Essay on Literal Creation versus
Theistic Evolution- 05/30/15
A couple of years back, I wrote the Introduction to a series
on science for the Shear-Jashub website, hoping to be
able to follow it with regular articles about the abundant scientific information
that constantly comes to light in favor of creation as taught in the
Scriptures. Unexpected time constraints and responsibilities have kept me from
these postings (though I am currently working on an article about
Thermodynamics). So you can imagine how pleased I was when I heard that
Francis-David was tackling the issues and doing research for a paper he was
writing for his class at Regent University. Francis’ completed paper is a well
sourced, fact filled presentation which puts forth a lucid argument in favor of
literal creationism. Included is an interview he conducted with a proponent of
theistic evolution. I have added the paper he submitted to Regent on the church
website because I believe you will find it a valuable tool when discussing origins
with your friends, co-workers, and family members.
Pastor Greg Scalzo
Francis-David
Scalzo
ENGL
102: Research and Academic Writing
9
May 2015
Literal Creationism—Biblically and
Scientifically Accurate
In the church today, there is an
ongoing debate concerning the process God used to create the universe.
Traditionally, Christians have believed in a literal reading of the Genesis
creation narrative as well as in a worldwide, catastrophic flood responsible
for the drastic alteration in earth’s geography. However, within the last two
centuries, a number of Christians have adhered to non-literal, theistic
evolutionary ideas of origins. By attempting to harmonize the Genesis account
with a modern evolutionary, old earth worldview, these segments within Christianity
deny a straightforward reading of Genesis’ beginning chapters. However, both
Biblical teaching and scientific evidence—including cell design and complexity,
sediment strata, and the fossil record—show theistic evolutionary models to be
inaccurate and instead favor literal creationism.
For the Christian to properly
evaluate the evidence, it is important that these opposing worldviews be
understood. Literal Creation believes that God, using “a definite sequence of
creative acts” (Snelling 4), made the heavens and the earth and every living
thing, including man, individually, according to its kind, in six literal days.
This view means that earth’s history and human history cover a period of only
6,000 to 7,000 years (Snelling 5). Literal Creation also states that the
temptation of Adam and Eve and their disobedience to God’s command brought the
curse of physical death upon man, the animals, and the earth. God then judged
the antediluvian civilization with a global Flood that was upon the earth for over
a year, covering even the highest mountains, and destroying every
air-breathing, land animal upon the earth. Only Noah, his family, and the
animals with them in the ark were spared. According to literal Creation, the
catastrophic Flood rapidly deposited most of the earth’s sedimentary strata,
which may have undergone deformation shortly afterwards (“Soft-Sediment” 16).
Contrary to this view, theistic
evolutionists believe that the God of the Bible employed an evolutionary
process to create. According to the leading theistic evolutionary science
organization BioLogos, it and likeminded individuals
call their belief Evolutionary Creationism because they “affirm that God is the
creator of all life—including human beings in his image” (“How is BioLogos?”) and believe in the inspiration and authenticity
of God’s Word. Yet, they accept the science of evolution as the best
description of how God made life and brought about diversity of life (“How is BioLogos?”). BioLogos believes
that all living things are related to each other through common descent from a
common ancestor, the earliest life form which supposedly was on earth 3.85
billion years ago. Each new generation of a given species experiences small
genetic modifications (in DNA) due to random or unpredictable mutations. These
modifications accumulate over time to alter that population’s characteristics,
thereby forming a new species. Natural selection, which is non-random, allows
creatures with advantageous variations to more likely survive (“What is evolution?”).
BioLogos and other theistic evolutionists also
believe the age of the earth to be 4.6 billion years old (“How are the ages of
the earth?”). They view the Genesis curse of death more as a spiritual reality
and as punishment only upon human beings, thereby allowing for the prior death
and extinction of animal life (“Did death occur before the Fall?”). The fossil
record then is an evolutionary history of life (“Fossil record?”), and the
Flood is considered to be only a local event, although they are not certain
where it occurred (“How should we interpret?”).
