More Than an Ancient Text

As humans, I think we all like to put things into human terms. I know that I do. And so I find it appealing to think of the origins debate as a conflict between Darwin and Moses. 

But though the discussion may be framed in such a way, it is important to remember that it is more than just a matter of Moses vs. Darwin. It is a conflict between the word of God and the word of men. 

Moses was a man. And Genesis was written by Moses. But Moses was a prophet of God, and he wrote down what God spoke to him (Numbers 12:5-8, John 5:46, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21). 

An old friend of mine used to refer to the Bible as "an ancient text", as if to lessen its authority. And theistic evolutionist, Peter Enns has made the statement that "an ancient text give us ancient science, not modern". 

But these speak wrongly about God's word. God's word is not antiquated, nor is it static. God's word is living and vibrant. It is more than just an ancient text. It keeps on being true (Psalm 119, John 17:17, Hebrews 4:12-13).

There can be no greater authority on science and origins than the One who created the universe and all that exists (Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17).

Some try to reinterpret what God clearly tells us about our origins. But the only reason for such theories as the day/age, or the gap theory is to attempt to harmonize God's word with the word of men.

And those men who first developed the doctrines of deep time, and evolutionism (Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell and others), were attempting to explain the universe, and life without God. 

These individuals interpreted the data under the assumption that Genesis is not true, and that no supernatural/Divine hand was or is involved. Thus, evolutionism is rooted in a rejection of belief in God.  

Once a person acknowledges the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it becomes wholly, completely, entirely unnecessary to accept evolutionism. 

God created the heavens and the earth. And He did it in six literal, 24 hour days, just as He has says that He did. This is a certainty because there was no death before sin entered the world by on person (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21-26).

Material written by trained scientists, who affirm biblical creation, can be read at the following sites:

www.answersingenesis.org
www.icr.org
http://creation.com/

Galileo vs. Darwin - the Psalms vs. Genesis

Introduction

Often times, supporters of evolutionism will call to our remembrance the trial of Galileo. To the evolutionist this is an illustration of the more contemporary debate between creation and evolutionism. But there are two key differences between these two controversies.

Galileo vs. Darwin

One key difference is that Galileo made use of observational science to show that the solar system is heliocentric instead of geocentric. His finding was not interpretive, it was based on observable facts.

In contrast, Charles Darwin's work was interpretive. His view of origins is based on deductive reasoning, not science. 

Darwin wrote: "No other work of mine was begun in so deductive a spirit as this; for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast of South America, before I had seen a true coral reef." 

Operational science is characterized by inductive observation, not deductive reasoning.

Darwin also wrote "In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling."

Darwin never observed humans evolving from molecules. He imagined that scenario before hand. And than he, and others since him, interpreted the data within that preconceived framework.

The evolutionary worldview is not science. It is not an observed fact. It involves the use of patently naturalistic, atheistic assumptions about the past to interpret scientific data in the present.

The Psalms vs. Genesis

Another key difference is that those who controverted Galileo relied on a verse from the book of Psalms to argue their case.

Psalm 104:5 reads: "You who laid the foundations of the earth, so that it should not be moved forever."

However, the book of Psalms is admittedly a collection of poetic literature. And the cited verse is not meant to describe the earth as being fixed in space. It is meant to describe the earth as being a generally stable place for its inhabitants to live.

In contrast, we who controvert Darwin point to scientific data, interpreted within the framework of the book of Genesis.

Genesis is very clearly written to be understood as a literal historical narrative. It belongs to a completely different class of literature from the Psalms. 

The genealogical passages in Genesis clearly place the named persons and related events in the context of human history. And the genealogies of Jesus, recorded in Matthew and Luke, further connect the history of Genesis to New Testament history.

So not only do we consider Genesis by itself, but also its relation to the rest of Scripture. This includes the gospel of salvation by grace, through faith in the death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah.

To interpret the narrative of Genesis as non-literal is to completely disregard the context of the Scriptures as a whole. If Genesis were not a literal historical narrative, then the literal life, death, and resurrection Jesus the Messiah would have been completely unnecessary.