The Modern Creation Trilogy. Dr. Henry M. Morris

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ have not been developed from the herd-instincts of animals. Rather, he is a unique creation, made in the image of God, and his tribes and nations represent divisions established by God for man’s own good and for the ultimate accomplishment of His divine will on the earth, not through man’s own devices but by His power and grace.

      Summary of the Biblical Model of Creation

      In summary, the biblical model of earth history focuses on three great worldwide events: (1) a period of six days of special creation and formation of all things, the completion and permanence of which are now manifest in the law of conservation of energy; (2) the rebellion of man and the resultant curse of God on all man’s dominion, formalized now in the law of increasing entropy; and (3) the world-destroying flood in the days of Noah, leaving the new world largely under the domain of natural uniformity.

      This framework does not, of course, preclude the occurrence of later events of worldwide implications, especially the confusion of tongues at Babel. The Flood itself occupied only a year, but the aftereffects were felt all over the world for many centuries.

      The main key, however, to the true interpretation of the physical data relating to earth history, must lie in full recognition of the effects of creation, the curse, and the Flood. The evolutionary system, on the other hand, has tried to correlate all these data in a completely naturalistic framework that either rejects or ignores the significance of these events. It implicitly, if not explicitly, denies God as Creator, Redeemer and Judge.

      Tragically, many Christians seek, by one means or another, to compromise Scripture with the assumed evolutionary history of the earth and man. These placating theories must be examined critically. As it is done, there is no intent to criticize or judge individual advocates of such theories. Good Christian men have at one time or another, no doubt with excellent motives, promoted these various ideas. It is not the proponents, but the theories, that will be criticized. The Word of God must take first priority, and secondly, the observed facts of science, rather than the reputations of men. Each of these various compromising theories will be shown in subsequent chapters as unacceptable on biblical, theological, and scientific grounds. The only truly satisfactory model is the simple, literal, historical view of Genesis and science that is supported in this book.

1 See Henry M. Morris’s commentary, The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), p. 105–132, for a more complete discussion of these topics.

      Chapter 3

      Attempts to Compromise on Creation

      The biblical record of creation, fall, and Flood is so clear and straightforward, and so obviously written as a simple record of actual events, that it is amazing that large groups of influential Christians have tried to make it say something else. There seems to be no rationale for these efforts except the fear of ridicule and rejection by those of their colleagues who are committed to the evolutionary world view. Such Christians seem either ignorant or unconcerned about the fact that the evolutionary world view involves long ages of random evolutionary meandering, struggle, suffering, and death, culminating supposedly in the emergence of man.

      Many of these compromising Christians profess allegiance to Christ and the Scriptures, and perhaps are quite sincere in thinking theirs is the only way that Christians can be intellectually reputable. Nevertheless, they are also quite wrong. The Bible is God’s Word, verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit, free of error (God cannot lie!), and God the Holy Spirit means exactly what He says. The foundational nature of the doctrine of creation makes it supremely important for the Scriptures to be plain and clear on this subject, of all subjects! In fact, they could hardly be more clear than they are, just as they stand.

      However, since so many professed Christians have been tempted to compromise on the subject of creation, we shall in this chapter summarize the reasons that such compromises are invalid and harmful. We shall try to avoid any ad hominem remarks, however, since we are more concerned to refute these harmful theories than to criticize their advocates.

      Theistic Evolution

      According to Scripture, all things were specially created by God in six days. Is it possible that God’s method of “creation” might really have been what the modern evolutionist means by “evolution”? (The question as to the exact length or nature of these days of creation will be discussed later.) A popular cliché of neo-orthodox and liberal writers is to the effect that God has revealed in Scripture the fact of creation, but has left the method of creation to be worked out by scientists. This is merely a circuitous way of saying that the fact of evolution should be accepted in the hope that the scientists will allow the belief that God is the one controlling the process.

      There are various forms of theistic evolution, and different terms that have been used. These include “orthogenesis” (goal-directed evolution), “nomogenesis” (evolution according to fixed law), “emergent evolution,” “creative evolution,” and others. None of these concepts are accepted among modern leaders of evolutionary thought, for they are all quite atheistic. The evolutionary scheme that is least objectionable to Christians is, of course, simply the idea that Jehovah used the method of evolution to accomplish His purpose in creation, as described in Genesis. This theory might be called “biblical evolution.” Any sound approach to Bible exegesis, however, precludes this interpretation.

      1. Creation of Distinct Kinds Precludes Transmutations between Kinds

      The Scriptures are very clear in their teaching that God created all things as He wanted them to be, each “kind” with its own particular structure, according to His own sovereign purposes. The account of creation in Genesis 1, for example, indicates that at least ten major categories of organic life were specially created, each “after his kind.” These categories are, in the plant kingdom: (1) grass, (2) herbs, (3) fruit trees. In the animal kingdom the specific categories mentioned are these: (1) sea monsters, (2) other marine animals, (3) birds, (4) beasts of the earth, (5) cattle, (6) crawling animals. Finally, man “kind” was created as another completely separate category. The phrase “after his kind” or its equivalent occurs ten times in this first chapter of Genesis.

      Even though there may be uncertainty as to what is meant by “kind” (Hebrew min), it is obvious that the word does have a definite and fixed meaning. One “kind” could not transform itself into another “kind.” There is certainly no thought here of an evolutionary continuity of all forms of life, but rather one of definite and distinct categories! Furthermore, the sense of the passage is that a great many different kinds were created in each of the nine major groups (excluding man) that are specifically listed. There is certainly room for variations within each kind, as is obvious from the fact that all the different tribes and nations of men, with all their wide variety of physical characteristics, are within the human “kind.” The same must be true for the other kinds. Many different varieties can emerge within the basic framework of each kind, but at the same time such variations can never extend beyond that framework.

      Remember that evolution teaches that all “kinds” of life descended from other “kinds,” ultimately all descending from a common ancestor. The creation of plants and animals “after their kind” implies that the omniscient God knew what form each should take, and in His omnipotence created them that way from the start. Note that each “kind” was not commanded to reproduce “after their kind,” even though we know from genetics that there are natural limits to variation. But what this phrase specifically says, repeated ten times in one chapter, is that plants and animal categories did not evolve from any other category. Evolutionary change was not involved in their origin.

      This clear teaching of the creation chapter is accepted and confirmed in other parts of the Bible. For example, consider 1 Corinthians 15:38–39: “God giveth . . . to every seed his own body. All flesh is not СКАЧАТЬ