Some Alternate Views of Creation and Should Christians Believe the 6 Day Creation View? DT100 paper for the Orlando Institute by T. J. Tofflemire, Sept. 2008
The early church fathers and early church believed in a somewhat literal interpretation of Genesis and the 6 day creation. The various views of creation have come about since Darwin’s theory of evolution in 1859 (1). The common theory used by scientists is the Big bang theory and the theory of evolution. Some church denominations have come up with varying theories of creation in response to the common scientific theories. Some theories that will be discussed briefly include the original 6 day creation theory, the gap theory, progressive evolution and theistic evolution.
Why consider this topic of creation versus evolution? What difference does it make? Just let the scientists debate it one might say. The Bible says God created man in his own image. The atheist-material view would say he evolved from apes and all life from a primordial soup millions of years ago? The New Testament refers to the first Adam, and the creation and fall into sin, repeatedly. The stars and heavens and their majesty are also mentioned repeatedly throughout the Bible. The naturalistic-materialistic view is that this started from the big bang and evolved by chance without any design. This view often proceeds from the atheist view is that there is no God and no absolute moral standards and we are just advanced animals. Does this free us to do what we want and place monkeys in a zoo next to human aborigines?
One’s view of creation can be affected by how one views the authority of the scriptures. The view of the Protestants is that scripture alone (Sola Scriptura) is sufficient to be the basis of Christian doctrine. (2) In addition, most protestant denominations also adopt many of the early creeds like the Apostles creed. They may have slightly differing doctrinal positions, although sticking to a more strict interpretation of the scriptures. The Catholics, Anglican and orthodox churches, value the role of the church authorities to interpret scriptures and some have a more liberal interpretation of the scriptures (2). Some common texts in reviewing and classifying scriptures classify the book of Genesis as an historical book (3,4).
The Catholic view of creation is that Genesis should not be interpreted literally or as a historic book but symbolically (5). They also view scriptures to have limited inerrancy, which according to Erickson (6, p. 72) is a more liberal view of scriptural authority.
In addition, Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the de facto head of the Church of England1 (also known as the “Anglican” church),was featured in a wide-ranging interview with The Guardian—a left-leaning daily newspaper in the UK. His views were that we should not teach the creation views given in Genesis and it should not be treated as a historical book of the bible (7).
A 709-page book by an Orthodox monk reviewed the history of Christian literature on Genesis and creation noted that the early Christian writings support a historical interpretation of Genesis. With many lengthy quotations from the ‘Holy Fathers’ of Eastern Orthodoxy from the fourth century to the present, the book reinforces the assertion that a Six-Day Creation about 6,000 years ago, followed by a global catastrophic Flood, has been the historic teaching of the church until the 19th century (8).
Some Theories of Creation
Erickson states creation was made for God’s glory and suggests progressive creation as one option of reconciling old earth ages with the bible in Chap.14 (6, p 133-136). AIG- Answers in Genesis-(9) stated: “One result of compromising with our evolutionary culture is the view of creation called the “day-age” theory or “progressive creation.” This view, while not a new one, has received wide publicity in the past several years. Much of this publicity is due to the publications and lectures of astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross—probably the world’s leading progressive creationist. Dr. Ross’s views on how to interpret the book of Genesis won early endorsements from many well-known Christian leaders, churches, seminaries, and Christian colleges. The teachings of Dr. Ross seemingly allowed Christians to use the term “creationist” but still gave them supposed academic respectability in the eyes of the world by rejecting six literal days of creation and maintaining billions of years. However, after his views became more fully understood, many who had previously embraced progressive creation realized how bankrupt those views are and removed their endorsement”(9). Some of the teachings of progressive creation were examined in light of Scripture and good science. For a more complete analysis, see the book Refuting Compromise by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/rc/intro.asp
In summary, progressive creation teaches:
- The big bang origin of the universe occurred about 16 billion years ago.
- The days of creation were overlapping periods of millions and billions of years.
- Over millions of years, God created new species as others kept going extinct.
- The record of nature is just as perfect as the Word of God.
- Death, bloodshed, and disease existed before Adam and Eve.
- Manlike creatures that behaved much like us (and painted on cave walls) existed before Adam and Eve but did not have a spirit and thus had no hope of salvation.
- The Genesis Flood was a local event (9).
