CREATIONISTS often find themselves on the losing side in disputes they have with evolutionists. The three more popular public cases (Wilberforce-Huxley, Oxford 1860; State of Tennessee vs. Scopes, Dayton 1920 and Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, M.D. Pa. 2005) are illustrative of their plight. Their approach to the matter, a “thus saith the Lord” tactic, contrasts with the scientific arguments of their opponents. I don’t agree with their defensive strategy.

First of all, history as revealed in the Bible, serve the broader purpose of witnessing for God. Its main thread is that humanity is in fact currently in a state best described by Science: animal, made of the dust and destined to return. Left alone, the fabric our society would be a bloody rag. Ruthless competition, advantageous morality, revolutionary tendencies and recourse to animals for wisdom would throw bodies in the streets, slit the throats of the trapped, undress girls for public display and encourage the unnatural. In this, Science substantiates the Bible.

Secondly, the Bible does not contradict the clear evidence for transmutation. Within the framework of families of organisms, species may arise or die, interbreed, persist, develop unique features or become extinct. The classic case would be humanity itself. An Indian and Chinese may have children; as might a European and a vastly different African. They are all humans, descendants and ancestors of humans; their physiology notwithstanding. Their hair, the color of their skin and the shape of their face were all derived through years of separation, intra-breeding and environmental interaction.

The Bible did not elaborate on the genetic consequences of such separation across the surface of the earth, but accounts for it nevertheless by showing why the separation happened (Genesis 11:1-9) in direct opposition to our social tendencies. One would therefore expect to see species of families exhibiting environmental peculiarities, just like humans do in different regions. Some traits might be trivial (hair texture, for example) while others might be consequential like our melanin content. In this again, Science and the Bible concurs.

Thirdly, the fossil record by and large establishes the sudden extinction of certain “land animals.” Our life is also powered by oil derived from the cataclysmic mass burial of life sometime in the past. The caves, canyons, sharp cliffs, rugged mountains and rock outcrops tell of violent water arising out of horrific storms and earthquakes in the heaving and falling of the crust, the residual effects of which still occur today. The solar system of planets is puckered by craters clearly due in part to meteorites. This is the incontrovertible evidence. Where we part ways with Dawkins et al is in the explanation of it. What we see in geology, archaeology and anthropology is a substantiation of the biblical flood and the subsequent evolution of the races of man and not that of man himself; of the species of creatures and not that of the creatures themselves; and of the burial of others. Science is right, but Evolutionists are confused.

The Bible says rather forthrightly, if humanity persists in its “animal state” then God himself will return again in defence of those who would be noble (Genesis 6:3); only this time in fiery judgment. Do you not know what the Asteroid Belt is for? (Rev 16:17-21 cf. 2 Peter 3:10-13) The Bible’s extraordinary strength is in its prophecies. It invites anyone to test their validity, because it is by that and that alone that it can effectively prove that the God of Israel is the true and only one. No other religious text opens the future in such startling detail to the extent that it could have predicted such as time as this (Rev 14:6-7 cf. Daniel 12:4).

Further, isn’t a Christian one who believes that Jesus Christ fulfilled the words of the ancient prophets of Israel; that the prophecies for our time, before and the future are true, and verifiably so? Even so, he is led to believe their history as well — much as we believe the word of our parents that we were born of them and are satisfied with the overwhelming circumstantial evidence because of their true guidance. Who can by himself prove, much less disprove, the manner of his birth, even less so that “man was made on the sixth day” unless it were told him by one who said things that were consistently true in the first place? (Malachi 4:5, 6)

Science, on the other hand, is a tool for investigating and describing nature; hence it is an aid and not an enemy of faith. Its strength is in its insistence on observation and repeatability. Where it falls flat on its face is at the line drawn between itself and religion, when it presumptuously attempts to palm off its own surmises and extrapolations as definitive conclusions to be taught in schools. Those derived from the Origin of Species by Natural Selection such as the Decent of Man, for example, are good (that we are lost) and evil (but cannot be found, for there is no God).
MARK A.C. BLAIR