Special Creation and Genesis 1

Simbach am Inn, Aushänger von Prof. Alfred Habermann

William A. Williams offers a theological argument based on the science of his day and an old earth theology:

24. SPECIAL CREATION: GEN. I

Evolution can not be true, because it contradicts the inspired word of God. We do not speak arbitrarily and say, without proof, that whatever contradicts the revealed word of God can not be true, although such an attitude could be easily defended. Disregarding all the many other cogent and legitimate arguments in support of a divine revelation, we will appeal to the remarkable harmony between the story of Creation in Genesis and the modern sciences. This could not be, if God had not revealed to Moses the story of creation. Moses personally knew nothing revealed by the sciences of today. And the man of that day who would invent the story of creation, would be sure to conflict with one or more of the following modern sciences: geology, astronomy, zoology, biology, geography, chemistry, physics, anatomy, philology, archaeology, history, ethics, religion, etc. There is not one chance in a million that a writer of a fictitious account would not have run amuck among many of these sciences, if, like Moses, he had no personal knowledge of them.

Although the Babylonian account may have had some foundation in fact, from a tradition of a prior revelation, it plainly bears the marks of error. “The Babylonian stories of creation are full of grotesque and polytheistic ideas, while those of the Bible speak only of the one living and true God.” “All things,” the Babylonian legend says, “were produced at the first from Tiamat.” “The gods came into being in long succession, but, at length, enmity arose between them and Tiamat, who created monsters to oppose them. Merodach, a solar deity, vanquished Tiamat, cut her body in two, and with one-half of it made a firmament supporting the upper waters in the sky, etc., etc.” The Babylonian gods, like even those of the classics, were criminals fit only for prison or death.

Alfred Russell Wallace, who, with Darwin, devised the evolution theory, says: “There must have been three interpositions of a Divine and supernatural power to account for things as they are: the agreement of science with Genesis is very striking: There is a gulf between matter and nothing; one between life and the non-living; and a third between man and the lower creation; and science can not bridge them!”

This “striking agreement” between science and Genesis I, is shown by the fact that at least 11 great events are enumerated in the same order as claimed by modern science: 1. The earth was “waste and void”; 2. “Darkness was upon the face of the deep”; 3. Light appears; 4. A clearing expanse, or firmament; 5. The elevation of the land and the formation of the seas; 6. Grass, herbs and fruit trees appear; 7. The sun, moon and stars appear; 8. Marine animals were created; 9. “Winged fowls” were created; 10. Land animals were created; 11. Man was created.

The chance of guessing the exact order of these 11 great events is ascertained by the law of permutations-the product of the numbers from 1 to 11, which is 39,916,800. Therefore, Moses had one chance out of 39,916,800 to guess the correct order of these 11 great events, as revealed both by science and revelation. If, for example, the first 11 letters of the alphabet were arranged in some unknown miscellaneous order, any one would have but one chance out of 39,916,800 to guess the order. If Moses did not have the order revealed to him, he never could have guessed it. Therefore, he was inspired and was told the order.

This mathematical demonstration annihilates the contradicting theory of evolution. At once it proves that the account was divinely inspired, and man came by special creation and not by evolution. The fact that the language of Genesis is in remarkable harmony with all proven modern scientific theories, and manifestly confirmed by them, is a proof in favor of the creation story, decisive and final.

This harmony is manifest whether the Heb. yom, day, be taken to mean a long period, as advocated by many biblical scholars, or a literal day of 24 hours, followed, it may be, by years or ages of continuance of the work, before the next day’s work of 24 hours began.

Believing that this interpretation does no violence to the text, and that it is especially in harmony with the statements in the fourth commandment and elsewhere in the Bible, it is here briefly presented as one interpretation, showing the marvelous harmony between revelation and the proven, and even the generally accepted, scientific theories. The stately procession of events is the same, no matter which interpretation is accepted, and doubtless will remain, even if both must yield to another and better interpretation. This majestic divine order, in harmony with both science and revelation, removes all doubt of special creation.

Another interpretation, advocated by many scholars, is that all geologic ages may have intervened during the time indicated between the 1st and 2nd verses of Gen. I.

The following is a possible, and, it would seem, a probable interpretation of the inspired creation story. The words of Scripture, whether from the American Revision, or marginal rendering of the original Hebrew, or other translation, are put in quotation marks:–

THE CREATION–GENERAL STATEMENT

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” including the sun, moon and stars, and all other matter in any form.

DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE ORDER OF CREATION

“And the earth was waste and void,” literally “desolation and emptiness.” And, on account of the thick vapors in the hot atmosphere, “darkness was upon the face of the deep,” and doubtless had been for ages.

