I am just making a comment on multiple articles i have read on the topic of evolution on your site. I myself am a dedicated Christian; however, i also believe in evolution. This is due to my extreme interest in the whole debate which has raged about the topic for many many years, and being a zookeeper and animal trainer i felt i should personally educate myself as much as i could in the subject. The article which is based around proof of creation and presumptions, i think, is quite a shallow inlook to the situation. First of all, if this was the case the greater influence to evolutionary thinking, Charles Darwin would have never hypothesised natural selection, as he was a theological student and a dedicated christian at the time of his journey on the beagle. Also saying that because evolution theory has been constantly re written and the bible is not we should trust the bible, all it shows is that evolution is willing to move with the times and evidence.
Thank you,
—C.C., Australia

A Primary Issue

I just wanted to share a short story. I am a pastor’s wife and and Bible study leader—have been leading studies for almost 25 years. Recently, I ignorantly tacked on a 5-week study on creation at the end of the “year.” We just needed something short to fill in for the month of May. Was I in for the shock of my life. 50–75 ladies who are rooted and grounded in the faith with such differing opinions as to how the world began has left me speechless. Most of them said they had “never thought about it,” and many of them went home and shared what they were learning with their husbands and were literally forbidded to return. Some of them went to their own pastors, and now I somehow have been labeled intolerant of scientific facts by many of them. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine such an onslaught of criticism and judgment over a literal 6-day creation and a young earth from people who call themselves conservative Christians. Please pray for me that my attitude would be loving.

—A.J., U.S.

Always in Mind

I love your website . . . [and] I look forward to reading your well presented and researched material. Keep up the good work. Just like going to church each Sunday, your material is well founded in Scripture, and it is necessary for us sinful people to constantly be reminded to give glory to our Creator and change our ways! Well done again. God bless you all—especially your founder Ken Ham!

—A.B., U.K.

Have Something to Add?

Let us know what you think.

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. I want to encourage you to read Genesis and meditate on it because it simply doesn’t mix with evolution. Years ago, I considered mixing them—more specifically, millions of years with the Bible. Regardless of how much I studied, it didn’t work. So, I know where you are coming from.

I am commenting below to help you get started, but I’m starting with a passage from Christ in Mark that is relevant to this discussion. My comments are intended with kindness and sincerity.

I am just making a comment on multiple articles i have read on the topic of evolution on your site. I myself am a dedicated Christian; however, i also believe in evolution.

One of the problems I faced was Christ’s comments in Mark. Jesus said:

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)

If you believe Christ is Lord and are dedicated to following the Words of Jesus, then this becomes an enormous problem. According to the General Theory of Evolution, many billions of years ago the creation began, and man only evolved into the scene a few thousand years ago. Do you think that Jesus was in error and that human marriage between male and female (of which Jesus is speaking) has been around 13 or so billion years?

Jesus, the Creator, made it clear that the first marriage between man and woman (Adam and Eve) came at the beginning of creation. Tallying up the genealogies, Jesus was speaking about 4000 years after this creation. So, let’s look at this in chart form:

Timeline of history

If the days in Genesis are regular solar days and Jesus was speaking about 4000 years later, then, yes, the first marriage on Day 6 was at the beginning of creation. If the earth is indeed billions of years old, then the first male and female came nowhere near the beginning of creation. This is a major theological problem. Either Christ is a liar in that view, or Christ told the truth and man-made evolution is a lie.

Those who religiously believe in evolutionary time over God’s Word have tried to respond:

  1. Some say biblical creationists have the same problem by appealing to Mark 10:6 as not being Day 1 of creation.
  2. Some insert words in the Bible to change the meaning (e.g. “beginning of the creation of marriage”).
  3. Some suggest that beginning is referring to an entire figurative “6-day” creation period or Creation Week,
    regardless of its length.

Looking at point 1: The argument incorrectly makes the assumption that the “beginning of creation” means the “first day of creation.” The Bible doesn’t say Day 1 of creation; it says the beginning of the creation.

If one were to watch a movie, like Expelled, and then tell a friend about the beginning of the movie, would that consist of the first word or frame of the movie only? Absolutely not; it would be a range of time surrounding the beginning of the movie and the events that get the movie going. Jesus’ statement was reasonable and accurate, and any view of an old earth clearly falls flat.

Even if an “old earther” were to try to use point 1, then they are conceding that Jesus would be wrong. Can Jesus err? No. If Jesus can err, then perhaps Jesus erred in passages concerning salvation. If this were the case, then it undermines the gospel and deity of Christ.

