Chapter I - Introduction

            There are many reasons why evolution cannot be accepted as being how the animal and vegetable creation came into being. Reasons that come to mind are listed in my next chapter. However certain things need I think to be said first.

(1) If we follow what is said in the Hebrew Scriptures (our Old Testament) we cannot without straining the text to an unreasonable degree make the idea of evolution fit into it.

(2) The theory of evolution makes everything come into existence by mechanistic processes. Intelligence is shut out, because effectively that brings God into the picture and that cannot be entertained, because science cannot research God!

(3) Following on from (2) above it is clear that most evolutionists are materialists, that is, they do not admit the existence of what is spiritual. This is clearly contrary to what is taught in the Bible, because we have there what is spiritual as well as what is material, for example, Paul speaks of “flesh and spirit” (2 Corinthians 7:1). A concordance will show many other passages. On the other hand we do not want to become spiritualists like the so-called Christian scientists. Mrs. Eddy wrote: “Divine metaphysics explains away matter. Spirit is the only substance and consciousness recognised by divine Science” (Science and Health page 278). This is going to the other extreme.

(4) Effectively those that espouse evolutionism are idolaters, that is, they simply make man arise from what is material. Intelligence is shut out. In Jeremiah 2:26/27 we have: “As a thief is ashamed when he is found, so shall the house of Israel be ashamed - they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets - saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth”. I have no doubt that the scientific establishment will have to admit that they have gone off the rails in taking evolutionism on board. In other words, teaching that all living things just came into existence from inanimate matter without a mind being involved.

(5) What I have written in my book “Creation as presented in the Bible and to Common Sense” goes into in some depth what the Bible teaches as to creation and also to what can be seen by simply using our common sense. Personally, I have no doubt that evolutionists have a beam in their spiritual eyesight (Matthew 7:3-5) which is hindering their vision so that they cannot see that what they are so dogmatically maintaining is wrong.

(6) In my last book on the subject of creation (see (5) above) I pointed out that what we have in Genesis 1:2 is a newly born earth and gave reasons for what I wrote, referring particularly to Job 38:8/9. Since then I have ascertained that the idea is not modern but was held by the Greek philosopher, Philolaus. He is reported to have said: “There is an analogy between the birth of a human being and the birth of the cosmos.” (Christianity Restored Part I, page 322, note 110) This is not so strange if we consider that in the heavens there are such things as black holes into which stars can disappear. Is it not possible that the earth came out of one when it was born?

(7) One has also noticed that Michael Servetus who was burned to the stake by the Calvinists took the waters above the heavens in Genesis 1:6-9 to be literally rainwater as I am inclined to do (Christianity Restored Part I, page 303). He also held that the the earth “bore animals which it possessed within itself” (page 309). The existence of fossils appears to support this thought, if we consider that they are simply the form of the creatures that came out of the earth. This is in accord with my own suggestion, but I would not be dogmatic. However, I cannot envisage any other way that the fossils for the most part got into the layers in the earth, if we accept that the layers were laid down when the earth was brought into existence as described in Genesis one. The layers are too orderly to have been laid down in the flood. I can see no reason for making the flood an agent of creation. If the earth had been completely changed by a violent flood the ark would almost certainly have been wrecked, or, if not, the animals in it, as well as Noah and his family would have been injured if not killed by the violence involved. I appreciate that the form of the ark was such that it would have been stable on the waters, but one cannot assume that it would have remained steady if there were great tsunamis washing over it. To maintain that it was, one would have to introduce the thought that there were miracles involved about which Scripture says nothing.  Further, we are told that all animals outside the ark died, but nothing about fishes dying. No doubt some did die as a result of rushing rivers, etc. but what the Scripture says does not fit with the evidence that most fossils are of fishes. Apart from the flood we know that there are such things as earthquakes, erupting volcanoes and tsunamis that could affect the earth’s surface and may well involve the burial of creatures in the earth when they are overwhelmed by volcanic ash or whatever. All this bears thinking about. Those that hold the gap theory to explain the existence of the fossils that are in the earth, effectively bring a judgment into Genesis 1 about which Scripture says nothing. However, making the flood account for the layers in the earth laid down by water effectively makes the flood creatorial. Here we must say that Scripture says nothing about such creatorial work in connection with the flood. We must of course distinguish such things as frozen Mammoths from fossils properly speaking.

(8) Today we have two main strands of anti-evolutionist organisations. On the one hand, there is the creationist strand and, on the other, the intelligent design strand. The strength of the creationist strand in my view is that, in addition to the creation which shows the wisdom that was involved in the making of it, it also shows that the creation is fallen and therefore there are the effects of this in the world we see around us. If the creationists have a weakness it is that they have not convincing scriptural answers to the evolutionists in every respect. The intelligent design movement’s strength lies in the fact that there is abundant evidence of design in the universe and this shows beyond reasonable doubt that there was a designer whatever the materialists may dogmatically assert. Their weakness is that they have not always got a convincing reason for the evil that is in the world. In order to explain this one has to go to the early chapters of Genesis which tell us of man’s fall.

(9) In June 1979 I wrote: “The ancient HISTORY of man, recorded in Genesis may in due time be corroborated by archaeological evidence, other ancient records, etc. but the CREATION itself can never I think be corroborated in this way. Fossils may disclose something of physical history, but they do not disclose spiritual origins. Neither can we expect to find in man’s history books a true account of his own origins, for the simple reason that he was not there to witness them. While therefore further scientific discoveries may prove theories of the origin of physical phenomena, such as evolution wrong, they will never go so far as to prove the Bible right. If they could it would cease to be necessary to have faith to “apprehend that the worlds were framed by the word of God” (Hebrews 11:3)”. If the intelligent design movement wins the day, the scientific establishment will have to give evolution up, but the question of how the cosmos came into existence will remain something to be known only by divine revelation which is accepted by faith.

(10) The evolutionist’s great fault is that he leaves out intelligence, and therefore God, in the organisation of the cosmos. The creationist’s mistake is often to leave out the matter of work (directed energy) in the organisation of the cosmos. Further, he is liable to think of Genesis 1 as the creation of everything, whereas it actually only covers the material creation that we see around us and does not cover the heavens in which God dwells and the invisible thrones, etc. that we get spoken of in Colossians 1:16.