Wayne Jackson wrote this article which appeared in the July 1985 edition of the "Christian Courier", published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California.
The name of the game is intimidation. It is a tragic but true fact that many views are propagated in today's world simply on the basis of intimidaiton. The vocal majority frequently bullies the muted minority into an acceptation of their ideas. And this is precisely what has happened in the case of many professed friends of the Bible. Evolutionists, by means of "scientific" propaganda, have coerced some religionists into abandoning all confidence in the Biblical view of man's origin. Others, not willing to forsake the totality of their faith, have sought an alliange between evolutionary and creationist concepts.
One area of such compromise has been in connection with the geological and anthropological therories of earth and human history. Evolutionists contend that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. This estimate is not based upon scientific fact, but upon preconceived assumptions grounded in the dire need for vast eras of time with which to accommodate the evolutionary scheme. So, evolutionists fiercely argue for a very ancient earth. But what of man? Where does he fit into the picture? Well, in the words of George Simpson, man "is a newcomer, a Johnny-come-lately" in comparision to other life forms and especially compared to the age of the earth. Simpson was the famous evolutionary expert of Harvard. However, even some Christian writers have capitulated to this notion. John Clayton, a lecturer who travels widely among the churches of Christ and the Christian churches, and who, in his writings has endorsed the evolutionary geological time-scale, suggests that "man is a very recent newcomer to this planet;" in fact, he argues that man's history is but a tiny fraction of earth's history (Does God Exist? Course 8).
Such assertions need to be carefully examined to see whether or not they are accurate in light of the inspired Scriptures. The Bible is right regardless of what certain pseudo-scientists claim. Remember, yesterday's "science" is frequently tomorrow's supersition.
In recent years, anthropologists have said that "true man" appeared on earth about 3.6 million years ago. Let us look closely at this and see whether or not it has any implications for the Bible believer.
If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and man has been on earth for 3.6 million years, simple mathematics reveals that man is but 1/1250th of the age of the earth. If such is the case, he is but a speck on the panoram of geo-history! Perhaps the following illustration will dramatize the force of this. Suppose we let one day represent the sum of earth's alleged history. This means that the supposed 4.5 billion years of earth history are represented by the 86,400 seconds of one day. Since man's age is assumed to be only 1/1250th of the earth's, man on this one-day scale, would be only slightly omore than one minute and nine seconds old!
Look at it another way. If one drew a horizonal line one hundred feet long, and at the right end, directly underneath, he drew another line only one inch long, he cold vividly see the difference in the alleged respectiave ages between earth and man, according to the evolutionary dogma. Accordingly, if the whole of earth's history is viewd from man's current vantage point, human existence commenced virtually at the END thereof. The impact of this needs to be clearly noted. The evolutionary theory (and views related to it) do not allow that man originated at the BEGINNING of creation history. Anyone, therefore, who accepts the evolutionary chronology of geo-human history, cannot possibly believe that man has existed from the beginning of creation! Yet, this is what the Bible affirms repeatedly!
The Beginning
The NT phrase "from the beginning" (ap' arches and ex arches) denotes "the first point in time, its occasion being determined from the context" (New International Dictionary of NT Theology, I, 160). While it is true that the expression can involve some degree of relativity, such obvioulsy must be fairly limited; otherwise, language is meaningless. In other words, when something is said to be "from the beginning" of a certain period, there must be a reasonable proximity involved. With this in vew, note the following Bible passages.
(1) First, an example is introduced from the OT. When Isaiah was contrasting the greatness of Jehovah with the impotence of idols, he asked: "Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?" (40:21). Note how the prophet parallels the expressions "from the beginning" and "from the foundations of the earth" and suggests that man had known of God's nature since that time! Clearly, human existence extends back to the very beginning of earth history.
(2) Concerning Adam and Eve, Jesus declared: "But from the beginning of the creation, male and female made he them" (Mark 10:6). The word "creation" is the Greek ktiseos and it denotes "the sum-total of what God has created" (Cremer, Biblico - Theological Lexicon of NT, 113, 114, 381). Bloomfield observed that it refers to "the world or universe" (Greek Testament with English Notes, Vol. 1, pp. 197, 198). Unquestionably, Christ places the first humans at the very dawn of creation.
(3) In Romans 1:20 Paul writes: "For the invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even His everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse..." The phrase "since the creation of the world" directs attention back to the very beginning of the "material universe" (cf. Trench, Synonyms of the NT, 215, 216). And note that Paul affirms that evidence for God's existence has been "percieved" and "seen" since the creation so that man is without excuse for any unbelief! This passage clearly does not allow for a vast gap of billions of years between the beginning of the creation and man's arrival upon the earth. And there is no reason for rejecting the clear testimony of the inspired apostle - unless one is under the spell of evolutionary chronology!
There are several other New Testament passages of a similar thrust (cf. Luke 11:45-52, Mark 13:19, John 8:44, Second Peter 3:4). Were it not for the speculative assertions of modern evolutionary theorists, there would be absolutely no controversy as to the clear meaning of these historical statements of sacred literature. The truth is though, some have allowed the unsupported ideas of current science to be the criteria by which they interpret the Bible. Such is a great error indeed.
In conclusion we may observe:
(1) Science does not know the age of the earth, and as Dr. Robert Kofahl has noted, "It is not possible to 'prove' that the earth is billions of years old" (Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, p. 109). Even the evolutionary views regarding such are highly unstable. Between 1900 and 1960, the estimated age of the earth increased from 50 million to some 5 billion years!
(2) True science does not demand an ancient earth. Dr. Donald Chittick declares that "the idea that the earth is very, very old is not in any way suggested by any studies in science. It arises a s result of rejecting Special Creation" (A Symposium on Creation [Patten, Ed.], II, p. 73).
(3) Finally, there are many evidences of a scientific nature that point to a relatively young earth - an earth inhabited by man from the very beginning. Let us therefore, not compromise the biblical record of earth/human history simply for the sake of placating unreasonable, faithless, hopeless infidelity.
No comments:
Post a Comment