War of the World Views: Powerful Answers for an "Evolutionized" Culture (13 page)

In addition, the fossil record cannot, by its very nature, conclusively reveal if a creature had a spirit or not, since spirits are not fossilized. But there is clear evidence that creatures, which Ross (following the evolutionists) places before Adam, had art and clever technology and that they buried their dead in a way that many of Adam’s descendants have. Therefore, we have strong reason to believe that they were fully human and actually descendants of Adam, and that they lived only a few thousand years ago.

The Genesis Flood

One important tenet of progressive creation is that the Flood of Noah’s day was a local flood, limited to the Mesopotamian region. They believe that the rock layers and fossils found around the world are the result of billions of years of evolutionary Earth history, rather than from the biblical Flood.

Dr. Ross often says that he believes in a “universal” or “worldwide” flood, but in reality he does not believe that the Flood covered the whole earth. He argues that the text of Genesis 7 doesn’t really say that the Flood covered the whole earth. But read it for yourself:

19 They [the flood waters] rose greatly on the earth, and
all
the high mountains under the
entire
heavens were covered....

21
Every
living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals,
all
the creatures that swarm over the earth, and
all
mankind.

22
Everything
on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.

23
Every
living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth.
Only
Noah was left, and those with him in the ark [emphasis added].

Also, many questions remain for those who teach that the Genesis Flood was only local:

• If the Flood were local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.
  
• If the Flood were local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they could escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.
  
• If the Flood were local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all the different kinds of vertebrate land animals? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.
  ¹⁴
  
• If the Flood were local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.
  
• If the Flood were local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn’t rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.
  
• If the Flood were local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin. If this had happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of “all” men in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37–39)? A partial judgment in Noah’s day means a partial judgment to come.
  
• If the Flood were local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.
  

Conclusion

It is true that whether one believes in six literal days does not ultimately affect one’s salvation, if one is truly born again. However, we need to stand back and look at the “big picture.” In many nations the Word of God was once widely respected and taken seriously. But once the door of compromise is unlocked and Christian leaders concede that we shouldn’t take the Bible as written in Genesis, why should the world take heed of it in any area? Because the church has told the world that one can use man’s interpretation of the world (such as billions of years) to reinterpret the Bible, it is seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect “holy book,” not intended to be taken seriously.

As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open further and further, increasingly they are not accepting the morality or salvation of the Bible either. After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct as written, how can one be sure the rest can be taken as written? Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12).

It would not be exaggerating to claim that the majority of Christian leaders and laypeople within the church today do not believe in six literal days. Sadly, being influenced by the world has led to the church no longer powerfully influencing the world.

The “war of the worldviews” is not ultimately one of young earth versus old earth, or billions of years versus six days, or creation versus evolution—the real battle is the authority of the Word of God versus man’s fallible theories.

Belief in a historical Genesis is important because progressive creation and its belief in millions of years (1) contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, (2) assaults the character of God, (3) severely damages and distorts the Bible’s teaching on death and (4) undermines the gospel by undermining the clear teaching of Genesis, which gives the whole basis for Christ’s Atonement and our need for a Redeemer. So ultimately, the issue of a literal Genesis is about the authority of the Word of God versus the authority of the words of sinful men.

Why do Christians believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Because of the
words of Scripture
(“according to the Scriptures”).

And why should Christians believe in six literal days of creation? Because of the
words of Scripture
(“In six days the Lord made …”).

The real issue is one of authority—let us unashamedly stand upon God’s Word as our sole authority!

1
. Dallas Theological Seminary chapel service, September 13, 1996.

2
. Toccoa Falls Christian College, Staley Lecture Series, March 1997.

3
. For an evaluation of the big bang model, see chapter 6: “Does the big bang fit with the Bible?”

4
. www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/creation_timeline_chart/, September 13, 2005.

5
. See The Answers Book, chapter 2: “Did God really take six days?” for a more detailed defense of literal days in Genesis 1.

6
. Letter to David C. C. Watson, April 23, 1984.

7
. See chapter 12: “What’s the best ‘proof’ of creation?” for more on how our presuppositions influence our interpretations.

8
. Young, D., The Harmonization of Scripture and Science, science symposium at Wheaton College, March 23, 1990.

9
. Ref. 2.

10
. Berkhof, L., Introductory volume to Systematic Theology, pp. 60, 96, 1946.

