Author : A.E. Proctor
The Creation Model has been developed over a number of years by scholars associated with the Creation Research Society. It is an attempt to reconcile the account of creation described in the book of Genesis with the observed facts found in the natural world, using the methods of science wherever possible. This article will summarize the main features of the model. For a more detailed account of the Creation Model, the reader is directed to the book “The Genesis Flood” by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris. It is available through most Bible bookstores.
The model begins with the assumption that the account of creation in the book of Genesis is literal. The world was created in six twenty-four hour days. Even though a day with the Lord is as a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8), the language demands that a very short time period was involved in the acts of creation. It is also assumed that the forces God used during the acts of creation are completely different from the forces which we now observe at work in nature. Apart from the word of God, it is impossible for man to learn anything concerning the creation by observation of nature. The created world was perfect in every way. There was no death, as both man and animals were given every green herb for food. God himself pronounced all of his work “good.” Man was given dominion over all animals and was instructed to tend the garden of Eden. There was no sin, as man did not know the difference between right and wrong. During the period before the fall of man into sin, the model assumes that the second law of thermodynamics (all things decay and die) was suspended, as the Bible indicates man had the power to eat from the tree of life in the garden of Eden and live forever (Genesis 2:9). After man sinned, he was removed from the presence of the tree of life. The second law of thermodynamics then became active, and man began to age, and in time, die.
Genesis 2:5 states that there was no rain on the earth during the period after creation, but that a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. To meet this requirement, it is assumed that the earth had a thick layer of water vapor suspended in the atmosphere, known as a vapor canopy. The atmosphere would have been completely saturated, as there was no dust or sea salt present to provide a nucleus of condensation; hence there was no rain. This would also imply that there were no clouds. The vapor canopy increased the ability of earth’s atmosphere to retain solar energy, (commonly known as the greenhouse effect) so temperatures would be warm and moderate over the entire globe. As the temperatures did not significantly differ, there would be no wind or storms as we now know. This canopy, created in perfect equilibrium, could have held the majority of the water which flooded the earth. This canopy is considered to be the water above the firmament described in Genesis 1:7.
There would have been other benefits to mankind from this canopy. It most likely provided a shielding effect from the various types of radiation reaching earth today. It is possible that the absence of some forms of radiation contributed to the long life span of men who lived before the flood. We would expect the life span to drop if the canopy were gone, which is what happened after the flood. If we assume that the genetic structure of all life was perfect at the time of creation and that men enjoyed extraordinary vitality throughout their long lives, there were few diseases known to the early man which came from mutation of the genetic structure of the cell, but the incident of these diseases would increase during the time period after the flood. Thus, man is not evolving, that is, becoming a stronger, more viable creature, but decaying. The greater the distance from Adam, the more we see genetic related diseases, such as some forms of cancer or heart disease, increase.
In addition to the vapor canopy, it is assumed that the concentration of C02 was much higher in the pre-flood atmosphere. This higher concentration would assist in maintaining the greenhouse effect providing warmer and more even temperatures over all the surface of the globe. (It would also make our present methods of radiocarbon dating useless, for the ages of samples from before the flood would have a much higher age indication than actual.)
We are told that the plants were watered by a mist which rose from the ground. The model assumes that water not only existed in the rivers and seas, but that substantial water was trapped below the surface in the “fountains of the great deep.” (Genesis 7:11) The warming effect of both the atmosphere and the earth’s crust may have contributed to movement of this mist. The necessary pressures to hold the subterranean waters require that land mass be relatively constant over all the globe, thus mountains were very low and the seas were very shallow.
The universally warm climate contributed to lush growth of plants, which in turn provided large amounts of food for an increasing animal population. It is also most likely that the soil of the old world was thoroughly mixed with all nutrients, and was not separated into distinct layers until after the flood. This lush growth of plants was world-wide, including the regions we now know as arctic and cold. The model also theorizes that this lush plant life is the primary source of oil and coal in our world.
