The Case for Divinity

Evidence for creation, God, the Bible, and the Lord Jesus Christ

A Study Guide

Charlie Brackett Clarion Word Publishing clarionword.com

Revised Version

Clarion Word Publishing ISBN 978-1-934821-16-9 Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA www.clarionword.com

ii Copyright Notice This book contains links to a number of Internet sites. These sites may contain information or material that some people ﬁnd inappropriate or offensive. You acknowledge that Charlie Brackett is not responsible for the accuracy, copyright compliance, legality, or any other aspect of the content of such sites. The inclusion of such links in this book does not imply endorsement of any site or association with its operators.

Terms of Use By use of this book you acknowledge and agree that all content and materials available herein are protected by copyrights, trademarks, service marks, patents, or other proprietary rights and laws. You agree not to sell, license, rent, modify, distribute, copy, transmit, publish, or create derivative works from such materials or content. Notwithstanding the above, you may print or download one copy of this book on a single computer for your personal, non-commercial use, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices. In addition, use of this bookʼs content for any purpose not expressly permitted in these Terms of Use is prohibited. Great care has been exercised to respect and stay within stated copyright limitations of the many sources cited. Please abide by these Terms of Use to protect the rights of all.

Share with Others If you ﬁnd this book useful, please invite your family, friends and neighbors to contact the author ([email protected]) for their own copy. To give them a copy of your book is a violation of the above Terms of Use. Thank you.

iii I am very grateful to Laura Dyer and her two sons, Brent and Phillip, for critiquing and editing this material. Their help has been extremely useful and is greatly appreciated.

iv This book is dedicated with gratitude to my family, especially my wife, whose patient faith has been an encouragement to me in both happy and trying times.

