August 15, 2003, Vol.3, No.16.
Two new articles every two weeks.
Bible Question? E-mail
us.
THIS ISSUE: "Of
Rocks and Bones" (see below)
and "Of Apes and Men"
Of Rocks and Bones
guest article by A.E. Proctor
 The
science of Paleontology deals with the study of fossil deposits
found in the earth's strata. It is the companion of Historical
Geology, for the main concern of the paleontologist is the study
of the fossils preserved in the geologic column. The paleontologist
attempts to relate the various fossils into a pattern of evolution
so that the line of descent or succession from simple animals
to more complex can be charted. To do this, the so called "Law
of Faunal Succession" is used. Simply put, this "law"
states that an animal with a skeleton structure similar to another,
evolved from the less complex creature (the parent) to the more
complex organism (the child). It is assumed that the child will
have improvements in its structure compared to the parent, and
that these improvements were caused by an evolutionary response
to a change in the world (or environment) In which the parent
lived. (I want to note that this "law" is in direct
conflict with the second law of thermodynamics which states that
all things gradually decay and die. Without an external source
of organization and energy, complex structures tend to decay
to less complex structures.)
Once the line of descent has been charted, the paleontologist
determines the age of the various fossils by conferring with
the historical geologist as to the age of the strata where the
fossils were found. The geologist, in turn, uses the index fossils
in similar strata to determine the ages of the rock. (The age
of the index fossils have been specified for the geologist by
paleontologists in earlier times.) The circular reasoning used
by these men in an attempt to specify ages of millions of years
for the earth is well known to Bible scholars. Unfortunately,
the student in the classroom is not informed of this, and the
assumed nature of the ages of fossils are presented as fact with
no possibility of error.
In fact, there is much error in these assumptions. The "law"
of faunal succession is no law, but a theory that the similarity
of structure of life forms is a result of evolution and evolution
alone. An equally valid theory to account for the similarity
is that the Creator used the similar design of body suitable
for the environment in which similar creatures live. The historical
geologist and the paleontologist insist on evolution as the only
possibility, for without it, they must admit the existence of
God, the Creator.
Let's consider the consequences of the teaching of the paleontologist:
His world is a world in which death, killing and fighting for
survival are not only normal but required for the improvement
of life. A pattern of violence which has existed for millions
of years and will continue for millions of years into the future.
A world of no hope, no joy, no love, but merely killing or being
killed. Make things better for your children by swift disposal
of anything or any one who might hinder their struggle to grow
and survive. No matter how secular humanism might try to change
the image of this philosophy, this is its core. This is what
"survival of the fittest" is all about. It is, of course,
a world where there is no sin, for the things Jesus defined as
sinful are the desirable and proper works for the creatures of
the world of the paleontologist. In this world, what is wrong
is merely that which the strongest man or group of men have defined
as wrong; and it's wrong only as long as they are able to enforce
the law they have conceived. (By definition, if you do something
"wrong" and don't get caught it is acceptable.)
The Christian knows that the Bible teaches that such violence
is not what God created in the world. In the beginning God created
the world and all the creatures in it. After the creation, God
pronounced it "good" and gave it to man for his use.
There was no death, for plants and herbs were given to man and
all animals for food (Genesis 1:30). Consider the weight of that
teaching: in the beginning the lion, tiger, and all other animals
we know to be meat-eating ate only the plants and herbs. Why
do they now behave differently? Let me suggest a possibility.
All animals were under the control of man, for God gave him
dominion over them (Genesis 1:28). In the world we know today,
the teaching of this testimony may not be understood. The best
of animal trainers may have partial dominion over a tiger or
lion or other creature, but the control is never complete. If
the trainer fails to approach such an animal with caution, he
is in danger of injury or death. The dominion Adam and his sons
had was complete. They never faced any danger from any beast
from the largest to the smallest, and all animals would do anything
that man could teach them to do.
When man was tempted, and fell into sin, death came into this
perfect world, and man died spiritually, and began to die physically.
The physical decline of Adam and the death of his body was to
take 800 years, a very long time for us today. (In terms of our
time, he would have been "born" shortly after the signing
of the Magna Carta, some 423 years before the King James Bible
was first published.) His sons had equal and even longer life
spans. The first physical death among animals occurred when God
took their skins to make clothing for Adam and Eve. The first
physical death of man happened when Cain killed his brother Abel.
We are told that Jabal, a descendant of Cain, was the first
to dwell in tents and have cattle (Genesis 4:20). This, in itself,
is not remarkable, for Abel had flocks which he used for sacrifice,
clothing and milk. But God had not relaxed his requirement that
man eat a vegetarian diet but had commanded him to grow his food
as a farmer. What Jabal did was to create a lifestyle that used
the flesh of animals for food, in complete rebellion to God's
command. Man, blessed with long life, and able to use animals
under his dominion for food, was free from the hard labor of
farming. Under these conditions, it is reasonable to surmise
that some men would experiment with training and breeding of
animals for the purpose of hunting and killing game, as they
had both the leisure and many animals to use for raw material.
Those animals which God had created with tooth and claw were
very likely trained and bred to kill, furnishing meat to their
masters and for themselves. Thus, the final product of sin created
a world where all flesh had corrupted itself, and filled the
earth with violence (Genesis 6:12,13).
After God destroyed the good world He had created by the flood,
he gave Noah and his sons permission to use the flesh of animals
for food. To make sure that man would not escape his labor, he
also put the fear of man in all animals, and gave some the ability
to kill man and continue to kill and eat other animals for food.
(Genesis 9:1ff). God also placed in his law a command for man
not to use the blood of an animal or to kill another man. The
world of violence that we see, full of "kill and be killed"
did not come about as a result of some fictitious evolutionary
"force" but came from the sinful conduct of mankind
. In the sermon on the mount, Christ taught the proper conduct
of man was to love and obey God, and give of himself and his
possessions in sacrifice for others. All was to be done out of
the motive of love for God and man, that God might have the glory.