The warm and gentle climate provided a perfect environment for the growth of large men and animals (possibly the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4). The King James Bible indicates that there were some 1,656 years between the creation and the start of the flood. If we assume that each father begat an average of six children, the pre-flood population would be over one billion people. This would be a rate of increase of 1.5 percent. (The present rate of increase of earth’s population is 2 percent).
The year of creation was calculated in 1650 by Bishop Usher of Armagh as 4004 B.C. He obtained this date from calculations based on the genealogies listed in the King James Bible, and it is the one most commonly used. Whitcomb and Morris however make a strong case for a date somewhere between 8600 B.C. and 6000 B.C. Although the year 4004 B.C. is not necessarily the date of creation, the Creation Model assumes that the world is several thousand years old, not hundreds of thousands or millions of years as required by the theory of evolution.
The word “kind” in the Bible is used to define groups of animals that are able to breed with each other. If two differing types of animals are not able to procreate they are not considered to be biblical kinds. The Creation Model does provide for variation within kinds. As an example, there may have been only two or three kinds of dog ancestors in the ark, but the years of separation after the flood, together with cross breeding would produce animals that ranged from the Fox, or the Wolf, or Great Danes, to the lowly hound. A biologist might classify several of the animals under different species, and claim the variation from one species to another is proof of evolution, but that’s not what evolution teaches. No matter how many types of dogs you may breed, you still have dogs. No horses, or cats or rabbits will ever come from the breeding of dogs. Each kind only will reproduce with another of its kind, and the offspring will always be of the same kind. Evolution teaches that if you breed enough dogs enough times under different conditions, given a million or so years, you will get some animal that is not a dog. The Creation Model flatly denies this. Kind always begets of the same kind. Noah would not have had to carry all the animals we know today in the ark, but only a male and female of each kind. One other thing concerning variation within kinds: The Creation Model predicts that the second law of thermodynamics will apply to all such breeding. No matter how strong the offspring may be in one characteristic, such as improved sense of smell, it is weaker overall than its ancestor. Put another way, the offspring is likely to have more genetic defects than either of its parents.
The flood came about when the fountains of the deep were opened, most likely by volcanic action. Great quantities of dust and ash were carried high into the vapor canopy and condensed into rain. Enough rain to last for forty days and forty nights. The combination of volcanos, earthquakes and flooding would completely pulverize the surface and every thing that was on it. As the flood waters increased, the stronger and more mobile creatures may have fled to higher ground, but in time all were destroyed. The churning action of the water separated the rich earth into component parts, and gathered large amounts of plant and animal life into clumps. During the year following the rain, the first of many sediment beds were laid down. Then as the mighty wind blew upon the earth for the first time, parts of land began to rise, and erosion cut away many sediment beds and redeposited them. The same churning action would bury much of the plant and animal life, producing fossils and fuel.
Genesis 8:3 states, “and the waters returned from off the earth continually.” The language indicates that this is not one drainage, but many. That is, parts of the land might rise, then decline and be flooded again, and rise again, producing the mixed sediment beds and geological faults we see today. Eventually, the ark rested in the mountains of Ararat. From this point, animals and later man began to disperse over all the globe. This movement may have taken as much as 1,000 to 3,000 years. It is assumed that during this time, much movement was still going on in the crust of the earth, and that land bridges existed to provide access to all continents of the globe. At a later time, the land bridges sank. Separated from others of their kind by language at the tower of Babel, and by geography, men were restricted to mating among a small group. The result was the rise of different nations and ancestors.
This is a broad sketch of the model. I have simplified many concepts to the point where some may think I misrepresent the information. I apologize if this is the case, for it was not my intent. My desire was to bring a new perspective to the subject, and to challenge the reader to study for himself.
—
(Note: This “creation model” ably sketched by Brother Proctor is, admittedly, not proven in detail by the Scriptures. Rather, it constitutes a harmony of facts derived from the Bible with facts gleaned from natural science and demonstrates that God’s Word does indeed provide an answer to the question of origins that is in harmony with the facts of science. – Keith Sharp)