“And the Spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters,” and perhaps was calling into being the lowest forms of marine life.

The First Day’s Work. Light Appears.

“And God said, ‘Let the light appear’,” through the thick vapors. And the light appeared, so that the day could now be distinguished from the night. “And there was evening, and there was morning, one day.” This day did not need to be an age or even 24 hours for God’s work. How long did it take light to appear? Many years, and even ages, may have followed between each day’s work as the “days” were not necessarily consecutive, and it is not so stated.

Second Day’s Work. A Clearing Expanse.

“And God said, ‘Let there be a clearing expanse (called heaven) dividing the waters which were on the earth from the waters in the thick clouds above, firmly suspended in the air’.” This may have continued a long time, though begun in 24 hours.

Third Day’s Work. Land, sea and vegetation appear.

“And God said, ‘Let the waters under the expanse be gathered together into one place (seas and oceans), and let the dry land appear’.” The contraction of the cooling earth caused the elevation of the land, and the draining of the waters into the seas. The geologist Lyell says, “All land has been under water.” Hitchcock says, “The surface of the globe has been a shoreless ocean.” “And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind.” Though the sun was not yet visible on account of dense clouds and vapors, the warm, humid atmosphere was suitable for the grass, herbs, and fruit trees,–three great classes which represented the vegetable kingdom. Ages may have again intervened.

The Fourth Day’s Work. Sun, moon and stars made visible.

“And God said, ‘Let lights be seen in the open expanse of heaven, to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years’.” “And God made the two great lights to appear,” since neither had been seen through the thick clouds, “the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also to appear.” Though created first, the stars would appear last. Ages more may have intervened.

The Fifth Day’s Work. Animal life in sea and air.

“And God said, ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heaven’.” “And God created great sea monsters, and every living creature that moveth which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kinds, and every winged fowl after its kind.” Geology and Moses alike testify that swarms of animals filled the seas. The ages rolled on while they “filled the waters of the seas and fowl multiplied on the earth.”

The Sixth Day’s Work. The creation of land-animals and man.

“And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beast of the earth after its kind’.” The fifth day animals began to swarm the seas; the sixth day, to cover the land. “And God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’,” in “knowledge after the image of him that created him,” (Col. 3:10) and “in righteousness and true holiness,” (Eph. 4:24). Yet a professor in a great university was so dense as to insist that the Scriptures taught that the likeness was not in “knowledge, righteousness and true holiness,” but in the bodily form. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.” The last of all creation as both revelation and science testify. The image is mental and moral and spiritual. No such image in any other species.

The body chosen was higher and better than the form of any animal. It resembles the bodies of mammals of the highest type. Why should it not? The vast number of animal species, of almost every conceivable size and shape, could not furnish a form so well adapted to the use of man as that which the Creator gave him. Would it have been better if man had been created in the form of a fish, a lizard, a serpent, a dog, or a horse, or a bird? How could the body have been created without bearing resemblance to some form of the million species of animals? A resemblance can be traced through the whole creation, the material as well as the animal, but it does not follow that one species is descended from another, but that there was one general plan, and one God. The existence of man, who can not be otherwise accounted for, proves the existence of the Creator.

Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8508?msg=welcome_stranger#intro

Animal Instinct

William A. Williams:

23. THE INSTINCT OF ANIMALS

MesilaskärgThe instinct of animals is not due to their own intelligence. It is unerring, unchangeable, without improvement or deterioration. It implies knowledge and wisdom of the highest order. It is beyond the wisdom of man. It comes direct from God. It is not learned nor gained by experience. It is found in many species of animals, and even in a child, until knowledge and reason make it unnecessary.

One of the most familiar illustrations is the instinct of the honey bee. It builds its cells in exact geometric form and we compute, by Calculus, that the form it uses produces the greatest capacity in proportion to the amount of material used. Who taught the bee to build its cell, displaying greater knowledge than that of many a college graduate? Darwin says (Origin of Species), “It can be clearly shown that the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted, namely those of the honey bee, could not possibly have been acquired by habit.” We quote from Granville’s Calculus, p. 119: “We know that the shape of a bee cell is hexagonal, giving a certain capacity for honey with the greatest possible economy of wax.” This is demonstrated by the solution of a problem in this same Calculus. Darwin again says (Origin of Species, vol. I, p. 342), “We hear from mathematicians, that bees have practically solved a recondite problem, and have made their cells of the proper shape to hold the greatest possible amount of honey, with the least possible consumption of precious wax in their construction. It has been remarked that a skilful workman, with fitting tools and measures, would find it very difficult to make cells of wax of the true form, though this is effected by a crowd of bees, working in a dark room. Each cell, as is well known, is a hexagonal prism, with the basal edges of its six sides, beveled so as to join an inverted pyramid of three rhombs. These rhombs have certain angles, and the three which form the pyramidal base of a single cell on one side of the comb, enter into the composition of the bases of the three adjoining cells on the opposite side.”