v Table of Contents

Preface...... xi

Evidence for Truth...... 1

Chapter 1 Discussion Questions...... 6

Evidence for a First Cause...... 8

The Big Bang Theory...... 10

Space, Matter and Time...... 12

Whose God?...... 12

Chapter 2 Discussion Questions...... 13

Evidence for God...... 15

The Cosmological Argument...... 16

The Teleological Argument...... 17

Bad Design?...... 17

The Moral Argument...... 18

Conclusion: God Exists...... 19

Chapter 3 Discussion Questions...... 20

Evidence for Theistic Evolution?...... 22

The Day-Age Theory...... 23

Several “Gap” Theories...... 24

The Gap Theory...... 25

Study Bible Notations Teach the Gap Theory...... 26

The Modiﬁed Gap Theory...... 27

Progressive Creationism...... 30

vi The Framework Theory...... 32

Conclusion...... 34

Chapter 4 Discussion Questions...... 35

Evidence for Creation...... 37

Darwinʼs Finches...... 37

Transitional Forms...... 38

Life, Spontaneous or Created...... 40

Intelligent Design...... 42

Humanity: Evidence for Creation...... 42

Baby Morality...... 44

Fundamental Laws of Science Support Creation...... 47

Chapter 5 Discussion Questions...... 47

Evidence for a Young Earth...... 50

The Earthʼs Young Age...... 51

Geology of the Earth...... 52

Radiometric Dating...... 53

The Earth/Moon Relationship...... 54

Evidence for a Young Sun...... 55

Further Evidence of a Young Earth...... 55

Chapter 6 Discussion Questions...... 56

Evidence from Physical Science...... 59

Two Laws of Thermodynamics...... 60

Oceanography...... 61

Meteorology...... 62

Astronomy...... 62

vii Chapter 7 Discussion Questions...... 63

Evidence from Paleontology...... 65

Radiocarbon Dating...... 65

Potassium-Argon Dating...... 66

Uranium-Lead Dating...... 67

The Fossil Record...... 68

The Cambrian Explosion...... 69

Dinosaurs...... 71

Biological Homology...... 74

Vestigial Organs...... 75

Chapter 8 Discussion Questions...... 76

Evidence from Life Science...... 79

Origin of Life...... 79

Natural Selection...... 80

Ribosome Design...... 81

DNA Coding...... 82

Complexity of Life...... 83

Irreducible Complexity...... 84

The Human Eye...... 84

Hummingbirds...... 85

Fish...... 86

Bacterial Flagellum...... 86

Fish with Legs...... 87

Experimental Evolution...... 89

Is Creation of Life Proven?...... 90

viii Chapter 9 Discussion Questions...... 90

Evidence from Formal Science...... 93

Mathematics and Physical Science...... 93

Mathematical Precision...... 94

Linguistics...... 94

Rational Thought...... 96

Conclusion...... 98

Chapter 10 Discussion Questions...... 99

Evidence for Scripture...... 101

Authority...... 102

Historiography...... 103

The Bibliographical Test...... 104

The External Test...... 106

Archaeology...... 106

The Dead Sea Scrolls...... 109

Other Archeological Findings...... 110

Chapter 11 Discussion Questions...... 113

Evidence from Scripture...... 116

Unique Unity of Content...... 116

Unique Power to Change Lives...... 117

Fulﬁlled Prophecy...... 118

Other Internal Evidence...... 120

Chapter 12 Discussion Questions...... 121

Evidence for Evil (Sin)...... 124

Chapter 13 Discussion Questions...... 125

ix Evidence for Jesus Christ...... 127

Messianic Prophecy...... 127

Jesusʼ Miracles...... 132

Jesusʼ Claims for Himself...... 132

Are Jesusʼ Claims Believable?...... 135

Christʼs Resurrection...... 136

Later Testimony...... 137

Where is Jesus now?...... 138

Chapter 14 Discussion Questions...... 139

A Response is Required...... 141

What Does It All Mean?...... 142

How Do I Respond Positively?...... 143

Chapter 15 Discussion Questions...... 145

General Index...... 146

Scriptures...... 157

Author Index...... 160

More Books by the Author...... 163

x Preface

his is not the typical Bible study. That is, all but a few chapters will not be quoting from and discussing passages of Scripture. There will be occasional biblical references and quotes scattered throughout, but most of this book deals with secular evidences proving there must be a Divine Cause for the universe, that life came by a Creator, and that He sent to mankind His Son and His Word of instruction. We will be looking into matters the apostle Paul points to in his letter to the Romans: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” (Romans 1:18-21) Paul reminded them of a fact they should have realized on their own, and one we should also recognize. It ought to be obvious that in “... the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead,...” Careful weighing of the evidence will end in the only reasonable explanation for all the intelligence, complexity and purposeful power we see all around us in nature. It must have come from a Divine Being. Darwinian evolution cannot be the answer as we will see in the following pages. If that is not obvious to you now, it will become so in the following pages. Dr. Jeff Miller raises an interesting question with the title of his article, Will Science Eventually Kill God?1, then deals with it by answering... “Impossible concept, and yet it has captured the attention of the news media of late (e.g., Wolchover, 2012)2. Will the bulk of society likely tend to continue its movement away from God in the coming years? Probably, since that has historically been the trend, inside and outside the Bible. But God has never been eliminated from human thought in the thousands of years of human existence, because His providential hand brings punishment on societies at those times when the population in sufﬁcient numbers turns its back on God. Then inevitably follows a return by many to spiritual matters (see Miller, 2008)3.

1 Miller, Jeff, Ph.D., (2012) Will Science Eventually Kill God? Apologetics Press, Inc., Montgomery, Alabama, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1602, Copyright (c) 2001Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. (Accessed 11/19/14) 2 Ibid (Miller, Jeff), citing Wolchover, Natalie (2012), Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God? NBC News: Science, September 18, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49074598/ns/technology_and_science- science/#.UFnWIlEpCeZ © 2013 LifesLittleMysteries.com. All rights reserved. 3 Ibid (Miller, Jeff), citing Miller, Jeff (2008), “The Cycle of Unbelief,” Apologetics Press, http:// www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2495. Copyright (c) 2001Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