To gain greater insight into
theistic evolutionary beliefs, I contacted BioLogos
myself and had the opportunity to speak with Brad Kramer, BioLogos’
content editor. When asked about God’s degree of involvement (does God allow
stochastic evolutionary processes to work themselves out without direction or
intervention, or does He tweak the process to bring it to a planned finished
point), Kramer answered that, in the organization’s view, God is the creator
and not the process. The evolutionary processes do not occur by themselves but
rather God is over the process and guides it, but it is not necessary for Him
to intervene at different points (Kramer). When asked about BioLogos’
belief in miracles, Kramer commented that BioLogos
does believe in Biblical miracles, including healing of the sick and in
Christ’s resurrection, and stated that Biblical miracles are one-time events
which display God’s power. Scientific processes, however, are repeatable events.
If the miracles were more than one-time events, they would not be miracles
(Kramer). Based on the answer to questions one and two, I asked Kramer whether
there was a particular theological reason for why God had to use a process
consisting of millions of years of death, decay, and random mutations when He
has the power to create directly. Kramer responded that BioLogos
neither had a particular theological reason nor was the organization trying to
build a chain of inferences. Rather, Biologos merely
attempts to analyze what it feels is the scientific evidence and Scripture
together, taking both into account (Kramer).
Acceptance of these theistic
evolutionary ideas is widespread and even prevalent among variant Christian
colleges, evangelical seminaries, and Bible scholars who “accommodate old-earth
thinking and accept it as true” (“Why Seminary Professors?”). A 2012 Gallup
poll also demonstrates that while forty-six percent of the general population
believe God created humans in their present form at some time
within the last ten thousand years, thirty-two percent believe that humans
evolved under God’s direction (Newport). One of the main reasons for this
acceptance is due to atheistic naturalism’s current dominance in many avenues
of science, politics, law, sociology, and psychology. Because of this modern
trend, theologians have endeavored to harmonize these majority worldviews with
the Bible’s message. Beginning in the late 1800s, this trend has led to hybrid
theories between Genesis and evolution, and consequently, many Christians have
rejected the literal reading of Creation and the world-wide Flood. While these
Christians may believe they are successfully merging the Scriptures and
supposedly “scientific” information together, they are mistaken in both areas.
Therefore it is necessary to examine
the evidence favoring literal, young-earth Creation and the world-wide Flood.
The initial set of evidences comes from a straightforward reading of the Bible
itself. First, Genesis Chapter One clearly states that God created the universe
in six days. When used with a number as part of an ordered list, the Hebrew
word for day, yom,
is always translated as an ordinary day, and the description of “evening” and
“morning” together with this word in Genesis Chapter One constitutes a
twenty-four hour cycle for the Genesis day (Lisle and Johnson 30-31). Second,
the narrative speaks against evolutionary development from a common life form
by describing God as creating all living things, including plants and animals,
“according to its kind” (New King James
Version, Gen. 1.11, 21, 25), and making man, male and female, “in His own
image” (Gen. 1.27). Third, concerning the Flood, Peter writes in his second
epistle that the world which God made “out of water and in water…perished,
being flooded with water” (2 Peter 3.5-6), thus stating that the Flood was
indeed global, destructive, and covered the entire world.
Moreover, the theistic evolutionary
view is also doctrinally incorrect. The Scriptures state that God pronounced
five of the six creation days as “good” and described all of His creation as
“very good” (Gen. 1.31). The Hebrew word for good, used over five hundred times
in Scripture, means pleasant, agreeable, excellent, of benefit, and that which
God called good would have to agree with His nature (“Genesis and Character”
14, 15), for God is good (Mat. 19.17). This would preclude anything that was
deficient or less than perfect. Because God is holy, omniscient, and flawless,
He would neither deceive us about the creation process, nor would He use a
trial and error methodology to create (“Genesis and Character” 16-17). God
would also not allow man to evolve from a common ancestor of all living things,
including animals, for man is unique, separate from the animals in that he was
directly created in God’s image. For God to create man from a lower life form
would be to debase His own image. In addition, there would be no death in the
original creation, for “He [God] gives to all life, breath, and all things”
(Acts 17.25). Jesus Christ, God’s Son and the Prince (Originator) of life (Acts
2.15), described Himself to His disciples as “the life” (John 14.6) and stated
that He has come to give life and life more abundantly (John 10.10). Death is
not characteristic of God; rather, death is a byproduct of man’s sin. Paul
writes that it was by one man, Adam, that sin entered into the world, and death
through this sin (Rom. 5.12). This death is not simply spiritual death limited
to humanity but extends to the physical creation. Paul also writes that “the
creation was subjected to futility” (Rom. 8.20) and that it will one day “be
delivered from the bondage of corruption” (Rom. 8.21). The Greek word used in
this Scripture for creation, ktisis, means the sub-human creation (“How Old Is Our Planet?”
