The Biblical Creation account of Genesis and the Theory of Evolution

Share on:

If we start with the Biblical Creation account in the book of Genesis, then take everything we know from the various fields of science including biology, genetics, mathematics, and physics, and discard all our assumptions and theories, what we will find is that the facts line up perfectly with the view that God created the world and all kinds of life in six literal days roughly 6,000 years ago.

The scientific approach to an idea is to gather as many facts as possible and then find the best explanation for those facts. This is something evolutionists fail miserably at. Darwinian evolutionists are very good at passing the buck to other fields of science. For example, if you ask an evolutionary biologist for solid, incontrovertible evidence that all life originated with a common ancestor, he will not be able to give you any. Instead, he will point to another field of science, like geology, and tell you to look there. If you go to an evolutionary geologist and ask him for evidence for evolution, he will point you to another branch of science, like biology. Proponents of evolution know nothing else than to pass the buck. And if you back one of them into a corner and demand evidence from the particular field of science that they are expert in, they will perform the classic “appeal to authority" tell you about all the people who believe in evolution. How embarrassing!

Good creation scientists, on the other hand, can present scientific evidence in their field of expertise for the Special Creation outlined in Genesis. A good Creationist will not pass the buck, but will give you hard evidence for Biblical Creation. And when he’s done, he’ll encourage you to look at other branches of science to further validate the evidence he’s already given. This is the fundamental difference between Evolutionary scientists and Creation scientists. Only the Creation Scientists are armed with facts and evidence to bolster their position.

This really shouldn’t come as a surprise. Most people are indoctrinated with the science-fiction of Darwinian evolution practically from birth. Since these people assume evolution to be true anyway, evolutionary scientists get a pass at every turn. They almost never are asked to provide evidence. Creation scientists, on the other hand, are constantly having to battle against the widespread evolutionist propaganda and blatant falsehoods that are being taught as science, while at the same time having to defend the tired, predictable attacks against Christianity in general.

It is not enough to claim evidence for a theory. You must present the evidence and defend it in the face of scrutiny. Evolutionists hate being challenged on their evidence because they know how flimsy it is. Creationists welcome the challenges because they provide an opportunity to share the truth.

The theory of Evolution is about the variety of different kinds of life, not about the origin of life itself. Evolution assumes life, but does not explain it. While the term "evolution" is used to describe a lot of different things, in this context, it means only what I just explained.

Creationism begins with no life and no Earth, and holds that God created the Earth and all the various kinds of living things. I think of the term “kinds" as synonymous with the term "genus." (But "kinds" does not mean “species" which is a very poorly defined term itself.)

From the above we see that Creationism and Evolution overlap in some areas, and in other areas they are mutually exclusive. Thus, we can make the following assertion:

  • If Creationism is true, Evolution must be entirely false.

  • If Evolution is true, Creationism must be at least partially false.

Creationism and Evolution are historical claims, not just scientific claims. But science can be used to validate or invalidate these claims. This is a hugely important point most people miss. We are not talking about something like the boiling point of a liquid which can be tested by experimentation. We are talking about something that happened in the past and is not happening in the present in any observable fashion.

Now, here is another fundamental difference between the two: Creationism specifically claims that God created, and then stopped creating. The theory of Evolution claims that evolution is still occurring. From a scientific standpoint, we should be able to test whether or not new kinds of living things are evolving. And guess what? They are not. Hence, the only part of Evolution that can possibly be tested has been tested and has been shown to be false. Thus, we still must conclude that both Creationism and Evolution are historical claims.

But not only are they both historical claims, they are quite different in terms of detail. In Genesis, Moses goes into great detail about the chronological order, duration, and hierarchy of Creation. The Theory of Evolution, however, simply states that all kinds of living things originated from a common ancestor. It does not specify an order or a chronology. Incidentally, if we can demonstrate the Earth is roughly the same age as recorded human history, we can have a high confidence that undirected evolution did not occur.

Thus, Creationism theoretically makes itself more vulnerable to being invalidated than Evolution. Why? Because the more claims you make, the more right you better be. If you are telling the truth, you can make all the claims you want and not have to worry. But if you are lying, each claim you make is another soft spot that your adversary can target.

So how do you validate or invalidate an historical claim? Look at the evidence from all relevant sources, and look at it holistically. Does each piece of evidence agree with every other piece of evidence, and with a particular theory? If so, that theory is likely correct. Is there an incontrovertible piece of evidence that absolutely invalidates a theory? If so, that theory is absolutely incorrect, even if other pieces of evidence seem to validate it.

Evolution seems so simplistic and overly broad, is there really anything there to validate? Yes, but not much. We certainly have no written records indicating descent from a common ancestor. We have never observed one kind of animal giving rise to another kind. The fossil records show discrete plants and animals, but no obvious transitional forms. These are all irrefutable pieces of evidence that invalidate Evolution.

But is there any evidence that can validate Evolution? Some claim that genetic similarities among different kinds of animals is evidence, however, this does not suggest a common ancestor any more than all living things being carbon-based does. A common similarity does not imply a common ancestor. Also, there is more than sufficient evidence to invalidate Evolution, so a single, flimsy piece of evidence for it is coincidental at best.

On to Creationism. An analysis of mitochondrial DNA from the human genome suggests the first woman lived around 6,000 years ago, roughly 4,000 B.C.

Carbon-14 (14C), a radioactive element with a half-life of less than 6,000 years, is present in animal fossils all over the world in amounts that suggest recent Creation. There is currently no other explanation for the amount of 14C present.

T-rex fossils have been found with soft-tissue (biological tissue) still in them, suggesting an age of less than 10,000 years.

Nickel, a rare earth element, collects on the Earth’s crust from falling meteorites. If the Earth were orders of magnitude older than the Genesis Creation account suggests, there would be a lot more nickel than there is today.

There is also another piece of evidence for Creation: the utterly Divine authorship of the Scriptures. If the Holy Scriptures are inspired by the Creator Himself, then the Creation account is true. That is for another post, but it is ultimately more powerful than any other piece of evidence.