11
. See The Answers Book, chapter 6: “How did bad things come about?” for more details.

12
. Facts for Faith, Issue 8, 2002.

13
. White, T., et. al., Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia, Nature 423:742-747, June 12, 2003.

14
. See The Answers Book, chapter 13: “How did the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?”

9

Is the Intelligent Design Movement Christian?

Dr. Georgia Purdom

“This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” Such was the text of a “warning sticker” that was approved by the Cobb County Board of Education (Georgia) for some high-school biology textbooks. After a legal battle, a federal judge ruled the stickers were unconstitutional because they endorse a religion. The battle to allow alternatives to Darwinian evolution in our schools is in high gear. One proposed alternative is Intelligent Design (ID). In this chapter, we take a look at the positives and negatives of the ID movement, and in the end see that all theories that leave out the Bible are deficient.

One player in the “war of the worldviews” is the intelligent design movement. ID has gained increasing recognition and publicity over the last several years at both local and national levels. It is especially well known in educational circles, where it has been heralded as an alternative to Darwinism/naturalism.

Intelligent design can be defined as a theory which holds that “certain features” of living things were designed by an “intelligent cause” as opposed to being formed through purely natural means.
¹
The ID theory does not name the intelligent cause, and it does not claim that everything is designed, thus allowing for evolution/natural causes to play a role.

The historical roots of the ID movement lie in the natural theology movement of the 18th and 19th centuries. William Paley (1743–1805) reasoned that if one walked across a field and came upon a watch, the assumption would be that there had to be a watchmaker—the complexity and purpose of the watch points to the fact that it is not the result of undirected, unintelligent causes, but the product of a designer.
²
Natural theology sought to support the existence of God through nature (general revelation) apart from the Bible (special revelation), since the Bible was facing much criticism at that time. The scientific knowledge of that time was grossly deficient, and it was thought that natural causes were sufficient to bring everything into existence.

In the last 100 years or so there has been an explosion of knowledge about the complexity of cells, DNA and microorganisms. Thus, the need for a designer has become even greater. The current ID movement has more than just philosophical arguments for a designer; it uses scientific evidence drawn from biology, chemistry and physics.

Irreducible Complexity

The ID concept affirms that living things are designed and exhibit
irreducible complexity
. Some examples are the biochemistry of vision and the mammalian blood-clotting pathway. These biological pathways consist of many factors, and
all
the factors are necessary for the pathway to function properly. Thus evolution (which works via the mechanism of small, gradual steps that keep only that which is immediately functional) could not have formed these pathways. For example, if only three of the blood-clotting factors (there are many factors in the complete pathway) were formed in an organism, blood would not clot, and thus the factors would not be kept because they are not currently useful to the organism. Evolutionary processes do not allow the organism to keep the three factors in the hopes that one day the rest of the blood-clotting factors will form. Evolution is goalless and purposeless; therefore, it does not keep the leftovers.

The question of whether or not a feature of a living organism displays design can be answered by using what is called an “explanatory filter.” The filter has three levels of explanation:

1. Necessity—did it have to happen?
   
2. Chance—did it happen by accident?
   
3. Design—did an intelligent agent cause it to happen?
   

This is a very logical, common-sense approach used by individuals everyday to deduce cause and effect. For example, consider the scenario of a woman falling.

1. Did she have to fall? No, but she did.
   
2. Was it an accident?
   
3. Or was she pushed?
   

If we apply this explanatory filter to living organisms, a feature must be designed if the first two answers are no.

Let us evaluate the blood-clotting pathway with respect to these three questions:

1. The blood-clotting pathway is compatible with, but not required by, the natural laws of biology and chemistry; so it is not a necessity specified by natural phenomena.
   
2. It is complex because it is composed of many factors, thus the remote probability that it happened by chance. (Note that complex structures fall into two categories: ordered complexity and specified complexity. A snowflake, although complex structurally, has little information and thus is considered an example of ordered complexity. It is the direct result of natural phenomena rather than intelligent design
   ³
   ).
   
3. The blood-clotting pathway does show design, referred to as specified complexity, because it is complex and has a high amount of information. It is the direct result of an intelligent agent. All the factors must be present and interact with each other in a specified manner in order for the pathway to be functional. Thus, the blood-clotting pathway meets all the requirements for irreducible complexity, and so must be designed.