7); thus the universe as we see it now was not the “very good” that God
originally created. Lastly, because death is a product of sin, it cannot be
from a holy God. Rather, God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die a
substitutionary death on Calvary for sin in order that He would defeat death,
spiritual and physical, and bring in a new heaven and new earth (“The Whole
Counsel” 6). If death is not God’s judgment for sin, then there would be
nothing from which we must be saved. Christ’s sacrifice is merely “martyrdom
for an illusionary cause” (“Genesis and Character” 17), and the Gospel message
becomes meaningless. Indeed, any combinations between the Bible’s teaching and
evolutionary processes twist the Scriptures’ clear words and “make a story with
a naturalistic message that excludes an omnipotent and omniscient creator
entirely” (“The Whole Counsel” 7).
In addition to the Biblical
evidence, there is abundant scientific evidence demonstrating the impossibility
of life developing by evolution. One such fact is the improbability of random
protein development. Proteins are critical molecules to life and Dr. Stephen C.
Meyer, in Signature in the Cell,
discusses how different experiments prove that the odds of obtaining one
protein of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance is at best 1 in 10164
(212). But even a minimally complex cell requires at least 250 proteins (213),
making the chance of random cell development for all practical purposes zero.
Another evidence is the concept of cell irreducible complexity, which states
that the cell is a very complex, highly designed biological machine whose
thousands of parts must have been engineered and fully integrated in order for
it to be functional (Design and
Complexity 24). Rather than being a simple structure, the cell itself
contains tiny factories which construct its chemical building blocks including
proteins, phospholipids, and DNA (Jeanson and Thomas
122). Some of the complex cell mechanisms include exosomes which “shred” used
mRNA into recyclable molecules (“Complexity Revealed”); the cell division
mitotic spindle apparatus, which one evolutionary website, PhysOrg, stated is “arguably the
most complicated piece of machinery in existence” at the cellular level
(“‘Dicer’ Enzyme” 14); and the amazing Dicer
enzyme, specifically designed to prohibit the simultaneous activities of cell
replication and DNA transcription from colliding with each other along the
chromosome—a destructive act which could cause aging and cancer (“‘Dicer’
Enzyme” 14). In addition, gene function also involves a host of mechanism
categories including diverse regulatory DNA sequences, complex
inter-connections between gene and gene networks, dynamic regulation of
three-dimensional chromosome architecture, and cell tissue type differentiation,
thereby exhibiting extreme complexity (“Irreducibly Complex” 6). Cell
complexity also displays the property of an interdependent system, a system in
which at least two parts are mutually dependent upon each other. An excellent
example of interdependence is that of DNA and proteins. In the cell, proteins
manufacture, repair, and access DNA, yet the DNA also provides the blueprint
for protein structure. Because DNA and proteins depend directly upon each other
for function, both had to be present from the beginning (“Interdependence” 13).
Lastly, the specificity of
components and the functional dependence within the entire biological systems
put severe limitations on genetic evolutionary change of one kind of creature
into another. A genetic change to a biological system’s any one operational
component, unless matched by numerous corresponding and very improbable genetic
changes, would result in functional loss and often death (Darwin’s Doubt 232-233). And, any mutations affecting a creature’s
body plan formation early in the development process results not in macro
evolutionary (large-scale) changes but instead “inevitably damages the
organism” (Darwin’s Doubt 259-260).
From the early twentieth century (by geneticist T. H. Morgan) until today,
experiments were conducted systematically mutating fruit flies. But the results
of such mutations were definitely pathological, most often lethal, or resulted
in an organism that could not survive in the wild (Darwin’s Doubt 260).