The question I hear most often concerning the fossil record
relates to the existence of dinosaurs. What then are we to understand
of the fossil record? Did the dinosaurs really exist? Were they
really as large as men say? What happened to them? The answer
is, of course they really did exist and the fossils on display
in many museums confirm their size. The error is to assume that
they could only have lived many millions of years before modern
man, and that such men as existed at that time were the prey
of these beasts. The creation model calls for a thick canopy
of water vapor over all the world before the flood. The land
masses are assumed to have been larger, and the oceans to have
been much smaller and relatively shallow compared to the world
we know today. The temperature would have been moderate over
the globe with frost and freezes unknown. Under these conditions
much of the vegetation would be tropical in nature, with large
amounts of forage for all animals. The Bible speaks of Nephilim
being in the world in that time (Genesis 6:4). Although the exact
meaning of the word is unclear, there is no doubt that the Jews
used the term to refer to men of large stature, or giants. It
would be reasonable to assume that if a nearly perfect set of
chromosomes and ideal growing conditions could lead to giants
among men, the same would be true of animals that lived so close
to the time of creation. That the dinosaur lived, we know, but
at that time it could not be a danger to man, for it was under
his dominion by the will of the Creator. Even the mighty Tyrannosaurus
Rex was subject to man and did his bidding.
Where did the dinosaurs go? They went the way of all flesh
when God destroyed the world that then was by the Flood. Did
Noah take any along in the ark? Most likely yes, but probably
not full grown adults. The world after the flood was a place
of spring, summer, fall and winter. Hot and cold were experienced
by man and beast for the first time. The dinosaur did not have
the forage or the climate to grow to his former size. Those of
the reptile kinds that did survive were able to adapt to the
world of today and live. Those that did not fell by the wayside.
(Yes, adaptation of species did occur from the root kinds of
animals in the ark, but not as evolution for this would in reality
require interbreeding among kinds to produce a new and different
kind of creature.) It is important to keep in mind that the world
we live in now was shaped by the Creator during the flood to
be suitable for man after his fall into sin. The deposits of
oil, coal and minerals which we use were formed by the force
of the Flood of Noah to preserve and protect man in his struggle
to live in a world of harsh climate and violence. It is the thesis
of the Creation Model that we can never determine from observation
and study of nature what the world before the flood was like,
because that world was completely blotted out. Oil and gas deposits
created by the flood have been found as deep as six miles below
the surface of the earth. They are mute testimony to the completeness
of destruction of the surface of that old world.
A final point to consider is the supposed law of faunal succession.
If this "law" did exist, the life in this world and
in the fossil record would show not only what we find, but would
also show many more animals who were changing from one kind to
another. Displays in museums may have skeletons grouped from
small to large (such as the display of supposed horse skeletons
in a Chicago Museum), but there are no intermediate forms to
show how an animal with toes changed to an animal with a solid
hoof. If this had truly happened, we would not only have these
skeletons, but hundreds between each one displayed showing beyond
a doubt that the "evolution" claimed really did occur.
There are no such intermediate forms and those who presented
this display knew it at the time it was created. This lack of
intermediate forms has troubled evolutionists from the time of
Darwin. In this century, some paleontologists have proposed "bursts
of evolution" that occurred so quickly there was no time
for the intermediate fossils to form. They believe in something
from their imagination with no evidence whatsoever, and accuse
those who wish to believe the testimony of God to be following
"fairy tales."
The evidence of fossils and deposits in the surface of the
earth is there for all to see. They do not prove or disprove
any theory of their existence, or how they came into being, for
they simply exist. It is the interpretation of these facts, the
attempt to build some philosophical framework to arrange the
facts, and produce a logical explanation of how the facts came
to be that is the point of argument between the evolutionist
and the creationist. The system of Evolution of the Species is
one such philosophical framework; the Creation Model is another.
Science is involved in all such frameworks when we use known
processes (Laws of Nature subject to experimental verification)
to describe a logical sequence of events; however, the use of
techniques and tools of science does not make the philosophical
framework "scientific." Unless each and every part
of the logical framework can be subject to experimental analysis,
it must remain a theory or philosophy.
The twin fields of Historical Geology and Paleontology can
never prove by use of the scientific method the assertion of
millions of years for the age of the earth and life. Extremely
detailed chronologies of how life might have evolved, and how
the strata were built up may be constructed; many eminent scholars
may spend their lifetimes adding to this structure, but unless
hard, repeatable, experimental evidence can be presented to verify
the conclusions reached, the work must remain a philosophical
structure, sustained only by the faith of those who believe in
it. All of the court battles won or lost or the number of men
who believe in the framework cannot change faith to reality.
Those who advocate the Creation Model recognize that it is
simply that, a philosophical framework constructed in an attempt
to reconcile the facts in nature with the clear teaching of the
Bible. Known processes are used in harmony with what we know.
No appeal is made to the miraculous unless the Bible teaches
it to be so. The first and second law of thermodynamics are respected.
The nature and action of the Flood of Noah and the subsequent
movement of the earth as the waters were gathered into the seas
is adequate to explain the arrangement of Earth's strata and
the fossils trapped in them.
In closing, I want to note that I am neither a Geologist nor
a Paleontologist. I do have a scientific education, and have
made a personal study of both fields, but I am not qualified
to address detailed studies in either field which seek to embroider
the theory of evolution with little or no new evidence which
is subject to verification. For me to attempt to do so would
be as presumptuous as one from these fields who attempts to dismiss
the existence of a Creator with little or no knowledge of the
Bible or the Creation Model.
~ ~ ~
|
|
