Venom
08-03-2003, 02:09 PM
For part 1-2 go here, How to use the Word of God Part 1- Accuracy of Scripture and Salvation (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=bodybuilder&Number=590954& Forum=bodybuilder&Words=How%20to%20use%20the%20Wor d%20of%20God%20Part%201&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Sear chpage=0&Limit=25&Old=1week&Main=590954&Search=tru e#Post590954), How to use the Word of God Part II- Biblical analysis (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=bodybuilder&Number=598551& Forum=bodybuilder&Words=How%20to%20use%20the%20Wor d%20of%20God%20Part&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpa ge=0&Limit=25&Old=1month&Main=598551&Search=true#P ost598551)
Enjoy!
God's Word stands on it's own.
[ QUOTE ]
We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago' He [Moses] calls 'a spade a spade,' i.e., he employs the terms 'day' and 'evening' without allegory, just as we customarily do' we assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit.
-Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis
[/ QUOTE ]
When Darwin introduced the theory of evolution over a hundred years ago, there were many attempts on the part of the church to "fit" the theory in the bible. Out of these attempts arose several different view points of the Genesis account of creation. These view points usually tried to incorporate evolution and long ages into the Biblical account.
The variations can be divided into 3 categories:
1. Theistic evolution
2. The Day-Age theory
3. The Gap theory.
Willson's Fifth Reader, written in 1861, gives us a glimpse of these explanations.
"It is believed by most geologists that the earth was at one time a molten mass, surrounded by an atmosphere filled with dense gases and vapors; and that, as the outer portions cooled, forming the rocks and the dry land, the vapors, condensing and falling in showers, formed springs, rivers and the waters of the oceans. This is the geological theory of the gradual calling of order out of chaos, after the great work of creation had been completed.
It is maintained that this view of the early condition of our globe, and of the successive changes that subsequently occurred in it during thousands and perhaps millions of years prior to the creation of man, does not at all conflict with the scriptural account of creation. The scriptural account, as paraphrased by a modern commentator, would read thus: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was desolate. Afterward, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters;" thus allowing the possibility of even millions of years between the first act of creative power and the six days' work of arranging the universe.
Different opinions long prevailed among the learned with regard to the nature, the extent of time, and the date of the six days' work of creation, for the Bible gives us no explanation on these points; but by most of the learned of the present day, and by all eminent geologists, the "six days" are understood to be indefinite periods of time, as it is said that, with the Almighty, "a thousand years are to be reckoned but as one day." It seems reasonable to suppose that they may have been prophetic periods looking into the past, and seen in vision by the inspired historian."
Willson's explanation in 1861 shows that the church had already compromised with evolution two years after Darwin published his theory.
According to this idea, the creation was actually a re-creation out of chaos; presumably caused by the destruction of a previous world ruled by Satan and the dark angels. The "gap" theory, as some people called it, tried to stretch the period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 into millions or billions of years.
Another attempt to stretch out the creation period was the redefinition of the word "day" to mean "age" as an indefinite span of time. The Willson Reader had the distinction of trying to incorporate both theories, attempting to maintain a literal interpretation of Genesis while holding to an evolutionary geologic view. This points out that the basic issue still hasn't changed a whole lot.
Ultimately there is only two possibilites for the origin of the universe.
1. In the beginning dirt
2. In the beginning God
Life and the universe either created itself, or it was created. There is no other option.
There are offshots of the two however,
1. Macroevolution-
Molecules to man. Atheistic.
2.Theistic Evolution-
God intervened and helped evolution along. Unbelief in a literal Genesis.
3. The Gap Theory-
Theistic. Ruin-reconstruction.
4. Day-Age Theory-
Theistic. Long ages instead of days.
5. Literal Six Day Creation-
Theistic. No attempt to reconcile evolution with the Bible.
These theories or combinations of them are the only alternatives. For example, the idea that space aliens imported life from another planet is really another version of macroevolution, with the time factor pushed back into oblivion.
In 1884, L. T. Townsend wrote a book called "The Bible and The Nineteenth Century." In it, he offered quite a bit of wisdom which we could apply today2
"From very early times to the present, men have declared that the teachings of the Bible--not its supposed, but its actual teachings--and the teachings of science are in conflict. And we are willing to admit that Bible-writers and scientific men more than once have not been in agreement.
But this admission does not with it the confession that the Bible is necessarily wrong. For, if science were wrong and the Bible right, there would be a conflict just the same as if the reverse were true. Does anyone suppose that science has always been free from error, or always in agreement with itself?
"It is now thirty-five years' says Sharon Turner, 'since my attention was turned to these considerations. It was then the fashion of science, and of a large part of the educated world, to rush into a disbelief of all written revelation: and several geological speculations were directed against the Bible. But I have lived to see the most hostile of these destroyed.' At the date here referred to, there were conflicts between the teachings of science and those of the Bible; that is the errors of science and the truths of the Bible. The Bible can hardly be condemned for not harmonizing with error, though the error is in strictest scientific garb, and is supported by able scientific authorities.
Dr. Townsend continues to caution the reader that many scientific opinions of the day were not established, and could change with further research.
"We must not, therefore, decide matters hastily. We must be sure at least of two things, before pronouncing against the correctness of biblical statement; namely, correctness of interpretation and the firm establishment of scientific fact.
Had this rule governed skeptical thought and expression during the last half century, much that has been said against the Bible would not have been spoken."
Why haven't we learned from the mistakes of the past? Every time scientists find a new fossil, we think it is proof that life evolved. But if we examine the evidence closely and start with different assumptions, we find that the evidence is not in conflict with the Bible, but with evolution. An example is the so-called horse series, which on the surface appears to prove evolution. Closer examination finds evidence contradicting evolution.
These creationist world views compromised with certain aspects of evolution by examining the wording and interpretation of Genesis to make it fit the concept of long ages. In recent times, though, creation scientists reject long ages because of the scientific evidence, not because of theology. There is no need to warp scripture to fit a warped science. A brief examination of the Gap Theory and the Day-Age theory reveal many scientific and theological problems.
PROBLEMS WITH THE
DAY-AGE THEORY
The attempt to make the word "day" referring to the six days of creation mean an "age" millions of years long fails many important tests. Some of the numerous objections to this theory follows:3
1 If the Hebrew word "yom" meant "age" instead of "day", why did the phrase "evening and morning" appear in the account? It would be hard to put an evening and a morning on an age. The word was clearly defined when it was first used, when in Genesis 1:5 it referred to an evening and a morning.
2. In Exodus 20:11, the Scripture says that "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." This reference is from the Ten Commandments, where God commanded rest on the seventh day. The verse can't refer to six "ages" and the Sabbath "day" using the same word to mean two different things in the same sentence.
3. If the writer of Genesis wanted to convey the idea of long ages, he could have used the word "olam" meaning a long indefinite span of time, instead of "yom."
If the main purpose of the day-age theory is to try to fit the geologic ages into the six days of creation, there are so many contradictions between the two accounts that it fails miserably, even if a Biblical paraphrase would permit it. Compare the two accounts:
BIBLICAL ACCOUNT(B)
EVOLUTION(B)
B- Earth covered with water from the beginning.
E- Water gradually oozed out of the interior over long ages.
Genesis 1:7 speaks of a firmament separating two expanses of water.
Completely rejects this concept.
B-First life was on land.
E-Life was in the Oceans.
B-Fruit trees developed first, then fish.
E-Fish and other marine organisms developed before fruit trees.
B-One of the first created animals mentioned in the Bible was the whale (Genesis 1:21).
E-The first organisms were the protozoa.
B-Animals reproduced "after its kind".
E-Slow ascent of all organisms from a common ancestor.
B-Six days of creation.
E-No such six fold division occurs in the geologic record.
The book, "Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science" by Henry M. Morris outlines many additional problems created when people try to reconcile the six days of creation with long ages. Even if the "day" mentioned in Genesis was "as a thousand years," six thousand years isn't enough time to fit the geologic ages. Even six million years won't work. The natural reading of Scripture just does not permit this interpretation.
THE GAP THEORY
The gap theory trys to fit five billion years of earth history between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Proponents of this theory suggest that God destroyed the original earth ruled by Satan with a great cataclysm and became "without form and void" as described in Genesis 1:2.
Like the day-age theory, the gap theory has significant problems. For example:
1.Why would a five billion year history of the earth be ignored by the writers of scripture?
2. If there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, why would Genesis 1:2 start with the word "and", implying a direct connection between the two?