Scientific evidence also supports a
world-wide Flood. In contrast to the evolutionary belief that sediments were
deposited slowly over millions of years and then hardened (lithified) into
sedimentary rock, evidence, such as the sequence at Split Mountain in San
Diego, California, display quick deposition, hardening, and deformation.
Evolutionists believe the sedimentary sequences were formed over millions of
years; however the fold strata geometry clearly indicates the entire strata
were still in a soft, unhardened condition at the time of deformation.
Moreover, the sedimentary sequence could not have hardened first and then
tightly folded and deformed, for solid rock has a limit to how much tension it
can endure without breaking, and the layers, which were bent excessively,
demonstrate no evidence of broken cement grains. Rather, the evidence appears
as if the strata “flowed as mud or deformed plastically” (“Soft Sediment” 16).
Furthermore, the fossil record also
contradicts the theistic evolutionary claim of being an evolutionary history of
life. Instead, it is a witness to the Flood. First, the fossil record begins in
the Cambrian strata with the sudden appearance of all the different
invertebrate phyla with their different body plans and with no apparent common
ancestor to evolve from in any Precambrian strata (Snelling 729). Second,
rather than being in their evolutionary place in the sedimentary rocks, certain
fossils are out of place. The fossil record contains a mixed variety of
creatures, including apparently present-day clam kinds both throughout the
sediment layers and frequently mixed with dinosaurs. Another example is the
fact that the five major mollusk classes, as well as modern parrots, penguins,
ducks, owls, and possums can all be found in dinosaur rock layers (Cupps and Thomas 21). Other cases include a fossilized T. Rex tooth discovered in rock
supposedly predating the T. Rex by
sixty million years; the discovery of human artifacts (jewelry, tools, and
glue) in layers far below their normal strata; and the discovery of a spider web
trapped in an amber deposit from a rock layer supposedly 100 million years
older than the time spiders were thought to have evolved (“Fossil
Discoveries”). Third, fossils not only
appear suddenly and fully formed but are also without transitional forms between
kinds. When fossils are found which resemble a modern counterpart, they always
appear nearly identical and show no signs of evolution (Tomkins, Clarey, and
Lisle 14). Fourth, there exist fossil beds indicating violent death by
catastrophic covering of mud (Cupps and Thomas 21).
One example is the Ordovician Soom Shale in South
Africa, containing thousands of well-preserved fossils, which exhibits
catastrophic live burial of these creatures for thousands of square kilometers
in undisturbed mud and silt laminae shale (indicating rapid deposition and
lithification) (Snelling 538-539). Fifth, considering that fossils are in a
general order (sea creatures at the bottom, shore creatures higher, then swamp
and land creatures higher), it should be noted that this setup does not
indicate evolution from sea to land, but instead demonstrates different
environments deposited “in successive tsunami-like” stages during the Flood (Cupps and Thomas 21).
Despite these evidences, theistic evolutionists
will cite different oppositions. Concerning the clear Scriptural evidence, one
opposition is that the Genesis creation narrative is simply Hebrew poetry and
thus cannot be read literally. It conveys a sense of truth about origins, but
it is not a literal description of actual events (DeYoung et. al. 158). In my
interview with Brad Kramer, Kramer stated that God gave the Bible, and Genesis,
in a way that the ancient world could understand; therefore, God did not
correct scientific ideas for the ancient world. His opinion was that the Young
Earth Creationist view was both incomplete and made the assumption that God
must be literally accounting the creation in a scientific way (Kramer).
Concerning the scientific evidence, theistic evolutionists will point toward
many of the same claims secular evolutionists make. For example, BioLogos, when giving “proofs” for evolution, comments how
radiometric dating has shown some Earth rocks to be billions of years old.
Examples the organization cites include a Greenland rock formation dated 3.6
billion years and Western Australian zircon grains dated 4.4 billion years
(“How are the ages?”). BioLogos and theistic
evolutionists will also state how the fossils must likewise be millions of
years old due to their corresponding rocks’ ages (“Fossil record?”). Lastly,
theistic evolutionists view genetic science as proof of relationships between
species and thus evidence of common descent (“Genetic evidence?”). One specific
piece of evidence cited is the supposed close genetic relationship between
humans and chimpanzees (“Human evolution?”).