xi “Still, according to NBC News, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, believes that science will eventually remove the need for God in the equation to explain certain Universal phenomena. He argues that, ʻGodʼs sphere of inﬂuence has shrunk drastically in modern timesʼ (Wolchover).2 We are not sure where he is getting his information, because statistically, the world is en masse (84%) theist (e.g., ʻMajor Religions of the World,ʼ 2007) 4, and the percentage of the population in this country that believes that God has played a role in the origin of the Universe (78%) is far beyond the secular evolutionary community (15%) (see Miller, 2012)5. While there certainly has been an increase in the ranks of the non-religious community in the past several years, the Earth is still, by far, theistic.” The following statistics 6 may be surprising to some. In fact, it is even more surprising to me to learn from the following quote that 46% of Americans believe in creation, and that number has remained constant over the last three decades! “According to a Gallup poll released in June, the percentage of Americans who hold to the creationist view on the matter of origins, as opposed to the evolutionary view, has remained essentially constant over the last 30 years (Newport, 2012)7. Nearly half (46%) of Americans believe that God created human beings “pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so” (Newport)8. Amazingly, in spite of decades of incessant bombardment on the minds of young people in public schools by the evolutionary community, Darwinian evolution is making no headway in swaying biblical creationists.” I should not be surprised that nearly half of all Americans believe in creation. A few years ago, I attended a seminar in Prague on the subject of Intelligent Design. The speakers were all scientists in one ﬁeld of study or another. Though they did not argue for the existence of God or even for creation per se, each one presented some reasons for believing that evolution could not be true because of the vast array of intelligent design in the universe. I sat at lunch with one of the speakers who told me that roughly half of the scientists in America believed in creation rather than evolution. He said that fact was not widely known because many of them did not publicly support creation knowing they would lose the grant money funding their project if their beliefs were known. Still, believers in a Creative God should be greatly concerned, even outraged by the social pressure upon us and our children to accept the theory of evolution as fact. Our media, our government and our schools at all levels speak of the magical origination of all matter, energy and time from nothing; the natural selection of the best of an evolving environment, by that same environment which has no ability to judge what is best from what is not; the origination of life

4 Ibid (Miller, Jeff), citing Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents (2007), http:// www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html. © 2014 Adherents.com. 5 Ibid (Miller, Jeff), citing Miller, Jeff (2012), Literal Creationists Holding Their Ground in the Polls, Reason & Revelation, 32[9]:94-95, September, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APPubPage.aspx? pub=1&issue=1093&article=2040#. Copyright (c) 2001Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 Miller, Jeff (2012), Literal Creationists Holding Their Ground in the Polls, Reason & Revelation, 32[9]: 94-95, September, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1093&article=2040#. Copyright (c) 2001Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Accessed Nov 19, 2014. 7 Ibid (Miller, Jeff), citing Newport, Frank (2012), In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins, GALLUP Politics, June 1, http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx. 8 Ibid.

xii from non-life; and the development of more advanced, complex forms from simpler ones, without the aid of intelligence or creative energy, all by pure chance. The sad truth is these ideas are often not presented to our children as hypothetical, but as fact. A friend recently showed me a textbook on biology published by Cambridge University, a book being used today to teach her teenagers. I was surprised at the extent to which evolutionary theory permeated the content and how much of it was stated as fact, not theory. Such things as the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago from molten rock and as it cooled it released a series of gases including carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc., but no oxygen. It describes precisely from what the oceans were formed, and how. Then the earth lay “sterile” for a billion years before organisms began to form, stated as if the time was somehow measured. Oxygen began to appear after another 1.3 billion years setting the stage for further development of life and the arrival of humanity.9 The evolutionary description taught our young people is so matter-of-fact you would think scientists were present at the beginning to measure, test and analyze. Besides the academic challenge to faith in a Creator our society is challenging and outright opposing faith in Christ on several fronts. It is important that Christians know why they believe in addition to knowing what they believe. Pat Zukeran of Probe Ministries reports a frightening statistic, that is, that 80 percent of college kids lose there faith while at school. They leave home with faith intact, but then must listen to the professor discredit the Bible. Unable to defend their faith with reasons why they believe, what they believe is destroyed.10 I doubt there is any book which has been the target of more criticism than the Bible. It has been under attack for centuries by both unbelievers and skeptics. Even some who profess to honor it would change its literal message to a mythical sojourn without substance. It is the purpose of this book to present sufficient evidence to prepare all of us, especially our young people, to meet the atheistic critics head on with answers that stop them in their tracks with not only what we believe, but why it is reasonable and logical to worship a Divine Being, Creator of the Universe. The answers are available. I fear that we who have selected the curriculum for congregational Bible study have too often overlooked the field of evidences. I believe it is unwise to do so. Failing to address the underlying rock-solid foundations of evidence for our faith leaves one open to attacks by unbelievers and in danger of being easily swayed by atheism. Some may object to the level of the language used herein saying it is too difficult to easily understand. It is true, some evidences presented are a bit difficult to comprehend. Of course, we are discussing science, concepts which for most of us are not normal topics of dinner table discussions. Too scientific? It is scientific, but much of it is reducible to simpler language. Too difficult? I think not. For some, perhaps, but is preservation of faith in the face of attack not worth the effort? Too extensive a project to gather the evidence for study? It is true, evidence for divinity is scattered across several fields of study and difficult to categorize. Some issues cross fields, and of course,