Can any one suggest an improvement or show an imperfection? If this intelligence is the bee’s own, which is far superior to that of the ape, why did not the bee develop a human brain?

Yet in spite of Darwin’s admission, he labors hard to show that “There is no real difficulty under changing conditions of life, in natural selection accumulating to any extent slight modifications of instinct which are in any way useful”! How could the working bee conserve the gains accumulated by experience or habit? The drone is the father and the queen is the mother of the sterile female working bee. Neither parent knows how to build a cell. How could they transmit their knowledge or their habits to the working bee? Every new swarm of bees would not know how to build their cells. There is no improvement from generation to generation. Even if instinct in other animals could be accounted for, evolution can not account for the instinct of the working bees, since they are not descendants of other working bees, from which they might inherit habits or instinct.

Is not the instinct of the bee the intelligence of God, disproving the heresy of an absentee God? Here again we get a glimpse of the unerring wisdom of God.

The immoveable oyster, the bee alive with divine intelligence, and the sterile progeny of the jackass, are enough to upset the whole theory of evolution.

Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8508?msg=welcome_stranger#intro

Hybrid Sterility and Species Immutability

White LaburnumFlowers of Cassia x nealiae from Caesalpiniaceae. It is a sterile hybrid between Cassia fistula and Cassia javanica.

William A. Williams:

22. HYBRIDS

“Hybrids would seem to be nature’s most available means of producing new species.” Yet the sterility of hybrids defeats that possibility, and rebukes the untruthful claim of the formation of new species. Nature, with sword in hand, decrees the death of hybrids, lest they might produce a new species. Moses wrote the rigid unchanging law of nature, when he said that every living creature would bring forth “after its kind.”

Species are immutable. One does not become another, or unite with another to produce a third. Dogs do not become cats, nor interbreed to produce another species. A few species, so nearly related that we can scarcely tell whether they are species or varieties, as the jackass and the mare, may have offspring, but the offspring are sterile. The zebra and the mare may produce a zebulon, which is likewise sterile. And so with the offspring of other groups intermediate between species and varieties. A human being and ape can not beget an ape-human, showing that they are not even nearly related species.

If evolution be true, we would expect a frequent interbreeding and interchanging of species. Even Darwin admitted that species are immutable. God declared it in his word, and stamps it indelibly on every species. “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after its kind’.”-Gen. 1:24. How did Moses know this great truth, unless he was told by inspiration of God?

Even plant-hybrids are not permanent. Darwin himself says: “But plants not propagated by seed, are of little importance to us, for their endurance is only temporary.”

Even if it could be proven that species, like varieties, are formed by development, it does not follow that genera and families and classes are so developed. But it has not been proved that a single species has been added by development, much less orders, families and genera. Evolution must account for every division and sub-division to plant and animal life. Darwin answers the objection to the sterility of hybrids by saying, “We do not know.” “But why,” he says, “in the case of distinct species, the sexual elements should so generally have become more or less modified, leading to their mutual infertility, we do not know.” But God knows.

Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8508?msg=welcome_stranger#intro

How Did Man Become Hairless And Tailless?

An ill creature with a human head and long tail is seated is seated in a chair being treated by two nurses Wellcome V0011361

William A. Williams:

21. MAN HAIRLESS AND TAILLESS

How did man become a hairless animal? is a hard question for evolutionists. Any scientific theory must be ready to give an account of all phenomena. A hypothesis to explain the origin of man must explain all the facts. How did man become a hairless animal? Darwin’s explanation is too puerile for any one professing to be a learned scientist to give. He says that the females preferred males with the least hair (?) until the hairy men gradually became extinct, because, naturally, under such a regime, the hairy men would die off, and, finally only hairless men to beget progeny would survive. What do sensible, serious students think of this “scientific” explanation? If we try to take this explanation seriously, we find that the science of phrenology teaches that females, as a rule, inherit the traits of their fathers, and males the traits of their mothers. Hence, not the males but the females would become hairless by this ridiculous process. How do evolutionists account for the hair left on the head and other parts of the body? Why do men have beard, while women and children do not? If the hair left on the body is vestigial, why is there no hair on the back, where it was most abundant on our brute ancestors? Even Wallace, an evolutionist of Darwin’s day, who did not believe in the evolution of man, calls attention to the fact that even the so-called vestigial hair on the human form is entirely absent from the back, while it is very abundant and useful on the backs of the monkey family. If there was any good reason why the human brute should lose his hair, why for the same reason, did not other species of the monkey family lose their hair? Can it be explained by natural selection? Was the naked brute better fitted to survive than the hairy animal? Did man survive because he was naked, and the hairy brute perish? Evidently not, for the hairy brute still exists in great abundance.