Although these oppositions may
appear valid on the surface, further examination will prove otherwise. First,
concerning the historical authenticity of the Genesis narrative, it must be
kept in mind that Jesus Himself considered Genesis to be literal history, and
referred directly to the details of Genesis Chapters One through Seven fifteen
times, one of which was His comment on marriage—that from the beginning of the
creation God made them male and female (Snelling 6-7). Most of the New
Testament writers quoted the early Genesis chapters as literal historical
events, and both Moses and many of the Old Testament writers either quoted from
or referred to the creation week (“The Whole Counsel”). Moreover, the
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, or RATE team, a team of creation
scientists endeavoring to explore the earth’s age from a Biblical perspective,
conducted experiments to prove that the Genesis creation account was indeed historical
narrative. In one statistical technique called logistic regression, the team examined the ratio of Hebrew preterite finite verbs to the total finite verbs for
ninety-seven selected Old Testament texts, thereby finding a passage’s
probability of being narrative literature. The value was zero for poetry and
one for narrative. The data showed that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is statistically
classified as narrative with a probability of 0.9999, a value of practically
one, thus showing significantly strong confidence (DeYoung et. al. 167-168).
Concerning radiometric dating
analysis of the earth’s age, there are important evidences supporting a young
earth. One comes from carbon-14 dating, the most familiar radiometric dating
method. Carbon-14 is distinguishable from the other dating methods in that it
has a very short half-life of 5,730 years, compared to the millions or billions
of years of other isotopes (DeYoung et. al. 46). After 17-18 half-lives, about
100,000 years, carbon-14 decays to a completely negligible level undetectable
by current measuring standards. Thus, all the original carbon content in earth
materials classified as ancient should be completely decayed away. Yet, within
inorganic rocks and minerals from all around the world as well as in samples from
throughout parts of the fossil record assumed to be hundreds of millions of
years old, readily detectable amounts of carbon-14 inherent to the samples have
been discovered (DeYoung et. al. 49).
In addition to carbon-14, there is
another dating technique measuring the helium content within zircon crystals.
Found within the biotite segments of granite rocks, zircon crystals incorporate
radioactive uranium and thorium atoms as they grow. In the zircon crystals, the
uranium -238 decays to lead-206 through a series of steps during which eight
alpha particles are released. The alpha particles combine with nearby electrons
to become helium atoms, which do not combine with other atoms to form
molecules. Because the helium atoms remain as gas particles and are thus
difficult to confine, any helium atoms formed in the distant past should have
long ago migrated outward of zircon crystals after about 100,000 years (DeYoung
et. al. 67-68) (Snelling 887). However, the RATE team conducted a study in
which they obtained zircon-containing rocks from the Los Alamos National
Laboratory and examined the zircon crystals’ helium diffusion rate at
increasing temperatures. The rocks were initially dated as 1,439 ± 2 million
years old using a uranium-lead radiometric dating method (DeYoung et. al.
72-73). Having determined the amount of helium retained in the zircon crystals
and having measured the helium diffusion rate, the RATE team calculated the
predicted diffusion rate for the time scales of both 6,000 years and 1.5
billion years. The experimental diffusion data correlated closely with the
6,000 year creation time scale, and statistical analysis gave an estimated
zircon helium diffusion age of only 6,000 ± 2,000 years (DeYoung et. al. 75-76)
(Snelling 887). This helium diffusion “clock” casts great doubt on the often
accepted long-age “clocks” derived from radioisotope daughter element
concentrations, indicating that nuclear decay rates are not constant as
evolutionists have assumed.
Compelling evidence for
significantly young fossil ages also exists. This evidence involves the
presence of un-mineralized organic fossil tissue (“Original Tissue” 5). While
the majority of fossils are mineralized remains of once-organic, long-dead
creatures, there are fossils which contain remnants of animal bio-chemicals
such as proteins, pigments, and DNA that minerals never replaced, and
laboratory tests denote that these organic tissue pieces could not last for a
million years (“Original Tissue” 6). Fossils containing organic tissue have
been discovered since the 1800s, including those by English geologist Mary
Anning, who in 1823, discovered well-preserved eye lenses of the extinct fish
lizard Icthyosaurus.