3. The gap theory hinges on the redefinition of the word "was" in Genesis 1:2 to "became". Neither the general usage of the Hebrew word nor the context indicates that this is the case.
4. Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:11 both say that God made the heavens at the same time He made the earth. Since "heavens" were mentioned only in the first verse, it implys that the two verses are connected.
5. There is no mention in scripture that Satan's fall in heaven produced a cataclysm here on earth. Satan was only "cast to the earth" after his fall (Ezekiel 28:17). In fact, how could everything be "very good" after the six days of creation if Satan was roaming the earth then? Satan's fall quite likely occurred after Genesis 1:31, when everything was still "good", and Genesis 3:1, when he appeared to Eve.
6. Since the theory of evolution and the concept of long ages is highly dependent on the concept of uniformitarianism and the gradual accumulation of strata and fossils over a period of millions of years, the Gap Theory cataclysm comes in direct conflict with the assumptions of the dating methods it is trying to reconcile itself with. A cataclysm resulting from the judgment of God would have produced quick burial of all of the fossils at once, rather than an accumulation over millions of years.
7. Just how many millenia did plants live (created "day" 3) without sunlight (created "day" 4), which all land plants are dependent upon for light, warmth, reproduction, photosynthesis, and their day/night cycles?
Many plants are almost totally dependent upon insects for pollenization and reproduction. Some also depend on birds and animals. Such plants could not have survived for more than a single life cycle much less millions of years (again, plants came on "day" 3, insects day "6"... millions/billions of years later?).
God did not "give every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth..." as food for "all the beast... birds... creatures... [and] everything that has the breath of life in it..." until day 6. Why would God wait millions/billions of years to declare this? The phrase "And it was so" seems to indicate that it was at the moment that God spoke that this law was established for both man and beast.
There is no need to presume a flood of Noah provides an adequate explanation for the fossil record.
Just like the day-age theory, the gap theory creates more problems than it solves. Instead of satisfying science, it introduces more contradictions and difficulties. Note the following comparison:
1.GAP THEORY
2.PROBLEMS
1.World wide cataclysm before the flood.
2.Nothing in geologic record or The Bible that says this.
1.Attributes most fossils to the pre-world.
2.Most fossils are identical to those found in the present world.
1.Teaches the existence of pre-Adamic men.
2.Bible teaches Adam was the "first man" (I Corinthians 15:47).
1.Does not resolve the problem of evolution, but just pushes it back before the Creation.
2.Indicates that God changed his method from evolution to creation.
1.World wide cataclysm before Adam.
2.Geologic ages would be eliminated. There would also be no room for the flood of Noah.
Obviously, the day-age and gap theories do not accomplish what they set out originally to do. I believe these two theories have set back the cause of Christ because they have allowed compromise with the theory of evolution. These two theories may satisfy some who are content with a cursory reading of scripture and want a quick and easy explanation. But to those who are serious about finding the truth, no agreement between evolution and scripture is possible.
The ramifications of this conclusion are far reaching. If we cannot reconcile the theory of evolution to scripture, it means that more than a century of scientific reasoning has been in error.
How could this be in this age of enlightenment?
I believe that it is for religious reasons, not scientific, that the theory of evolution with its long ages has been embraced. With the theory of evolution, mankind has found the means in which to push God out of the picture, or way back in eons of time where he can forget Him. The motivation behind this is so strong that it often results in people becoming very hostile and sometimes violent when confronted with scientific evidence contradicting their theory. Christians must come to grips with the fact that evolution is diametrically opposed to their faith.
REFERENCES
1Willson, Marcius. "The Fifth Reader of the School and Family Series." Harper Brothers. New York. 1865.
2Townsend, L.T. "The Bible and Other Ancient Literature in the Nineteenth Century." Chautaugua Press. New York. 1884.
3Morris, Henry M. "Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science." Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. Phillipsburg, NJ. 1970.
Is evolution science and creation religion?
We can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today's Creation repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events.(26)
There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation. Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.
Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.
The important question is not 'Is it science?' We can just define 'science' to exclude everything that we don't like, as evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said:
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
</font>
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't science about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:
<font color="blue"> [ QUOTE ]
Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective 'scientific method', with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.'
[/ QUOTE ] </font>
So the fundamentally important question is, 'which worldview (bias) is correct?', because this will determine the correctness of the conclusions from the data.
Does debunking evolution, mean creation?
Yes!
As stated earlier there are only two options.
1. Life created itself.
2. Life was created.
All other theories are simply off shoots of the two above scenarios.
Considering there is only two options, if theory one can be shown to be extremely unsound, then theory two becomes so overwhelmingly convincing it is the ouly rational philosophy.
Events of the past, such as the origins of life, are ultimately untestable by science. Science can never absolutely prove anything regarding these matters and thus any belief, no matter how scientific one may think it to be, requires some measure of faith.(25)
Science can, however, disprove hypotheses which are internally contradictory or go against the laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, or geological evidence. Accordingly, a belief that life arose naturally on earth can be effectively disproven, to the point that anybody who chooses to believe in it can be shown to be holding great amounts of faith. At this point, one must ask the more personal and philosophical question, why?
The basic idea behind the chemical origins of life is that simple molecules became more complex molecules which eventually allowed the first auto-catalytic self-reproducing molecule to exist. Many would define the chemical origins of life as the existence of a single molecule that was not only able to replicate on its own, but could produce any molecules necessary to facilitate that replication.
1. Could the soup have ever been produced?
In the 1950's, Stanley Miller appeared to have found a way to make some of the ingredients of the soup by "zapping" a mixture of H2, HCN, H2O, CH4, CHO, and NH3 gasses with an an electric spark. The first time Miller got nothing but brown tar but after more experiments he has obtained (albeit often in very small amounts) at least 19 of the 20 amino acids upon which life is built. Furthermore, it has been found that comets and carbonacous asteroids, which are thought to have been constantly bombarding the earth early in its history, can contain appreciable amounts of organic molecules. All this looks promising at first when trying to build up an ancient storehouse of pre-biotic organic chemicals.
However, the cake-baking analogy from above analogy now holds quite true! Just as a baker adds the proper ingredients to bake a cake, so the researchers designed their pre-biotic synthesis experiments in such a way as to get the sought-after organic molecules. Methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3), were chosen not because they were actually thought to be a part of the early atmosphere but rather because they are essential to the production of the proper amino acids and gave the desired results. Even Stanley Miller admits that "it is assumed that amino acids more complex than glycene were required for the origin of life, then these results indicate a need for CH4 (methane) in the atmosphere"7. Whether or not these gasses actually simulated any real conditions on earth is a question they were far from asking. They just wanted to see if they could produce the right molecules using various contrived mixtures of gasses. Given the simple molecules they were trying to synthesize, these experiments are little more than simple exercises in organic chemistry and literally say nothing about the chemical origins of life.
"Miller-experiments" only work with gasses which would have formed a chemically reducing atmosphere (one with gasses which tend to lose electrons during chemical reactions). No free oxygen can be used in Miller experiments, however, in the absence of oxygen, there would be absolutely nothing to protect the pre-biotic chemicals from destruction by UV radiation, which is thought to have been 100 times stronger on the early earth than it is today14. Today, we all have heard that ozone in the atmosphere protects life from harmful UV radiation. However, ozone is composed of oxygen which is the very gas that Stanley Miller-type experiments avoided, for it prevents the synthesis of organic molecules like the ones obtained from the experiments!
Pre-biotic synthesis now finds itself in "****ed if you do, ****ed if you don't" scenario:
1. Pre-biotic synthesis can only take place in a reducing atmosphere, but that very fact would guarantee the destruction of highly sensitive pre-biotic chemicals by UV rays.
2. You could protect the molecules with oxygen, but in doing so you'd eliminate any chance of their production in the first place.8
The primordial soup cannot be dilute, but must be rich in amino acids and other organic molecules, allowing for many (nearly infinite) random chemical interactions to lessen the improbability of life's origin. Not only would UV radiation destroy any molecules that were made, but their own short lifespans would also greatly limit their numbers. For example, at 100ºC (boiling point of water), the half lives of the nucleic acids Adenine and Guanine are 1 year, Uracil is 12 years, and Cytozine is 19 days8 (nucleic acids and other important proteins such as chlorophyl and hemoglobin have never been synthesized in origins-of-life type experiments17, but we'll forget about that for now). Such short-lived molecules could never be stockpiled, even if they could be produced naturally. For this reason, Miller proposed a cold origins of life (for at 0ºC their half-lives jump about 1 million years) even though at that temperature Ribose, a sugar which helps build DNA, has a half-life of 44 years5, and Cytozine a half life of 17,000 years8. The catch, once again, is that mathematical calculations based upon models for earth's formation say that back then the earth was an extremely hot place! Who eats cold soup anyways? This is another example where the conditions of the early earth are assumed because they are the only ones which allow for the chemical origins of life, not because there is any actual evidence for them.