“The text of Genesis 1 clearly states that God supernaturally created all that is in six actual days. If we are prepared to let the words of the text speak to us in accord with the context and their normal definitions, without influence from outside ideas, then the word for “day” in Genesis 1 obviously means an ordinary day of about 24 hours. It is qualified by a number, the phrase “evening and morning,” and for Day 1, the words “light and darkness””(9) “Dr. James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, who .himself does not believe Genesis is true history, admitted that, as far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned,… so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience” (9).
“As their name indicates, progressive creationists believe that God progressively created species on Earth over billions of years, with new species replacing extinct ones, starting with simple organisms and culminating in the creation of Adam and Eve. They accept the evolutionary order for the development of life on Earth, even though this contradicts the order given in the Genesis account of creation. Evolutionary theory holds that the first life forms were marine organisms, while the Bible says that God created land plants first. Reptiles are supposed to have predated birds, while Genesis says that birds came first. Evolutionists believe that land mammals came before whales, while the Bible teaches that God created whales first”(9).
“Belief in a historical Genesis is important because progressive creation and its belief in millions of years (1) contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, (2) assaults the character of God, (3) severely damages and distorts the Bible’s teaching on death, and (4) undermines the gospel by undermining the clear teaching of Genesis, which gives the whole basis for Christ’s Atonement and our need for a Redeemer. So ultimately, the issue of a literal Genesis is about the authority of the Word of God versus the authority of the words of sinful men”(9).
The theory of theistic evolution will be discussed next. AIG (10) noted “Many theistic evolutionists compromise their interpretation of Genesis and believe in millions of years in which evolution has supposedly occurred, with God controlling the processes. They also believe that God still controls these processes and that evolution is still proceeding. These teachings are contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture that God has completed His creation (Genesis 2:1-2). If you accept the idea of evolution, you have to accept the evolutionary dogma that the human species is just part of the evolution of life, nothing special and certainly not the end-product. Yet the Bible teaches that human beings are special. God created the first human pair in His image and likeness. Adam and Eve were created by God- Adam out of the dust of the ground and Eve from Adam’s side. God did not cause them to evolve from some ape-like creature? We are not related to animals. There is not a hint of evolution in what the Bible teaches about our origins. “Who was Adam?” is the question theistic evolutionists cannot adequately answer. Theistic evolutionists have many ideas regarding Adam’s identity and the nature of the fall. Perhaps the most accepted evolutionary interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis goes something like this: Adam and his wife Eve were people who had evolved from ape-like ancestors; God drew near to them and breathed His Spirit into them, making them “spiritual beings” with a so-called “God knowledge”; and the Fall is supposed to have occurred when this human pair disobeyed God’s revelation to them about being obedient to Him (10).
To accommodate the millions of years most scientist hold to, theologians have also proposed the gap theory and other theories that interpret the genesis account more figuratively. The gap is found between Gen 1:1-2 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.” To try to account for the scientific reports of millions of yrs old earth, some theologians have postulated the time gap after the heavens and earth are created and during the time the earth was void with no life. The Genesis creation story then resumes at verse 3 (11, p. 25). Some authors extend the Gap to include creation of early life and death with a cataclysm. It then becomes a gap- reconstruction theory when God does a recreation in Gen 1:3 Genesis 1:3 like described by Barnhouse (22).
A Brief Summary Discussion of the Creation Theories.
