The Modern Creation Trilogy. Dr. Henry M. Morris

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ if it were possible to understand “day” in Genesis as referring to something like a geological age (and it is not hermeneutically possible, as just seen), it still would not help any in regard to the concordist motivation. The vague general concordance between the order of creation in Genesis and the order of evolutionary development in geology (and as noted earlier such a vague concordance is to be expected in the nature of the case and thus proves nothing) becomes a morass of contradictions when we progress to an examination of details.

      At least 25 such contradictions exist. Note just a few of them:

Uniformitarianism	Bible
Matter existed in the beginning	Matter created by God in the beginning
Sun and stars before the earth	Earth before the sun and stars
Land before the oceans	Oceans before the land
Sun, earth’s first light	Light before the sun
Contiguous atmosphere and hydrosphere	Atmosphere between two hydrospheres
Marine organisms, first forms of life	Land plants, first life forms created
Fishes before fruit trees	Fruit trees before fishes
Insects before birds	Birds before insects (“creeping things”)
Sun before land plants	Land vegetation before the sun
Reptiles before birds	Birds before reptiles (“creeping things”)
Woman before man (by genetics)	Man before woman (by creation)
Rain before man	Man before rain
Creative processes still continuing	Creation completed
Struggle and death necessary atecedents of man	Man, the cause of struggle and death

      The previous very sketchy tabulation shows conclusively that it is impossible to speak convincingly of a concordance (harmony) between the geological ages and Genesis. As with the question of evolution or creation, the Genesis record is stubbornly intransigent and will not accommodate the standard system of geological ages. A decision must be made for one or the other — one cannot logically accept both!

      3. Identification of the Geological Ages with Evolutionary Suffering

      The most serious fallacy in the day-age theory is that it impugns the character of God. It provides the basic exegetical framework for either so-called biblical evolutionism or for progressive creationism. These concepts have been discussed and rejected in the preceding section on this very basis. The God described in the Bible (personal, omnipotent, omniscient, purposeful, gracious, orderly, loving) simply could not use such a process of creation as envisaged by leading evolutionists, with all its randomness, wastefulness, and cruelty.

      But Christians must also realize that the geological ages are actually synonymous with evolution! When they accept the geological ages, they are implicitly accepting the evolutionary system (though many do not realize it, and would even deny it).

      The geological ages obviously provide the necessary framework of time for evolution. If the universe began only several thousand years ago, then evolution is impossible. It requires billions of years to have even a semblance of plausibility.

      Conversely, the only real assurance men have of the geological ages is the assumption of evolution. That is, since evolution “must” be true (the only alternative is creation!), therefore, it is “known” that life, the earth, and the universe must be extremely old. The various geological systems and epochs are identified, and even named (e.g., Paleozoic — meaning “ancient” life — and Mesozoic — meaning “middle” life) on the basis of the fossils found in the rocks, interpreted and dated on the basis of the supposed “stage-of-evolution” of the corresponding faunas. Whenever any other identification or dating technique (lithology, radiometry, etc.) conflicts with this approach (as is often the case), these paleontologic criteria always govern.

      Thus, evolution is the basis for interpreting the fossil record, and the fossil record is the basis for establishing and identifying the geological ages. The geological ages, with their fossil sequences, provide the basic framework and the only evidence of any consequence for evolution. Here is one of the most classic and subtle examples of pseudo-scientific circular reasoning in all the complex history of metaphysical opposition to biblical creationism. The Bible-honoring Christian needs to realize that the geological ages are merely one component in the whole evolutionary package. If one wants to have the framework (geologic time), the glue that keeps it together (evolution) must also be accepted.

      Again, however, even if one deliberately rejects or ignores the evolutionary implications of the geological ages, one must still face the massive problem of why God chose to use five billion years of chance variations, mutation, natural selection, geological upheavals, storm, disease, extinctions, struggle, suffering, and death as an inscrutable (but seemingly savage) prelude to His creation of man right at the very tail-end of geologic time. “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Cor. 14:33). Yet, He is said to have surveyed the whole monstrous spectacle and pronounced it all “very good” (Gen. 1:31). The Bible is quite explicit in teaching that there was no suffering and no death of sentient life on the earth before man brought sin into the world (Gen. 3:14–19; Rom. 5:12; 8:20–23; 1 Cor. 15:21–22; Rev. 21:4–5; etc.). But if the rocks of the earth’s crust were already filled with fossilized remains of billions of animals, and even of hominid forms that looked like men, then God himself is directly responsible for creating suffering and death, not in judgment upon rebellion, but as an integral factor of His work of creation and sovereign rule. And this is theological chaos!

      4. Variants of the Day-Age Theory

      Some expositors, acknowledging that exegetical honesty compels recognition of the “days” of Genesis as literal days, have tried two other devices for harmonizing the geological ages with literal days. One method is to suggest that the literal creative days were each separated by vast spans of geologic time. The other is that the six days were six days of revelation, rather than creation.

      As to the first theory, it should be noted that the six widely separated days of creation included creation of the earth, heaven, the stars, sun and moon, oceans, lands, plants, fishes, birds, reptiles, mammals (all of them), and man. Nothing much is left for the vast spans of time between the days, so why are they needed? (This theory is essentially the same as the “progressive-creation theory,” which has already been discussed.)

      As for the revelatory-day theory, there is not a single word in the entire record that suggests such a thing. Visions and revelations of the Lord are frequently encountered in Scripture, but the writer always says so, when it is so. In refuting such an extraneous idea, God himself said, “In six days, the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day” (Exod. 20:11). (Why should He wish to rest on the seventh day, if all His actual work on each of the previous days consisted of about one minute of speaking to some unidentified vision-recipient?)

      In addition, all the previously mentioned scientific contradictions and theological fallacies apply in exactly the same way to the isolated-day and the revelatory-day theories as they do to the standard day-age theory. The conclusion is, therefore, that the day-age theory СКАЧАТЬ