Another problem facing the soup is the fact that all biological organic molecules must somehow acquire the proper "handedness", known as "chirality." Amino acids can either exist in a "right-handed" form, or in the mirror image "left-handed" form. From the standpoint of doing chemistry, left-handed molecules are no different than right-handed ones. Yet, for some unknown reason, life uses only left-handed molecules amino acids. At what point did life begin to discriminate between right and left handed molecules? There is no known chemical reaction which "weeds out" the "right" from the "left" for all known chemical reactions produce more or less "racmic mixtures," of 1/2 right and 1/2 left handed molecules. As one scientist stated, "the basis for the origin of biomelecular chirality still remains obscure9".
Oh yeah, and what about building a soup by comets and asteroids? This hypothesis has been refuted by many authors who have shown that organic carbon could not be delivered in large amounts to the early earth because it would be generally superheated and destroyed during impact13.
2. Is there any geochemical evidence that the soup ever existed?
There isn't a shred of geological evidence left in the rocks that a primordial soup ever existed. If there was ever a soup, the earliest precambrian rocks should contain high levels of non-biological carbon, for biologically produced carbon contains an excess of "isotopically light" carbon. Ancient sedimentary rocks, however, do not reveal this signature10, and thus there is no positive evidence for this soup.
There is also no evidence that the methane-ammonia atmosphere necessary for prebiotic synthesis ever existed10, 11. If if it had, then the rocks thought to be from that time period ougth to contain an "unusually large proportion of carbon or organic chemicals"11, which they do not11. It has also been shown that even a significant quantity of ammonia in the primitive atmosphere would have been destroyed within 30,000 years by UV rays11 and methane within a few tens of years16. In fact, the geological evidence actually seems to point to a predominantly CO2 atmosphere11, however "Miller-experiments" using CO2 have produced no amino acids other than small quantities of Glycine15. Many have thought that the early atmosphere was produced by intense volcanic activity on the earth, but magma tends to release only N2, CO2, and H2 gasses, not methane or ammonia16. Since the ammonia-methane atmosphere never existed, there is no way to create a soup. Some have even suggested that even if there was an ammonia-methane atmosphere, it wouldn't have produced a soup, but rather an oil slick perhaps up to 10 m thick12. If there was a 10 meter thick sludge of carbon enveloping the entire earth, where is the evidence of it? Some have claimed that there isn't any evidence for it becuase once life evolved, it consumed the entire prebiotic storehouse of molecules and left no trace of its existence. This convenient explanation fails, for rocks would have been formed on the earth during the time of the soup, but before the supposed origin of life, thus preserving a record of the primodial organics. There is no evidence, however, of these primordial organics.
So drastic is the evidence against pre-biotic synthesis, that in 1990 the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended to scientists a "reexamination of biological monomer synthesis under primintive Earthlike environments, as revealed in current models of the early Earth"16.
Many speculate that given a primordial soup, the chemical origins of life does not seem quote so improbable. However, it would appear that the existence of the primordial soup itself may have been greatly improbable. For as second, let's reason like the scientists do: The primordial soup seems necessary for life's natural origin, life evolved naturally, therefore the primordial soup must have existed! Unfortunately, the converse is also true. If the primordial soup is necessary for life's origin, but the soup didn't exist, than life didn't arise naturally. Assuming, for a second, that the primordial soup did come to exist, we are now ready to analyze the second major step in the chemical origins of life: could the molecules in the soup have come together to make larger, more complex molecules.
Many of the origins of life scenarios are falsifiable, and, given the evidence, are most likely false. Other theories are completely unfalsifiable, exposing the fact that they are only promoted due to philosphy, not scientific evidence. Despite all this, the natural chemical origins of life on earth is still taught, researched, and funded by the government as if it were a legitimate scientific enterprise. All this is owed to the naturalistic philosophy of science2, and what I think is a little too much late-night science fiction reading. However, even the staunchest evolutionists will usually admit that no one is even close to explaining how DNA-based life could arise from nonliving materials, and when pressed, do not usually try to impose their views regarding the origins of life upon the "unbeliever." One wonders, then, why almost every high school textbook and introductory college biology class teaches that the natural chemical origins of life took place about 3-4 billion years ago in, as Charles Darwin first said, some "warm little pond".
Is evolution science?
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="green"> Given so much time,
the "impossible" becomes possible,
The possible probable,
And the probable virtually certain,
One only has to wait:
Time itself performs the miracles."
(Wald, G. (1954), Scientific American) </font>
[/ QUOTE ]
Here time is given magical supernatral properties.
Science rightly deals with the present state of nature and the processes, which presently operate, in nature. Creationists and evolutionists agree precisely when dealing with these issues, (i.e., with science). All agree on the nature of the genetic code or the array of fossils, or the laws of physics, biology, and chemistry. How then can there be such disagreement about the past?
This present/past issue is the crux of the creation/evolution controversy. No scientist had direct access to the past all are locked in the present, studying the evidence, which exists in the present, observing the processes, which operate in the present. Science is limited to the present. It is not illegitimate for a scientist to attempt to reconstruct the past to try to answer the question, "What happened in the past to make the present get to be this way?" But, clearly, that is not the same thing as empirical science. Both evolution and creation are historical reconstructions, not observations.
As creationists, we insist that we cannot scientifically prove creation or disprove evolution. Both are ways of thinking schemes by which we can interpret present data. All we can do is study the evidence in the present and see which historical reconstruction is more likely correct.
Present data include the incredible design of living systems which, look for the entire world as if they were "manufactured" by an intelligent designer, and not the random by-product of chance processes. We have the universal Second Law of Thermodynamics, which shows that things become more disordered through time, not more complex, as evolution insists. We see no clue in the fossil record that any basic category of animal ever came from any other basic category. And on and on.
These scientific observations fit well with the creation model, but not at all well with the evolution model. We cannot scientifically prove or disprove either creation or evolution, mainly because we don't have direct access to the past, but we can assert that creation is better the one most likely correct.
But creationists have another advantage. Even though we can't "study the past," we can study the record of One who was an active eyewitness throughout the past, who can accurately communicate His thoughts and deeds, and whose Word is true.
1. Life Itself, by Francis Crick (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981) and Directed Panspermia by F. H. C Crick and L. E. Orgel, Icarus 19:341-346 (1973)
2. "it is the job of science to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena"
(Science and Creationism, a view from the National Academy of Sciences (2nd edition), Nat Acad Press, 1999. Pg. 20. At "http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/")
3. Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Hubert P. Yockey, 1992, Cambridge University Press. The reader is encouraged to check out chapters 8-10 for a good discussion of the problems with the natural chemical origins of life. This book is available from the UCSD Libraries.
4. "Creationists have looked forward to the day when science may actually create a "living" thing from simple chemicals. They claim, and rightly so, that even if such a man-made life form could be created, this would not prove that natural life forms were developed by a similar chemical evolutionary process. The scientist understands this and plods on testingtheories."
(Stansfield, William D. [Professor of Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic State University], "The Science of Evolution," [1977], Macmillan: New York NY, 1983, Eighth Printing, pp10-11)
5. Statments made by Stanley Miller at a talk given by him for a UCSD Origins of Life seminar class on January 19, 1999 (the talk was attended and notated by the author of this article).
6. Overman, Dean L. "Case against Accident and Self-Organization" (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997) The reader is encouraged to read Parts III and IV for a good non-technical discussion of problems facing the natural chemical origins of life.
7. Stanley Miller as quoted in Origins: A skeptics guide to the Creation of Life on Earth by Robert Shapiro (New York: Sion and Schuster, Summit Books, 1986), pg. 112.
8. Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Md.: Adler and Adler, 1985), pg. 261).
8. Levy, Matthew and Stanley Miller. The Stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life. Proceedings of National Academy of Science, USA (Vol. 95, pg. 7933-7938).Darwin, Charles (1898). The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol II, p. 202. New York: D. Appleton.