The Bible appears to say everything was created in 6 literal days. Gen.1:14 says that was a day and night, as in literal days. The Hebrew word yom is used in most places in the Bible to mean literal days. Ex. 20:9 refers back to the creation as the beginning or the rest on the 7th day and the 7 day week. The genealogies in Gen. 5, 11 and Mathew 1 and other places give about 4000 yrs from the creation to Christ. Jesus refers to the creation in Mark 10:6. (11 pp. 88-93) Most Bible scholars classify Genesis as a historical and not a poetic or figurative book (3, p.3). The AIG site has a number of references that discuss this problem thoroughly (5, 12, 13). To accommodate the millions of years most scientist hold to, theologians have proposed the gap theory and other theories that interpret the genesis account more figuratively. If one postulates that the universe and earth were formed here, but no life, the problems are lesser. If one postulates that life, death and fossils were present in this gap, the theological problems become much greater. Some have adopted progressive creation theory with the 6 days meaning 6 ages to square with the evolution theory of the earth and animals being millions of years old (9, 6 p.135). Some theorized that Satan was active then and the earth weathered, animals evolved and died and a world flood (this was a flood before Noah) buried the millions of yrs. old fossils. Then God finished the creation, the fall occurred and there was a local flood during the days of Noah. The weaknesses of the gap theory were pointed out above (11 p.25, 48). It is a weak interpretation of the biblical words, and implies an old earth, not the 6 day creation and 7th day rest. In addition, there is evidence that the Noah flood was world wide and caused fossils that are 6000-10,000 yrs. old, not millions of yrs. This would fit with the 6 day creation and the 6000-10,000 yrs. earth that AIG supports. Ham (11 p. 51) argues that eminent theologians have studied the original Hebrew texts and concluded that the literal 6 days of creation is more clearly supported by Bible wording than the gap theory views, which were proposed to solve the million of yrs. problem. If one allows much life, death and fossils, before the sin and the fall, this greatly weakens the fall being the reason for death and the curse, and weakens biblical theology in general (11 p. 54). 1 Chor. 15:21-22 states” for since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” Rom. 8:21-22 states “that the creation itself shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty and glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation growneth and travaileth in pain together.” Some theologians hold to the gap theory, so there is some disagreement on this issue (11 pp 49-52). Relativistic time dilation as proposed by Einstein may allow billions of yrs of time to pass in the outer galaxies while only a few days passed on earth (14, pp.180-2). Time dilation by rapid motion and gravity is an accepted fact (Wikededia.org). Ham (11, p. 106) pointed out that the reason for the differences in Gen. Chap. 1 and 2. Gen. 2 gives the details of the garden and day 6, but does not conflict with the first 4 days of creation. Gen. 2:4 is summary of Gen 1 (11).
Another way of confirming the validity of the creation story is by confirming the bible history itself. Kennedy (15, p.152) stated that there 333 prophecies about Christ made 400 yrs or more before his birth that came true. Examples include being sold by a friend for 30 pieces of silver, being pierced by a spear, but having no broken bones, having lots cast for his garments, nailed to a cross, etc. The odds of this occurring by chance are extremely rare. He also noted that their 2000 other prophecies in the bible that came true (15, p.155). There are many concerning the ancient city of Babylon. Records show it was a magnificent city surrounded by walls 200 ft high and 178 ft thick at the base. Nevertheless it was prophesized that the walls would be completely destroyed and the city would never be rebuilt. This is very odd in that many ancient wall remains can still be found- Roman walls in various countries and the walls of China. It is also odd that the city was never rebuilt and is a desolate area in Iraq now (15, p. 157).
McDowell (1999 Chap. 3 and 13) noted that archaeology confirms the bible. N. Glueck stated (16, p. 89) “Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the bible.” For example the walls of Jericho have been found fallen outward, which is odd but true (16, p 95). Many biblical cities and characters have been documented in other documents. W. F. Albright, a noted archeologist stated (16, p 372) “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of he Old Testament tradition.” An important discovery was of the ancient Elba clay tablets in Syria. These tablets confirm ancient writing, parts of the creation story in Genesis, and biblical character names and laws (16, p. 375,6). Clay tablets have also been found confirming the tower of Babel history (16, p. 378). Some artifacts form Saul, David and Solomon also exist (16, p. 380).
Sabiers’ book (17) notes that most sentences, and many manes in the bible follow a numeric pattern that can not be explained by chance, when one uses the original Greek or Hebrew texts. In the Hebrew and Greek alphabets each letter stands for both a letter and a unique number. Thus each word, phrase, and sentence has a numerical value. These numbers were studied for many yrs. by the original Russian author, Dr. Ivan Panin. In the first sentence of the book of Genesis it says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Using the Hebrew, Sabiers noted 14 features with the number 7, in this sentence. The probability of this occurring by random chance was calculated to be 1/68 x10 to the 10th power. Panin also studied other Greek and Hebrew documents which do not show this numeric pattern. Panin and Sabiers claim this can be used to verify the most accurate sentences, texts, and even the number of books in the bible. “Many brief bible passages have as 70-100 or more amazing numeric features in the structure of the text”(Sabiers 17, p. 53). They reason that the scriptures in the original Hebrew and Greek are divinely inspired, because it is almost humanly impossible to write meaningfull sentences with this degree of numeric pattern, unless ones uses a computer with built in numeric patterns. “Furthermore there is no evidence of numerical features and designs in the very text of the Apocrypha. Thus the bible of the Roman and Greek Catholic Church, so far as the number of books is concerned is proved to be incorrect.”(Sabiers 17, p.102) An additional analysis of bible numerics is found in a book by Dr. Bluer (23). He confirms the mathematical uniqueness of the following phrases in their original languages: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Gen. 1; “In the beginning was the Word” John 1:1; “and the Spirit of God moved upon the waters: Gen. 1:2; “Jesus Christ”; and the words “Word” and “Earth”.
