hebrew, the term for ÒallÓ often means ÒallÓ that the
reporting writer is aware of. (For
example, in Genesis 41:57, when the statement is made that Òall countriesÓ came
to Egypt to buy grain, the meaning is most likely that all countries known to
the Egyptians came to Egypt to buy grain.
At that time, do you suppose the Egyptians were even aware of India and
China?
With this linguistic consideration in mind, it seems likely that the universality of the flood hinges upon the universality of the experience of the one who reported the event. To the observing reporter, then, all mountains were covered, and all flesh died.
Mount
Ararat has a peak of 17,000 feet, and the Himalayas are roughly two miles
higher. Did the flood waters rise
to a height of six miles above sea level?
The Bible does not seem to record the flood as a supernatural event, but the concept of a universal flood
does have a problem if it wasnÕt.
If the surface of the earth was a perfect sphere, oceans would cover it
to a depth of 2 1/2 Ð 3 miles (K. Kinns and L.J. Henderson as referred to in
Ramm, 244). In order to cover the
Himalayas, the amount of water required would be eight times the amount of
water present on the earthÕs surface and its atmosphere. This would require a 0.2% increase in
the mass of the earth, resulting in a small change in the orbital pathway of
the earth around the sun. Such a
vast amount of water would have crushed and killed virtually all plant life, and
devastated life in the sea. (Not
to mention another problem: Where could all that water drain to?) Therefore, the post-flood restoration
process would have required a creative work almost as extensive as the original
creation itself.
Today It would be
difficult to find a professional geologist who believed the earth could have
been completely under water 5 or 6 thousand years ago, and emerge from itÕs
water shroud in a matter of days.
And then there is the matter that a series of remarkable miracles would
have been required to get all of the animal species in existence at the time of
Noah into the ark and back again over oceans and continents.
Also, considering all of
the environments required by land animals the world over, some animals require
an environment in which certain other animals could not possibly have
survived. Some have suggested that
enough of the animals hibernated to make life on board the ark bearable..
Not
only is it na•ve to believe that all animal (including ÒcreepingÓ animal) life
existed close enough to NoahÕs ark to get to it, but the task of feeding and
waste disposal for all animal species in existence would far exceed what all of
the worldÕs present zoological gardens are capable of doing (let alone what
four men and four women could do during the year and 10 days the ark was
afloat).
During the period when
Christian geologists tended to give up using NoahÕs flood in their efforts to
reconcile Genesis with geology, some took refuge in what became known as Òthe
gap theoryÓ. (Perhaps it could
have better been called the Òcreation-ruination-recreation theory,Ó) In order to cope with objections raised
by geologists to the interpretation of early Genesis chapters taken by many
Christians, Thomas Chalmers proposed that there was a creation in Genesis 1:1,
followed by a catastrophy in Genesis 1:2, followed by a re-creation in Genesis
1:3. However, the gap theory is an
interpretation that not only fails to come easily from the text, but is rather
a contrived and artificial attempt to reconcile Genesis with geology. (Ramm,
210)