9. Bonner, William A. "Origin and Amplifications of Biomolecular Chirality"
10. Schopf, J. William in Exobiology (edited by Cyril Ponnamperuma), North-Holland Publishing Company: Amsterdam-London, 1972 in the Precambrian paleobiology chapter, Pg. 27.
11. Abelson, Philip H. "Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth," from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol 55 Pg. 1365-1372 (1966).
12. Lasaga, Antonio, H. D. Holland, M. J. Dwyer. "Primordial Oil Slick". Science vol 174, Oct 4, 1971 pg. 53-55.
13. Anders, Edward. "Pre-biotic organic matter from comets and asteroids." Nature, Vol 342, November 16, 1989 pg. 255-257.
14. Canuto V. M., Levine, J. S., Augustsson, T. R., Imhoff, C. L., Giampapa, M. S. "The young Sun and the atmosphere and photochemistry of the early Earth". Nature Vol 305, September 22, 1983, pg. 281-286.
15. Schlesinger, Gordon and Stanley. L Miller. "Prebiotic Synthesis in Atmospheres Containing CH4, CO, and CO2." Journal of Molecular Evolution, Vol 19 pg. 376-382 (1983).
16. The Search for Life's Origins. National Research Council Space tudies Board, National Academy Press: Washington D.C., 1990, pg. 66, 67, 126)
17. Brooks J., "Origins of Life," Lion: Tring, Hertfordshire UK, 1985, p.87
18. Vaneechoutte, M., The scientific origin of life. Considerations on the evolution of information, leading to an alternative proposal for explaining the origin of the cell, a semantically closed system. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 901, 139,2000.
19. Safarti, Jonathan. "Self-Replicating Enzymes?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 11(1):4-6, 997. Also available at fix this!!!
20. Tjivikua, T., Balester, P. and Rebek, J., Jr., 1990. A Self-Replicating System. J. Amer. Chem. Soc., 112(3):1249-50.
21. Lee, D. H., Granja, J. R., Martinez, J. A., Severin, K., and Ghadiri, M., R., 1996. A self-replicating peptide. Nature 382:525-528 ...also see Nature 382:496-497.
22. Maynard Smith, John [Emeritus Professor of Biology at the University of Sussex] & Szathmary, Eors Day = Day[/b]
[i]11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
This is a simplistic yet viatal concept.
In six days God did a few things.
made the heaven
made the earth
the sea
and everything in them
How many days? For in six days
That is pretty easy to follow. God laid out specifically in Genesis what exactly occured in this scheme in which precise day.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20011207_95.jpg
Order of Creation in Christian and Jewish Biblical Records
(book of Genesis 1-2)
Day One-
Watery, formless planet Earth suspended in the darkness and void of space (no stars, no sun, no moon, no planets - except for Earth).
Light.
Separation of light from the darkness - and the first indication that the planet is rotating (day and night cycle produced).
Day Two-
Formation of Earth's atmosphere, separating the water into two parts:
(a) oceanic and subterranean water
(b) atmospheric water.
Day Three-
Dry land and oceans.
System to water the entire land surface using subterranean waters (involving springs or mist, or both).
Vegetation, seed-bearing plants, trees that bear fruit.
Garden of Eden (probably).
Day Four-
Sun
Moon - complete with established orbit so as to mark passage of time (months, seasons, and years).
Stars and other planets.
Day Five-
Water creatures of all kinds. (All that had "the breath of life" were vegetarian.)
Birds (all vegetarian).
Day Six-
Land animals (all vegetarian): (a) creatures that move close to the ground (small animals), (b) large animals, and (c) animals of use to man as livestock.
Man.
Woman (saving the best for last).
So how long is a day? Many would like day in quotes.
The first question needs to be why wouldn't day mean day?
Is it because of something we legitimately read from the bible? Or is it something we need to "fit" millions of years in the bible.
I surmise it is option two.
The Word day, is used 2031 times in the Old Testament, yet the only place it is questioned is in Genesis one.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20011228_98.jpg
Evolutionists sometimes accuse Creationists of believing that the whole Bible should be taken literally. This is not so!
Rather, the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion. This is not as difficult as it may seem, as the Bible obviously contains:
Poetry - as in the Psalms, where the repetition or parallelism of ideas is in accordance with Hebrew ideas of poetry, without the rhyme (parallelism of sound) and metre (parallelism of time) that are important parts of traditional English poetry. This, by the way, is the reason that the Psalms can be translated into other languages and still retain most of their literary appeal and poetic piquancy, while the elements of rhyme and metre are usually lost when traditional Western poetry is translated into other languages.
Parables - as in many of the sayings of Jesus, such as the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:3-23), which Jesus Himself clearly states to be a parable, and in which He gives meanings for the various items, such as the seed and the soil.
Prophecy - as in the books of the last section of the Old Testament (Isaiah to Malachi).
Letters - as in the New Testament epistles written by Paul, Peter, John, and others.
Biography - as in the Gospels.
Autobiography/Testimony - as in the book of Acts where the author, Luke, after narrating the Apostle Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus as a historical fact (Acts 9:1-19), then describes two further occasions when Paul included this conversion experience as part of his own personal testimony (Acts 22:1-21; 26:1-22).
Authentic historical facts - as in the books of 1 and 2 Kings, etc.
Thus the author's intention with respect to any book of the Bible is usually made clear from the style and the content. If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened.
Are any of these chapters poetry? To answer this question we need to examine in a little more depth just what is involved in the parallelism of ideas that constitutes Hebrew poetry.
Let us consider Psalm 1:1, which reads as follows: 'Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.' Here we see triple parallelism in the nouns and verbs used (reading downwards in the following scheme):
walketh counsel ungodly
standeth way sinners
sitteth seat scornful
As well as this overt parallelism, there is also a covert or subtle progression of meaning. In the first column, 'walketh' suggests short-term acquaintance, 'standeth' implies readiness to discuss, and 'sitteth' speaks of long-term involvement. In the second column, 'counsel' betokens general advice, 'way' indicates a chosen course of action, and 'seat' signifies a set condition of mind. In the third column, 'ungodly' describes the negatively wicked, 'sinner' characterizes the positively wicked, and 'scornful' portrays the contemptuously wicked.
Other types of Hebrew poetry include contrastive parallelism, as in Proverbs 27:6, 'Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful', and completive parallelism, as in Psalm 46:1, 'God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in time of need.' [3].
And so we return to our question. Are any of the first 11 chapters of Genesis poetry?
Answer: No, because these chapters do not contain information or invocation in any of the forms of Hebrew poetry, in either overt or covert form, and because Hebrew scholars of substance are agreed that this is so (see below).
Note: There certainly is repetition in Genesis chapter 1, e.g. 'And God said . . .' occurs 10 times; 'and God saw that it was good/very good' seven times; 'after his/their kind' 10 times; 'And the evening and the morning were the . . . day' six times. However, these repetitions have none of the poetic forms discussed above; rather they are statements of fact and thus a record of what happened, and possibly for emphasis - to indicate the importance of the words repeated.
Are any of these chapters parables? No, because when Jesus told a parable He either said it was a parable, or He introduced it with a simile, so making it plain to the hearers that it was a parable, as on the many occasions when He said, 'The kingdom of heaven is like . . . .' No such claim is made or style used by the author of Genesis 1-11.
Are any of these chapters prophecy? Not in their full context, although two promises of God are prophetic in the sense that their fulfilment would be seen in the future. One of these is Genesis 3:15, which was the pronouncement by God to the serpent (Satan) in metaphorical form: 'And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.' (NASB). Many have interpreted the 'seed' in this verse as the Messiah, including most evangelicals and even the Jewish Targums [4] hence the Talmudic expression 'heels of the Messiah' [5].
The Messiah would suffer wounds to His feet (on the Cross), but would completely destroy Satan's power. This verse also hints at the Virginal Conception, as the Messiah is called the seed of the woman, contrary to the normal Biblical practice of naming the father rather than the mother of a child (cf. Genesis chapters 5 and 11, 1 Chronicles chapters 1-9, Matthew chapter 1, Luke 3:23-38).
The other is Genesis 8:21-22 and 9:11-17,
'And the LORD said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake . . . and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.'
Are any of these chapters letters, biography, or autobiography/ personal testimony? This is where we need to consider some of the subscripts mentioned above.