Introduction to Evolution
One needs to be careful how they define evolution. One could review the Talk Origins and Wikipedia definitions (18, 19). The common definitions are more like the microevolution definition below. Two divisions are macroevolution (upward change to more complex species) and microevolution (natural selection and adaptive change generally within a species, even forming a new species). Creation scientists maintain that the later is proven but not the former. Often proofs of the later are cited by evolutionists as proofs of the former but they are not. Proofs of upward change to more and more complex new creatures, from very elementary simple creatures are missing. These are the missing links that are assumed in charts (20 p. 55; 21 p.84). The general theory of evolution is that all life evolved from a primordial soup became more and more complex by natural selection and by random mutations. Creationists maintain that there is almost no provable evidence of this upward complexity of evolution, it is all assumed from charts of similar features. Creationists say that these mutations produce a loss of net information and make species less adaptable and only able to fit a small niche. Some recent experiments verify this in bacteria and in dogs (11, H2006 p.277-8). Scientists say the new species of very similar creatures have evolved that do not mate with each other, thus fitting the definition of a new species. However, this does not argue for a great upward evolution of complexity but only one variation. Biblical creation is by kinds which is a broader category than species (20, 2003 p. 84). Evolution will be discussed further in the following section and the section on common questions and answers.
Some terms will be defined to clarify what follows. Naturalism is a belief denying that an event or object has a supernatural cause, and affirming the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena. Materialism is a belief claiming that physical matter and its interactions are the only or fundamental reality. Current science generally rules out God and the possibility he created the universe and life because supernatural claims cannot be easily measured, tested and repeated (20, p.22). Dr. Scott Todd is quoted “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” (20, p. 22 and Nature 401(6752):423, 1999). The problem with this view which claims science to be neutral and unbiased is that, it starts with a bias of ruling out one plausible hypothesis, that of creation by God or an intelligent designer (20, p 22). Operational (observational) Science uses a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, and repeatable experimentation to find out how nature commonly behaves. Some hypothesis’s can be readily tested and scientific laws verified. However many well documented events defy natural laws. Christians call some of these miracles, while naturalists would call them unexplained events or deny them. Historical (origins) Science involves interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view. The history of the distant past is much more difficult to verify. There are no living observers, with the exception of God, and big bang event would be difficult to repeat. However there are valid scientific methods and historical review methods that can be used in historical reviews. Naturalistic origins theory assumes there was no God and uses evolution and many assumptions to try to explain things, while biblical creation theory assumes there was a God and the bible documents what happened. Biblical creation and the history in the bible is one hypothesis that can be that can be studied (20, p 24-5). It would be logical that if most of the history in the bible could be verified as true that that creation and flood description may also be true. See Ref. 16, 17 for more on the truth of the bible history.
The Specified Fine Tuned Complexity and Chance Arguments
Most scientists agree that the universe and life had a beginning because they try to date it. The basic logic goes like this: The universe either had a beginning or it didn’t. If it had a beginning, then it had a cause. All beginnings have a cause. The cause was either naturalistic or by intelligent design. One can assume natural cause through the laws of nature and change, or a personal cause by intelligent design or God (21, 2006 p. 92). Meister (21, p.74) points out that the many scientific constants of physics and of the universe are fine tuned to just the right values to make the universe and life operate. Some of these 50 constants include the gravitational constant, the velocity of light, the strong nuclear force constant, the relative masses of elementary particles, and the cosmological constant. The probability that all of these parameters were fined tuned together by chance is so small as to be practically impossible. A more probable explanation is that the constants were set by intelligent design. A similar argument holds for the creation of a cell with its complex DNA by random molecules or creation of a working eye by chance selections (20, 2003 p.70, 163). The DNA molecule is a double helix, something like a twin circular staircase with many steps. It is enormously complex. Francis Crick the co-discoverer of DNA concluded it was so complex that it could not have been reasonably formed by chance in the 4.6 billion years evolutions postulate for the age of the earth (15, K1996 p. 159). The DNA is in the nucleus which is inside the cell which itself is very complex. Two expert mathematicians made probability calculations of the cell originating by chance. They came up with a one in ten to the 40,000 power chance, making this very improbable (15, K1996 p.160). Sarfati (20, 2003 p.152-8) also discussed this and refuted most of the evolutionary counter calculations due to making some unreasonable assumptions. Many animals and even a simple cell are very complex. Each human cell has about 3 billion DNA codes that have to be arranged and specified just so for the human to function. The simplest cell of a self reproducing organism has about 0.5 million DNA codes which also have to be arranged just so in order to function (20, 2003 p. 56).