Some of the lenses were perfect to the point that they were split off and used
as magnifiers (“Original Tissue” 6-7, 8). More currently, in 2000, North
Carolina State University paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made the astonishing
discovery of elastic tissue and transparent blood vessels inside a recently
excavated Tyrannosaurus fossil’s
femur. Considering that the fossil was supposedly 68 million years old, this
discovery was impossible. In 2009, Schweitzer also discovered a supposedly 80
million year old hadrosaur bone containing soft,
bendable tissues and blood vessels which were verified as such by a third party
(“Dinosaur Soft Tissue Makes”).
Furthermore, DNA analysis
demonstrates the fallacies of human/chimpanzee comparison. Within the last
decade, the common evolutionary belief has been that DNA evidence proves a
supposedly overwhelming 98% or 99% genetic similarity between humans and
chimpanzees, thus showing that humanity cannot trace their ancestry back to a
single primal couple. However, Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins from the Institute of
Creation Research, discovered that “the actual overall identity between humans
and chimpanzees is only about 70%” (“Purpose” 9). In this analysis, Dr. Tomkins
studied the transcribed DNA regions located outside the DNA’s protein-coding
areas. These regions contain genes for long non-protein-coding RNA molecules, called
long intergenic non-coding RNAs, or
lincRNAs, which have the same type of control structures and features in their
DNA sequence as do the protein-coding genes (“Human lincRNA” 13). By analyzing
three different human lincRNA datasets and one vlincRNA
(very long intergenic non-coding) dataset in comparison to the chimpanzee
genome, Tomkins discovered that the short human lincRNA regions (less than 600
DNA bases in length) were about 75% to 79 % similar to chimpanzee, while the
larger lincRNA regions which were greater than 600 bases were about 71% to 74%
similar. The human vlincRNA genomic regions were only
67% similar (“Human lincRNA” 13). From Tomkins’ analysis, it was shown that
there was, in terms of DNA letter differences, a 900,000,000 letter gap between
humans and chimpanzees (“Purpose” 9). It would be impossible to obtain this
type of genetic divergence in only six million years by random mutation,
natural selection, and fixation (spreading out mutations through a species’
entire population) (“Purpose” 9).
In addition, the entire set of DNA
letters within the human genome are broken down into two sets of 23
chromosomes. Chimpanzees, however, have two sets of 24 chromosomes. The
evolutionary hypothesis is that the common ancestor for apes and humans had two
sets of 24 chromosomes but that a genetic error “fused” two of the chromosomes
together to make the number 23, and that the human chromosome number 2 bears
the mark of this event (“Purpose” 9). However, if the supposed site were a
fusion site, it is highly corrupted and small in size (very different from
evolutionary expectations). More importantly, the site is a key functional part
of an already active gene (a DNA sequence that codes for proteins) and not a
remnant of fusion. Thus, no such mark of a fusion incident exists (“Purpose” 9)
and the problem of the difference in chromosome number for evolutionists
remains.
Lastly, an important topic which
speaks against evolutionary development in favor of complex design is the
misnomer of “junk DNA.” For years, scientists have taught that the
protein-coding sections of DNA (a small fraction of DNA in human and other
genomes) are functional, and that the non-coding segment (80% to 90%) (“‘Junk
DNA’ Keeps”) represents the evolutionary vestiges of viruses, defunct genes,
and other repetitive sequences from evolutionary history (“Another Setback”)
(“Junk DNA Scam” 153). However, this non-coding DNA has in recent years been
proven to serve the important purpose of regulating gene expression. It not
only contributes to exon selection and placement decisions, but “also controls
the recognition and usage of alternative transcriptional start sites, splice
site recognition, transcriptional and translational cues…genome architecture,
and nuclear membrane architecture” (“Junk DNA Scam” 155). In a current study
analyzing the full amount of non-coding DNA sequences expressed in the nematode
worm, fruit fly, zebrafish, and humans, researchers discovered that the levels
of expressed non-coding DNA increased in correspondence to the living thing’s
organismal complexity (“Explaining Complexity” 19). Actually, certain types of
non-coding DNA called transposable elements (TEs) also control embryos as well
(“Revealing Purpose”). Moreover, the long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs),
which are copied from the non-protein-coding DNA segments, have been shown to
regulate heart function (“‘Junk’ DNA Keeps”) and further analysis demonstrates
that single letter variations and mutations in this part of the genome can
increase cancer risk through “wormhole-like” effects on far off genes.