If Adam knew the events of Creation Days 1-6, they must have been revealed to him by God, as Adam was not made until Day 6, and so he could have known them only if God had told him. This view is reinforced by the words, 'These are the generations of [NIV: 'This is the account of'] the heavens and of the earth when they were created . . .' in Genesis 2:4a. The details of Day 7, the rest day, are included before this in Genesis 2:2-3, thereby completing (as we might expect) the record of a full seven-day week, before this subscript or closing signature appears.
Is Genesis 1-11 record of authentic historical facts?
Yes!
Enjoy!
God's Word stands on it's own.
[ QUOTE ]
We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago' He [Moses] calls 'a spade a spade,' i.e., he employs the terms 'day' and 'evening' without allegory, just as we customarily do' we assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit.
-Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis
[/ QUOTE ]
When Darwin introduced the theory of evolution over a hundred years ago, there were many attempts on the part of the church to "fit" the theory in the bible. Out of these attempts arose several different view points of the Genesis account of creation. These view points usually tried to incorporate evolution and long ages into the Biblical account.
The variations can be divided into 3 categories:
1. Theistic evolution
2. The Day-Age theory
3. The Gap theory.
Willson's Fifth Reader, written in 1861, gives us a glimpse of these explanations.
"It is believed by most geologists that the earth was at one time a molten mass, surrounded by an atmosphere filled with dense gases and vapors; and that, as the outer portions cooled, forming the rocks and the dry land, the vapors, condensing and falling in showers, formed springs, rivers and the waters of the oceans. This is the geological theory of the gradual calling of order out of chaos, after the great work of creation had been completed.
It is maintained that this view of the early condition of our globe, and of the successive changes that subsequently occurred in it during thousands and perhaps millions of years prior to the creation of man, does not at all conflict with the scriptural account of creation. The scriptural account, as paraphrased by a modern commentator, would read thus: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was desolate. Afterward, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters;" thus allowing the possibility of even millions of years between the first act of creative power and the six days' work of arranging the universe.
Different opinions long prevailed among the learned with regard to the nature, the extent of time, and the date of the six days' work of creation, for the Bible gives us no explanation on these points; but by most of the learned of the present day, and by all eminent geologists, the "six days" are understood to be indefinite periods of time, as it is said that, with the Almighty, "a thousand years are to be reckoned but as one day." It seems reasonable to suppose that they may have been prophetic periods looking into the past, and seen in vision by the inspired historian."
Willson's explanation in 1861 shows that the church had already compromised with evolution two years after Darwin published his theory.
According to this idea, the creation was actually a re-creation out of chaos; presumably caused by the destruction of a previous world ruled by Satan and the dark angels. The "gap" theory, as some people called it, tried to stretch the period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 into millions or billions of years.
Another attempt to stretch out the creation period was the redefinition of the word "day" to mean "age" as an indefinite span of time. The Willson Reader had the distinction of trying to incorporate both theories, attempting to maintain a literal interpretation of Genesis while holding to an evolutionary geologic view. This points out that the basic issue still hasn't changed a whole lot.
Ultimately there is only two possibilites for the origin of the universe.
1. In the beginning dirt
2. In the beginning God
Life and the universe either created itself, or it was created. There is no other option.
There are offshots of the two however,
1. Macroevolution-
Molecules to man. Atheistic.
2.Theistic Evolution-
God intervened and helped evolution along. Unbelief in a literal Genesis.
3. The Gap Theory-
Theistic. Ruin-reconstruction.
4. Day-Age Theory-
Theistic. Long ages instead of days.
5. Literal Six Day Creation-
Theistic. No attempt to reconcile evolution with the Bible.
These theories or combinations of them are the only alternatives. For example, the idea that space aliens imported life from another planet is really another version of macroevolution, with the time factor pushed back into oblivion.
In 1884, L. T. Townsend wrote a book called "The Bible and The Nineteenth Century." In it, he offered quite a bit of wisdom which we could apply today2
"From very early times to the present, men have declared that the teachings of the Bible--not its supposed, but its actual teachings--and the teachings of science are in conflict. And we are willing to admit that Bible-writers and scientific men more than once have not been in agreement.
But this admission does not with it the confession that the Bible is necessarily wrong. For, if science were wrong and the Bible right, there would be a conflict just the same as if the reverse were true. Does anyone suppose that science has always been free from error, or always in agreement with itself?
"It is now thirty-five years' says Sharon Turner, 'since my attention was turned to these considerations. It was then the fashion of science, and of a large part of the educated world, to rush into a disbelief of all written revelation: and several geological speculations were directed against the Bible. But I have lived to see the most hostile of these destroyed.' At the date here referred to, there were conflicts between the teachings of science and those of the Bible; that is the errors of science and the truths of the Bible. The Bible can hardly be condemned for not harmonizing with error, though the error is in strictest scientific garb, and is supported by able scientific authorities.
Dr. Townsend continues to caution the reader that many scientific opinions of the day were not established, and could change with further research.
"We must not, therefore, decide matters hastily. We must be sure at least of two things, before pronouncing against the correctness of biblical statement; namely, correctness of interpretation and the firm establishment of scientific fact.
Had this rule governed skeptical thought and expression during the last half century, much that has been said against the Bible would not have been spoken."
Why haven't we learned from the mistakes of the past? Every time scientists find a new fossil, we think it is proof that life evolved. But if we examine the evidence closely and start with different assumptions, we find that the evidence is not in conflict with the Bible, but with evolution. An example is the so-called horse series, which on the surface appears to prove evolution. Closer examination finds evidence contradicting evolution.
These creationist world views compromised with certain aspects of evolution by examining the wording and interpretation of Genesis to make it fit the concept of long ages. In recent times, though, creation scientists reject long ages because of the scientific evidence, not because of theology. There is no need to warp scripture to fit a warped science. A brief examination of the Gap Theory and the Day-Age theory reveal many scientific and theological problems.
PROBLEMS WITH THE
DAY-AGE THEORY
The attempt to make the word "day" referring to the six days of creation mean an "age" millions of years long fails many important tests. Some of the numerous objections to this theory follows:3
1 If the Hebrew word "yom" meant "age" instead of "day", why did the phrase "evening and morning" appear in the account? It would be hard to put an evening and a morning on an age. The word was clearly defined when it was first used, when in Genesis 1:5 it referred to an evening and a morning.
2. In Exodus 20:11, the Scripture says that "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." This reference is from the Ten Commandments, where God commanded rest on the seventh day. The verse can't refer to six "ages" and the Sabbath "day" using the same word to mean two different things in the same sentence.
3. If the writer of Genesis wanted to convey the idea of long ages, he could have used the word "olam" meaning a long indefinite span of time, instead of "yom."
If the main purpose of the day-age theory is to try to fit the geologic ages into the six days of creation, there are so many contradictions between the two accounts that it fails miserably, even if a Biblical paraphrase would permit it. Compare the two accounts:
BIBLICAL ACCOUNT(B)
EVOLUTION(B)
B- Earth covered with water from the beginning.
E- Water gradually oozed out of the interior over long ages.
Genesis 1:7 speaks of a firmament separating two expanses of water.
Completely rejects this concept.
B-First life was on land.
E-Life was in the Oceans.
B-Fruit trees developed first, then fish.
E-Fish and other marine organisms developed before fruit trees.
B-One of the first created animals mentioned in the Bible was the whale (Genesis 1:21).
E-The first organisms were the protozoa.
B-Animals reproduced "after its kind".
E-Slow ascent of all organisms from a common ancestor.
B-Six days of creation.
E-No such six fold division occurs in the geologic record.
The book, "Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science" by Henry M. Morris outlines many additional problems created when people try to reconcile the six days of creation with long ages. Even if the "day" mentioned in Genesis was "as a thousand years," six thousand years isn't enough time to fit the geologic ages. Even six million years won't work. The natural reading of Scripture just does not permit this interpretation.
THE GAP THEORY
The gap theory trys to fit five billion years of earth history between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Proponents of this theory suggest that God destroyed the original earth ruled by Satan with a great cataclysm and became "without form and void" as described in Genesis 1:2.
Like the day-age theory, the gap theory has significant problems. For example:
1.Why would a five billion year history of the earth be ignored by the writers of scripture?
2. If there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, why would Genesis 1:2 start with the word "and", implying a direct connection between the two?
3. The gap theory hinges on the redefinition of the word "was" in Genesis 1:2 to "became". Neither the general usage of the Hebrew word nor the context indicates that this is the case.
4. Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:11 both say that God made the heavens at the same time He made the earth. Since "heavens" were mentioned only in the first verse, it implys that the two verses are connected.