Looking at point 2: Who is fallible sinful mankind to try to add to Scripture to “correct” God? Sadly, when I hear someone add to Scripture in order to make it align with personal views, I think of Jehovah’s Witnesses treatment of John 1.

Jehovah’s Witnesses view Jesus as a created archangel, named Michael. So John 1, becomes a major problem for Jehovah’s Witnesses because Jesus, the Word, is the Creator of all things. So, they change the Scriptures to align with their viewpoint:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 NKJV)
Jehovah’s Witness change: In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (John 1:1 NWT)

Notice how the change is that the Word was “a god” as opposed to “God.” Sadly, this is done to change the Bible to conform to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ fallible theology. When people take Mark 10:6 and change it to conform to mankind’s fallible theology, then what is the difference? Don’t mistake what I’m saying here; “old earthers” are still saved as long as Jesus is their Savior, but their tack is the same as Jehovah’s Witnesses. Please see The god of an Old Earth. Conforming ourselves to what Scripture says should be the goal of a Christian, not trying to change the meaning of Scripture.

Looking at point 3: If one goes on to conclude that “from the beginning of creation” (and likewise “from the beginning” in Matthew 19:4) means “all of the creative period, regardless of its length” then this implies 13–14 billion years of time in the “creative period,” which is the beginning, middle, and end of the creation!

It is strange that one would think that 13 billion years or so have passed and that all of it is the beginning of creation—and now suddenly we are at the end after a few “measly” thousand years. Going back to our movie illustration, this would be akin to telling someone that the end was the last one second of a movie and that the other two hours of it were only the beginning.

Biblical creationists can say that the first six days are all part of the beginning of creation—and we can rightly argue this; an old earth creationist can’t. Dr. Mortenson offers an excellent defense of why Mark 10:6, should not be changed. Please see But from the Beginning of . . . the Institution of Marriage?

I encourage you to trust Jesus over evolution stories.

This is due to my extreme interest in the whole debate which has raged about the topic for many many years, and being a zookeeper and animal trainer i felt i should personally educate myself as much as i could in the subject. The article which is based around proof of creation and presumptions, i think, is quite a shallow inlook to the situation.

I’m not sure which article you are referring to, but the fact is that nothing makes sense without the Bible, and evolution has no basis in the Bible. Please see Evolution: The Anti-science.

First of all, if this was the case the greater influence to evolutionary thinking, Charles Darwin would have never hypothesised natural selection, as he was a theological student

Darwin didn’t originally hypothesize natural selection; he merely gave it a name. Darwin was well aware of creationist Edward Blyth, who published several papers on the subject 20–25 years before. The idea was around before both of them, though.

You are correct: Darwin was not a scientist, but a theologian. I find it ironic that evolutionists often criticize creationists for saying anything outside of their field of study, and yet they do not question Darwin who spoke about biology.

and a dedicated christian at the time of his journey on the beagle.

I seriously doubt Darwin ever gave his life to Christ. If he was saved, how could he walk away from Christ (Isaiah 43:10-1; John 10:28-30; 1 John 2:15-20; John 6:40:37–40). Studying Scripture, and even a theology degree, won’t get anyone into heaven. Jesus Christ is the only way (John 14:6).

Darwin described himself as an agnostic at best and even published that man, while evolving, invented the concept of God. Darwin wrote:

“What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates . . . . In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”1

Fluctuation about whether there is a God or not has little to do with salvation, which is found in no other name under heaven than Christ (Acts 4:12).

Also saying that because evolution theory

“Theory”? Evolution is not a theory; it is a failed hypothesis at best as its coherence leaves much to be desired.

has been constantly re written and the bible is not we should trust the bible, all it shows is that evolution is willing to move with the times and evidence.

So are you saying that the Bible shouldn’t be trusted? If evolution is true, then the Bible is false. Even evolutionists get this loud and clear:

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”2

Since evolution is being re-written everyday, then it should be a red flag that there is something wrong with that belief system. Why add that belief system to the Bible? Would we want a Bible that changed or a God that did (Psalm 119:89; Hebrews 13:8)? The issue is simple: if you can’t fully understand how God can create in six days as opposed to the atheistic belief in millions of years, then grant God the honor of being more learned than you are.

It is time to stop trusting in the “religion of the day,” and get back to the authority of the Word of God.

With kindness in Christ,

Bodie Hodge

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes

  1. Letter addressed to Mr. J. Fordyce, and published by him in his “Aspects of Scepticism” (1883) in Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Including an Autobiographical Chapter, Volume 1, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John Murray, 1887). See also The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online. Back
  2. G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist, 20 September, 1979, p. 30. Back