Mutations in a similar DNA type called pseudogenes,
once thought to be “junk” as well, can also contribute to cancer if mutated
(“Cancer Research”). It is thus shown that while the protein-coding genes act
like building blocks, the non-coding DNA controls and orchestrates genomic
function “as a huge sea of finely tuned and critical metadata” (“‘Junk’ DNA
Keeps”). “Now, studies confirm that virtually all DNA is used for some task, in
some tissue, at some time during a creature’s life” (“Cancer Research”).
Certainly, it is evident from the
data that literal creation is both Biblically and scientifically accurate in
contrast to theistic evolution. Unfortunately, many people have no knowledge of
this information, and a number of believing Christians, who either have not
studied the material or have been deceived by false teachings, cannot provide
this valuable information to others. As believers who have been commissioned by
the Lord Jesus to “make disciples of all the nations” (Mat. 28.19), we must be
actively involved in defending literal creation. This can happen by first
learning the information for ourselves and then sharing it with family, fellow
believers, and those with whom we interact. We can also help support Christian
organizations dedicated to proclaiming the scientific accuracy of literal
Biblical creation and sponsor spokesmen from these ministries to speak at our
local churches. Because the doctrine of origins affects how we view the Lord,
His goodness, His nature, and His truthfulness revealed in the Scriptures, we
must stand firm for the truth of the Genesis account in order that the body of
Christ would be nourished in sound teaching and thus effectively lead others
into an accurate knowledge of Christ’s
truth.
Works Cited
Cupps,
Vernon R., and Brian Thomas. “Is Every Fossil in Its (Evolutionary) Place?” Acts & Facts June 2014: 21. Print.
DeYoung,
Don, John Baumgardner, Russell Humphreys, Andrew
Snelling, Steven Austin, Eugene Chaffin, and Steven Boyd. Thousands…Not Billions. Green Forest, AK: Master Books, 2005.
Print.
“Did
death occur before the Fall?” BioLogos, 2015. Web. 29 April 2015.
<http://www.biologos.org/questions/death-before-the-fall>.
“How
are the ages of the Earth and universe calculated?” BioLogos, 2015. Web. 4 April
2015. <http://biologos.org/questions/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe>.
“How
is BioLogos different from Evolutionism, Intelligent
Design, and Creationism?” BioLogos, 2015. Web. 4 April 2015.
<http://www.biologos.org/questions/biologos-id-creationism>.
“How
should we interpret the Genesis flood account?” BioLogos, 2015. Web. 26 April
2015. <http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood>.
Jeanson,
Nathaniel T. “Purpose, Progress, and Promise: Part 3.” Acts & Facts December 2014: 9. Print.
Jeanson,
Nathaniel, and Brian Thomas. “Unmistakable Evidence for God’s Design: Cell’s
Lead the Way.” Creation Basics &
Beyond. Ed. ICR. Dallas: The Institute for Creation Research, 2010,
119-124. Print.
Kramer,
Brad. Personal Interview. 20 April 2015.
Lisle,
Jason, and James J. S. Johnson. “Day-Age Theory: A Day Late and a Scholar
Short.” Creation Basics & Beyond.
Ed. ICR. Dallas: The Institute for Creation Research, 2010, 29-34. Print.
Meyer,
Stephen C. Darwin’s Doubt. New York: HarperOne, 2013. Print.
Meyer,
Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New
York: HarperOne, 2009. Print.
Morris,
John D. “Soft-Sediment Deformation: Recent Flood Evidence.” Acts & Facts October 2013: 16-17.
Print.
Morris,
John D. “Why Do Seminary Professors Entertain Old Earth Ideas?” The Institute for Creation Research,
1999. Web. 4 April 2015. <http://www.icr.org/article/1193/314 >.
Morris
III, Henry M. “Genesis and the Character of God.” Creation Basics & Beyond. Ed. ICR. Dallas: The Institute for
Creation Research, 2010, 13-18. Print.
Morris
III, Henry M. “How Old Is Our Planet?” Acts
& Facts March 2014:5-7. Print.