5. There is no mention in scripture that Satan's fall in heaven produced a cataclysm here on earth. Satan was only "cast to the earth" after his fall (Ezekiel 28:17). In fact, how could everything be "very good" after the six days of creation if Satan was roaming the earth then? Satan's fall quite likely occurred after Genesis 1:31, when everything was still "good", and Genesis 3:1, when he appeared to Eve.
6. Since the theory of evolution and the concept of long ages is highly dependent on the concept of uniformitarianism and the gradual accumulation of strata and fossils over a period of millions of years, the Gap Theory cataclysm comes in direct conflict with the assumptions of the dating methods it is trying to reconcile itself with. A cataclysm resulting from the judgment of God would have produced quick burial of all of the fossils at once, rather than an accumulation over millions of years.
7. Just how many millenia did plants live (created "day" 3) without sunlight (created "day" 4), which all land plants are dependent upon for light, warmth, reproduction, photosynthesis, and their day/night cycles?
Many plants are almost totally dependent upon insects for pollenization and reproduction. Some also depend on birds and animals. Such plants could not have survived for more than a single life cycle much less millions of years (again, plants came on "day" 3, insects day "6"... millions/billions of years later?).
God did not "give every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth..." as food for "all the beast... birds... creatures... [and] everything that has the breath of life in it..." until day 6. Why would God wait millions/billions of years to declare this? The phrase "And it was so" seems to indicate that it was at the moment that God spoke that this law was established for both man and beast.
There is no need to presume a flood of Noah provides an adequate explanation for the fossil record.
Just like the day-age theory, the gap theory creates more problems than it solves. Instead of satisfying science, it introduces more contradictions and difficulties. Note the following comparison:
1.GAP THEORY
2.PROBLEMS
1.World wide cataclysm before the flood.
2.Nothing in geologic record or The Bible that says this.
1.Attributes most fossils to the pre-world.
2.Most fossils are identical to those found in the present world.
1.Teaches the existence of pre-Adamic men.
2.Bible teaches Adam was the "first man" (I Corinthians 15:47).
1.Does not resolve the problem of evolution, but just pushes it back before the Creation.
2.Indicates that God changed his method from evolution to creation.
1.World wide cataclysm before Adam.
2.Geologic ages would be eliminated. There would also be no room for the flood of Noah.
Obviously, the day-age and gap theories do not accomplish what they set out originally to do. I believe these two theories have set back the cause of Christ because they have allowed compromise with the theory of evolution. These two theories may satisfy some who are content with a cursory reading of scripture and want a quick and easy explanation. But to those who are serious about finding the truth, no agreement between evolution and scripture is possible.
The ramifications of this conclusion are far reaching. If we cannot reconcile the theory of evolution to scripture, it means that more than a century of scientific reasoning has been in error.
How could this be in this age of enlightenment?
I believe that it is for religious reasons, not scientific, that the theory of evolution with its long ages has been embraced. With the theory of evolution, mankind has found the means in which to push God out of the picture, or way back in eons of time where he can forget Him. The motivation behind this is so strong that it often results in people becoming very hostile and sometimes violent when confronted with scientific evidence contradicting their theory. Christians must come to grips with the fact that evolution is diametrically opposed to their faith.
REFERENCES
1Willson, Marcius. "The Fifth Reader of the School and Family Series." Harper Brothers. New York. 1865.
2Townsend, L.T. "The Bible and Other Ancient Literature in the Nineteenth Century." Chautaugua Press. New York. 1884.
3Morris, Henry M. "Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science." Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. Phillipsburg, NJ. 1970.
Is evolution science and creation religion?
We can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today's Creation repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events.(26)
There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation. Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.
Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.
The important question is not 'Is it science?' We can just define 'science' to exclude everything that we don't like, as evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said:
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
</font>
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't science about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:
<font color="blue"> [ QUOTE ]
Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective 'scientific method', with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.'
[/ QUOTE ] </font>
So the fundamentally important question is, 'which worldview (bias) is correct?', because this will determine the correctness of the conclusions from the data.
Does debunking evolution, mean creation?
Yes!
As stated earlier there are only two options.
1. Life created itself.
2. Life was created.
All other theories are simply off shoots of the two above scenarios.
Considering there is only two options, if theory one can be shown to be extremely unsound, then theory two becomes so overwhelmingly convincing it is the ouly rational philosophy.
Events of the past, such as the origins of life, are ultimately untestable by science. Science can never absolutely prove anything regarding these matters and thus any belief, no matter how scientific one may think it to be, requires some measure of faith.(25)
Science can, however, disprove hypotheses which are internally contradictory or go against the laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, or geological evidence. Accordingly, a belief that life arose naturally on earth can be effectively disproven, to the point that anybody who chooses to believe in it can be shown to be holding great amounts of faith. At this point, one must ask the more personal and philosophical question, why?
The basic idea behind the chemical origins of life is that simple molecules became more complex molecules which eventually allowed the first auto-catalytic self-reproducing molecule to exist. Many would define the chemical origins of life as the existence of a single molecule that was not only able to replicate on its own, but could produce any molecules necessary to facilitate that replication.
1. Could the soup have ever been produced?
In the 1950's, Stanley Miller appeared to have found a way to make some of the ingredients of the soup by "zapping" a mixture of H2, HCN, H2O, CH4, CHO, and NH3 gasses with an an electric spark. The first time Miller got nothing but brown tar but after more experiments he has obtained (albeit often in very small amounts) at least 19 of the 20 amino acids upon which life is built. Furthermore, it has been found that comets and carbonacous asteroids, which are thought to have been constantly bombarding the earth early in its history, can contain appreciable amounts of organic molecules. All this looks promising at first when trying to build up an ancient storehouse of pre-biotic organic chemicals.
However, the cake-baking analogy from above analogy now holds quite true! Just as a baker adds the proper ingredients to bake a cake, so the researchers designed their pre-biotic synthesis experiments in such a way as to get the sought-after organic molecules. Methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3), were chosen not because they were actually thought to be a part of the early atmosphere but rather because they are essential to the production of the proper amino acids and gave the desired results. Even Stanley Miller admits that "it is assumed that amino acids more complex than glycene were required for the origin of life, then these results indicate a need for CH4 (methane) in the atmosphere"7. Whether or not these gasses actually simulated any real conditions on earth is a question they were far from asking. They just wanted to see if they could produce the right molecules using various contrived mixtures of gasses. Given the simple molecules they were trying to synthesize, these experiments are little more than simple exercises in organic chemistry and literally say nothing about the chemical origins of life.
"Miller-experiments" only work with gasses which would have formed a chemically reducing atmosphere (one with gasses which tend to lose electrons during chemical reactions). No free oxygen can be used in Miller experiments, however, in the absence of oxygen, there would be absolutely nothing to protect the pre-biotic chemicals from destruction by UV radiation, which is thought to have been 100 times stronger on the early earth than it is today14. Today, we all have heard that ozone in the atmosphere protects life from harmful UV radiation. However, ozone is composed of oxygen which is the very gas that Stanley Miller-type experiments avoided, for it prevents the synthesis of organic molecules like the ones obtained from the experiments!
Pre-biotic synthesis now finds itself in "****ed if you do, ****ed if you don't" scenario:
1. Pre-biotic synthesis can only take place in a reducing atmosphere, but that very fact would guarantee the destruction of highly sensitive pre-biotic chemicals by UV rays.
2. You could protect the molecules with oxygen, but in doing so you'd eliminate any chance of their production in the first place.8
The primordial soup cannot be dilute, but must be rich in amino acids and other organic molecules, allowing for many (nearly infinite) random chemical interactions to lessen the improbability of life's origin. Not only would UV radiation destroy any molecules that were made, but their own short lifespans would also greatly limit their numbers. For example, at 100ºC (boiling point of water), the half lives of the nucleic acids Adenine and Guanine are 1 year, Uracil is 12 years, and Cytozine is 19 days8 (nucleic acids and other important proteins such as chlorophyl and hemoglobin have never been synthesized in origins-of-life type experiments17, but we'll forget about that for now). Such short-lived molecules could never be stockpiled, even if they could be produced naturally. For this reason, Miller proposed a cold origins of life (for at 0ºC their half-lives jump about 1 million years) even though at that temperature Ribose, a sugar which helps build DNA, has a half-life of 44 years5, and Cytozine a half life of 17,000 years8. The catch, once again, is that mathematical calculations based upon models for earth's formation say that back then the earth was an extremely hot place! Who eats cold soup anyways? This is another example where the conditions of the early earth are assumed because they are the only ones which allow for the chemical origins of life, not because there is any actual evidence for them.