The best way to get rid of the hair of the brute is for some reconstructing artist, like Prof. J. H. McGregor, to take it off. In a picture widely copied by books in favor of evolution, photographed from his “restorations,” the pithecanthropus, the Neanderthal man, and the Cro-Magnon man are represented almost without hair on the body or even without beard. Only the Neanderthal man has a tiny Charlie Chaplin mustache. Their hair had not been combed for 1,000,000 years; yet we could not detect it. A sympathetic artist can make a “restoration” suit his fancy and support any theory.

If we are descended from simian stock, how did we come to lose our tails? Would not the same causes, if any, cause all the species to lose their tails? According to the laws of biometry, ought we not to find a retrogression of sections of the human race, who would sport simian tails and be clothed with simian hair? Or, could natural selection explain the loss of the tail on the ground that all the monkeys with tails died off, while the tailless ones survived, and developed into human beings? In that case, a tail must have been a fatal imperfection.

Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8508?msg=welcome_stranger#intro

Rapid Formation of Oil

Ronald Hoope

Andrew A. Snelling at CMI:

“No sooner had the discovery of ongoing natural formation of petroleum been published in the journal Nature,6 than The Australian Financial Review of February 2, 1982 carried an article by Walter Sullivan of The New York Times under the heading ‘Natural oil refinery found under ocean’. The report indicated that

‘The oil is being formed from the unusually rapid breakdown of organic debris by extraordinarily extensive heat flowing through the sediments, offering scientists a singular opportunity to see how petroleum is formed….Ordinarily oil has been thought to form over millions of years whereas in this instance the process is probably occurring in thousands of years…. The activity is not only manufacturing petroleum at relatively high speed but also, by application of volcanic heat, breaking it down into the constituents of gasoline and other petroleum products as in a refinery.’

[6] Simonelt, B.R.T. and Lonsdale, P.F., 1982. hydrothermal petroleum in mineralized mounds at the seabed of Guaymas Basin. Nature, vol. 295, pp. 198–212.

Source: http://creation.com/how-fast-can-oil-form

 

Creation in the News, May 2017

BAL183671 Allegory of the Creation of the Cosmos (oil on canvas);Wijnen, Domenicus van (Ascanius) (1661-c.90) (after);oil on canvas;600 X 482;Pavlovsk Palace, St. Petersburg, Russia;Out of copyright

Some creation-related headlines and news excerpts from the past little while:

Archaeologists Have Unearthed An Ice Age Settlement That May Rewrite North American History

Humanity’s mystery new cousin is surprisingly young: 335,000-year-old fossils of Homo naledi transform our understanding of human evolution

Newly discovered feathered dinosaur that looked like a giant chicken may be one of the earliest relatives of birds

Revealed: Incredible 110 million-year-old ‘four-legged tank’ dinosaur fossil that’s so well preserved it looks like a STATUE:

‘Fossilized remnants of skin still cover the bumpy armor plates dotting the animal’s skull.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4500220/Dinosaur-fossil-preserved-looks-like-statue.html

Could history of humans in North America be rewritten by broken bones?:

Archaeological sites in North America have led most researchers to believe that the continent was first reached by humans like us, Homo sapiens, about 15,000 years ago. But inspection of the broken mastodon bones, and large stones lying with them, point to a radical new date for the arrival of ancient humans. If the claim stands up, humans arrived in the New World 130,000 years ago.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/26/could-history-of-humans-in-north-america-be-rewritten-by-broken-mastodon-bones

How was the Progeny of Mammals Kept Alive?

Newborn Golden Retriever Puppies

William A. Williams:

20. SEX

Can the evolutionist explain the origin of sex? Starting with one germ or even a few germs, reproduction must have been by division for a time. If the germ that became the head of all plant life, reproduced by division, when did it begin to reproduce by seeds?

It is still more difficult to explain when sex life began in animals. There could have been no sex life at first, and perhaps for ages. They can not tell us when the animals, by chance, acquired the wonderful adaptation of the sexual life. They have no evidence whatever. Their guess is no better than that of others. It passes credulity to believe that the sexual life, with all its marvelous design, was reached by the invention of irrational animals, when man, with all his powers of reason, invention, and discovery, is helpless even to understand the great wisdom and power that brought it about.

Can blind chance, or aimless effort by senseless brutes, accomplish more than the amazing design of an infinitely wise and powerful God?

How was the progeny of mammals kept alive, during the ages required for the slow development of the mammae?

Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8508?msg=welcome_stranger#intro