Morris
III, Henry M. “The Whole Counsel of God.” Acts
& Facts January 2015: 5-7. Print.
Newport,
Frank. “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins.” Gallup, 1 June 2012. Web. 4 April 2015.
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx?version=print>.
Sherwin,
Frank. “‘Dicer’ Enzyme Keeps DNA On Track.” Acts
& Facts January 2015: 14. Print.
Sherwin,
Frank. “Revealing Purpose in ‘Junk’ DNA.” The
Institute for Creation Research, 2007. Web. 6 April 2015.
<http://www.icr.org/article/revealing-purpose-junk-dna>.
Snelling,
Andrew A. Earth’s Catastrophic Past:
Geology, Creation & the Flood. Vol. 1 and 2. Dallas: The Institute for
Creation Research, 2009. Print. 2 vols.
The Holy Bible (New King James
Version). Nashville: Broadman and
Holman Publishers, 1996. Print.
Thomas,
Brian. “Another Setback for ‘Junk’ DNA.” The
Institute for Creation Research. 2010. Web. 6 April 2015.
<http://www.icr.org/article/another-setback-for-junk-dna>.
Thomas,
Brian. “Cancer Research Inadvertently Refutes Evolution.” The Institute for Creation Research, 2015. Web. 6 April 2015.
<http://www.icr.org/article/cancer-research-inadvertently-refutes>.
Thomas,
Brian. “Dinosaur Soft Tissue Finally Makes News.” The Institute for Creation Research, 2009. Web. 1 May 2015.
<http://www.icr.org/article/5112 >.
Thomas,
Brian. “Fossil Discoveries Disrupt Evolutionary Timescales.” The Institute for Creation Research,
2010. Web. 27 April 2015. <http://www.icr.org/article/5501 >.
Thomas,
Brian. “Interdependence: A Conversation Starter.” Acts & Facts October 2013: 13. Print.
Thomas,
Brian. “Original-Tissue Fossils: Creation’s Silent Advocates.” Acts & Facts August 2014: 5-9.
Print.
Tomkins,
Jeffrey. “Complexity of Cell’s ‘Molecular Shredder’ Revealed.” The Institute for Creation Research,
2013. Web. 27 April 2015.
<http://www.icr.org/article/complexity-cells-molecular-shredder >.
Tomkins,
Jeffrey. “Explaining Organismal Complexity with Non-Coding DNA.” Acts & Facts November 2013: 19.
Print.
Tomkins,
Jeffrey. “Human lincRNA Regions Vastly Different from Chimpanzee.” Acts & Facts September 2014: 13.
Print.
Tomkins,
Jeffrey P. “‘Junk’ DNA Keeps Your Heart Beating.” The Institute for Creation Research, 2014. Web. 17 April 2015.
<http://www.icr.org/article/junk-dna-keeps-your-heart-beating/>.
Tomkins,
Jeffrey. The Design and Complexity of The
Cell. Dallas: The Institute for Creation Research, 2012. Print.
Tomkins,
Jeffrey. “The Irreducibly Complex Genome: Designed from the Beginning.” Acts & Facts March 2012: 6. Print.
Tomkins,
Jeffrey. “The Junk DNA Scam.” Creation
Basics & Beyond. Ed. ICR. Dallas: The Institute for Creation Research,
2010, 153-160. Print.
Tomkins,
Jeffrey, Tim Clarey, and Jason Lisle. “No Evolution Is Proof of Evolution?” Acts & Facts April 2015: 14. Print.
“What
does the fossil record show?” BioLogos, 2015. Web. 4 April 2015.
<http://www.biologos.org/questions/fossil-record>.
“What
is evolution?” BioLogos,
2015. Web. 26 April 2015.
<http://biologos.org/questions/what-is-evolution>.
“What
is the genetic evidence for evolution?” BioLogos, 2015. Web. 4 April 2015.
<http://biologos.org/questions/genetic-evidence>.
“What
is the genetic evidence for human evolution?” BioLogos, 2015. Web. 27 April
2015.
<http://biologos.org/questions/what-scientific-evidence-do-we-have-about-the-first-humans>.
© 2015
Francis-David A. Scalzo. All rights reserved.