Meister (21, 2006 p.71) summarized the argument as follows:
1. The fine tuning of the universe either happened by chance, law or intelligent design.
2. The existence of irreducibly complex systems within living organisms either happened by chance, law or intelligent design.
3. Neither or the above can be explained by chance or law.
4. Therefore both happened by intelligent design.
Williams and Hartnett (14, 2005 p. 82) stated that chance is one of the most abused concepts in origins science, generally. The abuse scenario goes something like this: “A. anything is possible, even if it might be very improbable, B. the universe is so vast and has been around for so long, that even the most probable events become likely (or even certain); C. therefore, the most improbable events are likely to have occurred somewhere at some time.” “This scenario is false and misleading, because all events in the material world are subject to the laws of physics. Chance cannot violate the laws of physics. Miracles violate the laws of physics, but chance cannot.” Chance is not some force that can do things independent of necessity (14, 2005 p. 83). Some naturalists counter the huge chance improbabilities and apparent evidences for design, by the anthropic principle. Anthropic means related to human beings and what we observe. It has to be that way because we are here to see it that way (14, 2005 p. 72-5; 21 M2006 p. 77). This is somewhat a simplistic circular argument that avoids using the view of intelligent design. One can squash a mosquito and it still has all the chemicals and proteins needed for life. What is the chance it will revive itself with static electricity by chance, before it degrades? There is a scientific principle of biogenesis listed in the dictionary, which says that life can only come from life and this is what we presently observe. Evolution of life from chemical soup violates this principle.
Some Possible Uses of the Material.
I believe the Answers in Genesis site (Ref. 12) is a powerful tool in that one can refer a questioner to the site and tell them to click on get answers to answer many questions they might ask. The book (11, H2006) is also useful to loan to a questioning friend. I have loaned my book to 3 friends and each has come to at least the following conclusion: There is a plausible, and even scientifically supported, creation explanation to counter evolution, for most questions. It then becomes more of a question of which view does one believe and what assumptions dose one make? Even evolutionists have to make some initial assumptions, some of which are very weak. I believe, that each who read the AIG book had their faith strengthened. In my opinion, many people are curious about answers to such creation questions and the interest and discussion is more easily started in an office setting, than would a discussion of a question like “are you saved?” One can refer a person to a scientific book or web site, and this is generally considered acceptable. There are several web sites on Intelligent Design and on Creation Moments that are on the radio. I don’t think they have the long history or depth of research that has gone into the AIG site. A seminar, debate or table at a college on the topic or creation vs. evolution would usually draw large interest. Beliefs are very common, even among Christians, in many misleading books, publications and TV broadcasts stating that macroevolution is proven, and fossils are million of years old. I was in a church of 400 members, which had a very successful Old Testament Bible class that used the AIG materials and shot many holes in these evolution assumptions. About 20-30 members attended the class. At the end of the class, a sermon was given before the whole congregation, in a question and answer interview format. This caused some stir in the church and considerable after discussion, as many people’s beliefs were challenged. I was at a second church weekend seminar put on by AIG held at a local church in Jacksonville, Fl. This seminar was very successful with programs for both the children and for the adults being held simultaneously (thus targeting the whole church). The teachings appeared much better accepted by the church since detailed information was made available to all. AIG has small pamphlets for handout that can be given out on various proofs of creation topics. There are times where discussion on creation facts can be brought into conversations. This can be done with dinosaur toys or movies and with programs or discussions of geology, astronomy, biology or nature. Ham points out that our culture has been indoctrinated in the secular evolutionary philosophy and that considerable reeducation is needed (11, H2006 p 345). Questioning the proofs of the philosophy and pointing out obvious inconsistencies can be helpful.