Another problem facing the soup is the fact that all biological organic molecules must somehow acquire the proper "handedness", known as "chirality." Amino acids can either exist in a "right-handed" form, or in the mirror image "left-handed" form. From the standpoint of doing chemistry, left-handed molecules are no different than right-handed ones. Yet, for some unknown reason, life uses only left-handed molecules amino acids. At what point did life begin to discriminate between right and left handed molecules? There is no known chemical reaction which "weeds out" the "right" from the "left" for all known chemical reactions produce more or less "racmic mixtures," of 1/2 right and 1/2 left handed molecules. As one scientist stated, "the basis for the origin of biomelecular chirality still remains obscure9".
Oh yeah, and what about building a soup by comets and asteroids? This hypothesis has been refuted by many authors who have shown that organic carbon could not be delivered in large amounts to the early earth because it would be generally superheated and destroyed during impact13.
2. Is there any geochemical evidence that the soup ever existed?
There isn't a shred of geological evidence left in the rocks that a primordial soup ever existed. If there was ever a soup, the earliest precambrian rocks should contain high levels of non-biological carbon, for biologically produced carbon contains an excess of "isotopically light" carbon. Ancient sedimentary rocks, however, do not reveal this signature10, and thus there is no positive evidence for this soup.
There is also no evidence that the methane-ammonia atmosphere necessary for prebiotic synthesis ever existed10, 11. If if it had, then the rocks thought to be from that time period ougth to contain an "unusually large proportion of carbon or organic chemicals"11, which they do not11. It has also been shown that even a significant quantity of ammonia in the primitive atmosphere would have been destroyed within 30,000 years by UV rays11 and methane within a few tens of years16. In fact, the geological evidence actually seems to point to a predominantly CO2 atmosphere11, however "Miller-experiments" using CO2 have produced no amino acids other than small quantities of Glycine15. Many have thought that the early atmosphere was produced by intense volcanic activity on the earth, but magma tends to release only N2, CO2, and H2 gasses, not methane or ammonia16. Since the ammonia-methane atmosphere never existed, there is no way to create a soup. Some have even suggested that even if there was an ammonia-methane atmosphere, it wouldn't have produced a soup, but rather an oil slick perhaps up to 10 m thick12. If there was a 10 meter thick sludge of carbon enveloping the entire earth, where is the evidence of it? Some have claimed that there isn't any evidence for it becuase once life evolved, it consumed the entire prebiotic storehouse of molecules and left no trace of its existence. This convenient explanation fails, for rocks would have been formed on the earth during the time of the soup, but before the supposed origin of life, thus preserving a record of the primodial organics. There is no evidence, however, of these primordial organics.
So drastic is the evidence against pre-biotic synthesis, that in 1990 the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended to scientists a "reexamination of biological monomer synthesis under primintive Earthlike environments, as revealed in current models of the early Earth"16.
Many speculate that given a primordial soup, the chemical origins of life does not seem quote so improbable. However, it would appear that the existence of the primordial soup itself may have been greatly improbable. For as second, let's reason like the scientists do: The primordial soup seems necessary for life's natural origin, life evolved naturally, therefore the primordial soup must have existed! Unfortunately, the converse is also true. If the primordial soup is necessary for life's origin, but the soup didn't exist, than life didn't arise naturally. Assuming, for a second, that the primordial soup did come to exist, we are now ready to analyze the second major step in the chemical origins of life: could the molecules in the soup have come together to make larger, more complex molecules.
Many of the origins of life scenarios are falsifiable, and, given the evidence, are most likely false. Other theories are completely unfalsifiable, exposing the fact that they are only promoted due to philosphy, not scientific evidence. Despite all this, the natural chemical origins of life on earth is still taught, researched, and funded by the government as if it were a legitimate scientific enterprise. All this is owed to the naturalistic philosophy of science2, and what I think is a little too much late-night science fiction reading. However, even the staunchest evolutionists will usually admit that no one is even close to explaining how DNA-based life could arise from nonliving materials, and when pressed, do not usually try to impose their views regarding the origins of life upon the "unbeliever." One wonders, then, why almost every high school textbook and introductory college biology class teaches that the natural chemical origins of life took place about 3-4 billion years ago in, as Charles Darwin first said, some "warm little pond".
Is evolution science?
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="green"> Given so much time,
the "impossible" becomes possible,
The possible probable,
And the probable virtually certain,
One only has to wait:
Time itself performs the miracles."
(Wald, G. (1954), Scientific American) </font>
[/ QUOTE ]
Here time is given magical supernatral properties.
Science rightly deals with the present state of nature and the processes, which presently operate, in nature. Creationists and evolutionists agree precisely when dealing with these issues, (i.e., with science). All agree on the nature of the genetic code or the array of fossils, or the laws of physics, biology, and chemistry. How then can there be such disagreement about the past?
This present/past issue is the crux of the creation/evolution controversy. No scientist had direct access to the past all are locked in the present, studying the evidence, which exists in the present, observing the processes, which operate in the present. Science is limited to the present. It is not illegitimate for a scientist to attempt to reconstruct the past to try to answer the question, "What happened in the past to make the present get to be this way?" But, clearly, that is not the same thing as empirical science. Both evolution and creation are historical reconstructions, not observations.
As creationists, we insist that we cannot scientifically prove creation or disprove evolution. Both are ways of thinking schemes by which we can interpret present data. All we can do is study the evidence in the present and see which historical reconstruction is more likely correct.
Present data include the incredible design of living systems which, look for the entire world as if they were "manufactured" by an intelligent designer, and not the random by-product of chance processes. We have the universal Second Law of Thermodynamics, which shows that things become more disordered through time, not more complex, as evolution insists. We see no clue in the fossil record that any basic category of animal ever came from any other basic category. And on and on.
These scientific observations fit well with the creation model, but not at all well with the evolution model. We cannot scientifically prove or disprove either creation or evolution, mainly because we don't have direct access to the past, but we can assert that creation is better the one most likely correct.
But creationists have another advantage. Even though we can't "study the past," we can study the record of One who was an active eyewitness throughout the past, who can accurately communicate His thoughts and deeds, and whose Word is true.
1. Life Itself, by Francis Crick (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981) and Directed Panspermia by F. H. C Crick and L. E. Orgel, Icarus 19:341-346 (1973)
2. "it is the job of science to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena"
(Science and Creationism, a view from the National Academy of Sciences (2nd edition), Nat Acad Press, 1999. Pg. 20. At "http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/")
3. Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Hubert P. Yockey, 1992, Cambridge University Press. The reader is encouraged to check out chapters 8-10 for a good discussion of the problems with the natural chemical origins of life. This book is available from the UCSD Libraries.
4. "Creationists have looked forward to the day when science may actually create a "living" thing from simple chemicals. They claim, and rightly so, that even if such a man-made life form could be created, this would not prove that natural life forms were developed by a similar chemical evolutionary process. The scientist understands this and plods on testingtheories."
(Stansfield, William D. [Professor of Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic State University], "The Science of Evolution," [1977], Macmillan: New York NY, 1983, Eighth Printing, pp10-11)
5. Statments made by Stanley Miller at a talk given by him for a UCSD Origins of Life seminar class on January 19, 1999 (the talk was attended and notated by the author of this article).
6. Overman, Dean L. "Case against Accident and Self-Organization" (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997) The reader is encouraged to read Parts III and IV for a good non-technical discussion of problems facing the natural chemical origins of life.
7. Stanley Miller as quoted in Origins: A skeptics guide to the Creation of Life on Earth by Robert Shapiro (New York: Sion and Schuster, Summit Books, 1986), pg. 112.
8. Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Md.: Adler and Adler, 1985), pg. 261).
8. Levy, Matthew and Stanley Miller. The Stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life. Proceedings of National Academy of Science, USA (Vol. 95, pg. 7933-7938).Darwin, Charles (1898). The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol II, p. 202. New York: D. Appleton.
9. Bonner, William A. "Origin and Amplifications of Biomolecular Chirality"
10. Schopf, J. William in Exobiology (edited by Cyril Ponnamperuma), North-Holland Publishing Company: Amsterdam-London, 1972 in the Precambrian paleobiology chapter, Pg. 27.
11. Abelson, Philip H. "Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth," from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol 55 Pg. 1365-1372 (1966).