The AIG (Answers in Genesis) organization began in 1979 in Australia and its history is on the web site. The web site and monthly science magazine(Answers Magazine, formerly Creation Magazine) is contributed to by many scientists of different disciplines. The TJ (Technical Journal) monthly magazine has in depth scientific articles on recent discoveries supporting creation. There are many books, videos and training materials that can be ordered on the site. A project of large impact was the new creation museum opened in a June 2007 near Cincinnati. Here one will can view and read about scientific displays about creation discoveries including dinosaurs and many other things. The Answers in Genesis staff was at 260 employees, according the history write up, in late 2008. The stated purpose in the web is as follows: “AIG is an Apologetics ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith.-” especially the book of Genesis.
References Cited
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
3. Wilkinson, B.H. and Boa, K.(2002) The Wilkinson and Boa Bible Handbook. Thomas Nelson Publishers., Nashville, TN
4. Hendricks, H.G. & Hendricks,W.D. (1991) Living by the Book, Moody Press, Chicago.
5. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1007authority.asp
6. Erickson, M. J. (2001) Introducing Christian Doctrine, Baker Book House Co. Grand Rapids, MI
7. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0322anglican.asp
8. Orthodoxy and Genesis: What the fathers really taught A review of Genesis, Creation and Early Man, Fr Seraphim Rose, Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Platina, CA, 2000 TJ Archive > Volume 16 Issue 3 > Orthodoxy and Genesis: What the fathers really taught http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i3/orthodoxy.asp
9. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/whats-wrong-with-progressive-creation
10. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/future-of-humans
11. Ham, K. (Editor 2006) The New Answers Book. Master Books Inc, Green Forest , AR
12. http://www.answersingenesis.org/
13. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/framework-interpretation-critique-part- one
14. Williams, A. & Hartnett, J. (2005) Dismantling the Big Bang. Master Books, Green Forest, AR.
15. Kennedy, D.J. (1996) Evangelism Explosion. Evangelism Explosion International, Tyndale House Publishers. Wheaton, IL
16. McDowell, J. (1999) The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Thomas Nelson Pub., Nashville
17. Sabiers, Karl (1969) Mathematics Prove Holy Scriptures- Russian Scientist proves Divine Inspiration of the Bible, Bible Numeric’s, Niagara Falls, Canada
18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
19. http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
20. Sarfati, J. (2003) Refuting Evolution. Master Books, Inc, Green Forest, AR.
21. Meister, C. (2006) Building Belief. Baker Books, Grand Rapids MI.
22. Barnhouse, D. J. (1965) The Invisible War Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI. http://reluctant-messenger.com/gap-theory.htm http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/gap-ruin-reconstruction-theories
23. Dr. Peter Bluer. http://www.biblemaths.com/
Addendum: April 10/10 from Mortenson, T., Ury, T. Coming to Grips With Genesis, Master Books, Green Forest, Ak. 2008
Chap. 2 D.W.Hall p.53 claimed that the reformation church fathers including Luther, Calvin, Wesley and the Westminster Divines wrote about and held to a 6 day creation and a view of inerrancy and divine inspiration of the scriptures. Also Anglican bishop Hugh Latimer held this view. This was based on careful exegesis of the scriptures. Thomas Horn, an Anglican, did a lengthy 3 volumes tilled “Introduction to the critical Study of the Holy Scriptures” that was widely used in seminaries and also held this view.. It was only after the scientific opinion shifted in the 19th century that other long age positions developed to accommodate the long ages view.
Chap.4, by Mayhue, R. Argues against adding a new book or view to bible based on science. Ross, Hugh The Fingerprints of God, Promise Publ. 1989, described and old age creation of 16 billion yrs. H. Ross in Creation and Time, Nav. Press 1994, p.56 stated “The facts of nature may be likened to a 67th book of the bible.” Do we really need to revise how we interpret the bible due to the recent findings of science? Mayhue refutes Ross and asserts the truthfulness of the bible. He cites an International Council on Bible Inerrancy (ICBI), 1986, which included 300 biblical scholars and affirms his position in their concluding documents.p.122-4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Creationism
Progressive creationism is the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually, over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of Old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, but posits that the new “kinds” of plants and animals that have appeared successively over the planet‘s history represent instances of God directly intervening to create those new types by means outside the realm of science. Progressive creationists generally reject macroevolution because they believe it to be biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record, and they generally reject the concept of universal descent from a last universal ancestor. Progressive creationism is distinct from theistic evolution, in that God is seen to regularly involve himself in the process of species development through special creative acts.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution Theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are similar concepts that assert that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life. Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. In describing early proponents of this viewpoint, it is sometimes described as Christian Darwinism.[1][2]