12. Lasaga, Antonio, H. D. Holland, M. J. Dwyer. "Primordial Oil Slick". Science vol 174, Oct 4, 1971 pg. 53-55.
13. Anders, Edward. "Pre-biotic organic matter from comets and asteroids." Nature, Vol 342, November 16, 1989 pg. 255-257.
14. Canuto V. M., Levine, J. S., Augustsson, T. R., Imhoff, C. L., Giampapa, M. S. "The young Sun and the atmosphere and photochemistry of the early Earth". Nature Vol 305, September 22, 1983, pg. 281-286.
15. Schlesinger, Gordon and Stanley. L Miller. "Prebiotic Synthesis in Atmospheres Containing CH4, CO, and CO2." Journal of Molecular Evolution, Vol 19 pg. 376-382 (1983).
16. The Search for Life's Origins. National Research Council Space tudies Board, National Academy Press: Washington D.C., 1990, pg. 66, 67, 126)
17. Brooks J., "Origins of Life," Lion: Tring, Hertfordshire UK, 1985, p.87
18. Vaneechoutte, M., The scientific origin of life. Considerations on the evolution of information, leading to an alternative proposal for explaining the origin of the cell, a semantically closed system. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 901, 139,2000.
19. Safarti, Jonathan. "Self-Replicating Enzymes?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 11(1):4-6, 997. Also available at fix this!!!
20. Tjivikua, T., Balester, P. and Rebek, J., Jr., 1990. A Self-Replicating System. J. Amer. Chem. Soc., 112(3):1249-50.
21. Lee, D. H., Granja, J. R., Martinez, J. A., Severin, K., and Ghadiri, M., R., 1996. A self-replicating peptide. Nature 382:525-528 ...also see Nature 382:496-497.
22. Maynard Smith, John [Emeritus Professor of Biology at the University of Sussex] & Szathmary, Eors Day = Day[/b]
[i]11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
This is a simplistic yet viatal concept.
In six days God did a few things.
made the heaven
made the earth
the sea
and everything in them
How many days? For in six days
That is pretty easy to follow. God laid out specifically in Genesis what exactly occured in this scheme in which precise day.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20011207_95.jpg
Order of Creation in Christian and Jewish Biblical Records
(book of Genesis 1-2)
Day One-
Watery, formless planet Earth suspended in the darkness and void of space (no stars, no sun, no moon, no planets - except for Earth).
Light.
Separation of light from the darkness - and the first indication that the planet is rotating (day and night cycle produced).
Day Two-
Formation of Earth's atmosphere, separating the water into two parts:
(a) oceanic and subterranean water
(b) atmospheric water.
Day Three-
Dry land and oceans.
System to water the entire land surface using subterranean waters (involving springs or mist, or both).
Vegetation, seed-bearing plants, trees that bear fruit.
Garden of Eden (probably).
Day Four-
Sun
Moon - complete with established orbit so as to mark passage of time (months, seasons, and years).
Stars and other planets.
Day Five-
Water creatures of all kinds. (All that had "the breath of life" were vegetarian.)
Birds (all vegetarian).
Day Six-
Land animals (all vegetarian): (a) creatures that move close to the ground (small animals), (b) large animals, and (c) animals of use to man as livestock.
Man.
Woman (saving the best for last).
So how long is a day? Many would like day in quotes.
The first question needs to be why wouldn't day mean day?
Is it because of something we legitimately read from the bible? Or is it something we need to "fit" millions of years in the bible.
I surmise it is option two.
The Word day, is used 2031 times in the Old Testament, yet the only place it is questioned is in Genesis one.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20011228_98.jpg
Evolutionists sometimes accuse Creationists of believing that the whole Bible should be taken literally. This is not so!
Rather, the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion. This is not as difficult as it may seem, as the Bible obviously contains:
Poetry - as in the Psalms, where the repetition or parallelism of ideas is in accordance with Hebrew ideas of poetry, without the rhyme (parallelism of sound) and metre (parallelism of time) that are important parts of traditional English poetry. This, by the way, is the reason that the Psalms can be translated into other languages and still retain most of their literary appeal and poetic piquancy, while the elements of rhyme and metre are usually lost when traditional Western poetry is translated into other languages.
Parables - as in many of the sayings of Jesus, such as the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:3-23), which Jesus Himself clearly states to be a parable, and in which He gives meanings for the various items, such as the seed and the soil.
Prophecy - as in the books of the last section of the Old Testament (Isaiah to Malachi).
Letters - as in the New Testament epistles written by Paul, Peter, John, and others.
Biography - as in the Gospels.
Autobiography/Testimony - as in the book of Acts where the author, Luke, after narrating the Apostle Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus as a historical fact (Acts 9:1-19), then describes two further occasions when Paul included this conversion experience as part of his own personal testimony (Acts 22:1-21; 26:1-22).
Authentic historical facts - as in the books of 1 and 2 Kings, etc.
Thus the author's intention with respect to any book of the Bible is usually made clear from the style and the content. If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened.
Are any of these chapters poetry? To answer this question we need to examine in a little more depth just what is involved in the parallelism of ideas that constitutes Hebrew poetry.
Let us consider Psalm 1:1, which reads as follows: 'Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.' Here we see triple parallelism in the nouns and verbs used (reading downwards in the following scheme):
walketh counsel ungodly
standeth way sinners
sitteth seat scornful
As well as this overt parallelism, there is also a covert or subtle progression of meaning. In the first column, 'walketh' suggests short-term acquaintance, 'standeth' implies readiness to discuss, and 'sitteth' speaks of long-term involvement. In the second column, 'counsel' betokens general advice, 'way' indicates a chosen course of action, and 'seat' signifies a set condition of mind. In the third column, 'ungodly' describes the negatively wicked, 'sinner' characterizes the positively wicked, and 'scornful' portrays the contemptuously wicked.
Other types of Hebrew poetry include contrastive parallelism, as in Proverbs 27:6, 'Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful', and completive parallelism, as in Psalm 46:1, 'God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in time of need.' [3].
And so we return to our question. Are any of the first 11 chapters of Genesis poetry?
Answer: No, because these chapters do not contain information or invocation in any of the forms of Hebrew poetry, in either overt or covert form, and because Hebrew scholars of substance are agreed that this is so (see below).
Note: There certainly is repetition in Genesis chapter 1, e.g. 'And God said . . .' occurs 10 times; 'and God saw that it was good/very good' seven times; 'after his/their kind' 10 times; 'And the evening and the morning were the . . . day' six times. However, these repetitions have none of the poetic forms discussed above; rather they are statements of fact and thus a record of what happened, and possibly for emphasis - to indicate the importance of the words repeated.
Are any of these chapters parables? No, because when Jesus told a parable He either said it was a parable, or He introduced it with a simile, so making it plain to the hearers that it was a parable, as on the many occasions when He said, 'The kingdom of heaven is like . . . .' No such claim is made or style used by the author of Genesis 1-11.
Are any of these chapters prophecy? Not in their full context, although two promises of God are prophetic in the sense that their fulfilment would be seen in the future. One of these is Genesis 3:15, which was the pronouncement by God to the serpent (Satan) in metaphorical form: 'And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.' (NASB). Many have interpreted the 'seed' in this verse as the Messiah, including most evangelicals and even the Jewish Targums [4] hence the Talmudic expression 'heels of the Messiah' [5].
The Messiah would suffer wounds to His feet (on the Cross), but would completely destroy Satan's power. This verse also hints at the Virginal Conception, as the Messiah is called the seed of the woman, contrary to the normal Biblical practice of naming the father rather than the mother of a child (cf. Genesis chapters 5 and 11, 1 Chronicles chapters 1-9, Matthew chapter 1, Luke 3:23-38).
The other is Genesis 8:21-22 and 9:11-17,
'And the LORD said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake . . . and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.'
Are any of these chapters letters, biography, or autobiography/ personal testimony? This is where we need to consider some of the subscripts mentioned above.
If Adam knew the events of Creation Days 1-6, they must have been revealed to him by God, as Adam was not made until Day 6, and so he could have known them only if God had told him. This view is reinforced by the words, 'These are the generations of [NIV: 'This is the account of'] the heavens and of the earth when they were created . . .' in Genesis 2:4a. The details of Day 7, the rest day, are included before this in Genesis 2:2-3, thereby completing (as we might expect) the record of a full seven-day week, before this subscript or closing signature appears.
Is Genesis 1-11 record of authentic historical facts?
Yes!