9 Walpole, Brenda; Merson-Davies, Ashby; and Dann, Leighton, Biology for the IB Diploma (2011) Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, p. 360 10 Zukeran, Pat, Authority of the Bible (1991) Probe Ministries, Richardson, Texas, http:// www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/auth-bib.html

xiii all of it is subject to human interpretation. I hope this publication will ease that task and point the way, at least to some degree. I have tried to simplify by rewording or explaining quotes where appropriate. If I have failed in some needed case, please forgive me and bring it to my attention. I am grateful for any feedback, which will contribute to my understanding of the subject and the veracity of this bookʼs content. Someone might say because most of the study of evidences is not direct study from the Bible, they have ignored it.” I strongly disagree. It is true, much of it is not study of Bible text. Still, the attack of disbelievers is an attack against the very notion of God, and against His Holy Word. We cannot counter that with Bible passages. Understanding reasons outside the Bible to believe in the things of the Bible is essential. Evolution runs headlong into available evidence and defies all reason and logic, which we as a society insist upon in all other areas of life. And, contrary to what many evolutionists insist that we and our children believe, evolution defies sound science as shown by discoveries in many fields of science. If you are unsure of that statement, it is my purpose in this book to present sufficient evidence to convince you of it. If you already believe evolution is a theory which should be discarded, then I hope you find this evidence is useful in convincing others of your family, friends and acquaintances. Iʼve tried to include evidence for special creation from a variety of scientific fields of study. My research was carried out in the few authoritative books to which I have access and, of course, on the Web. I expected to find a great deal of information on the Internet, but was surprised to find as much as I did. The inclusions in this book are only a smattering of whatʼs available. Of course, not all information on the Web is useful. Many articles are biased. And, I must confess my own bias though I have tried to report only that which can be relied upon. Much of the content herein is quoted from various sources in the scientific and religious communities. In choosing a source, I selected only articles written by professionals in the field of study they discussed or writers who relied heavily on such professional sources, which they quoted. Some important points have been revisited in multiple chapters in order to emphasize their importance. There is probably more information here than can be covered in a typical class period, but all references to quoted information is footnoted and indexed to facilitate your own research in matters that interest you most or which stir up questions in your mind. The weight of evidence supporting the case for divinity has overwhelmed and humbled me. I believe it will the heart of anyone who weighs it on the unbiased scales of honesty.

Charlie Brackett [email protected]

xiv The Eternal Hand that helps...

“Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near; Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the LORD, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:6-9

xv Chapter 1 Evidence for Truth

ruth can be elusive. A few years back, truth may have been easier to define than it is today. Most of us probably think we know what it is, though putting it into words may be a bit more difficult. How do we know that something is true or not? One thing is certain, truth is not ʻhowʼ we know, it is ʻwhatʼ we know. There are many world views on what constitutes truth, and the question of what it is persists... “If the best-known saying about truth is Pilateʼs question, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), probably the best-known saying about truth by a philosopher is Aristotleʼs assertion (Metaphysics, 1011b25): “(1) To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true. “This saying, like others of Aristotleʼs, has been interpreted in more than one way; and it is not the only thing Aristotle said about truth, either. The definition modern philosophy inherited from medieval Aristotelianism ran along the following lines: “(2) Truth is agreement of thought with its object. “Most early modern philosophers from Descartes to Kant professed to accept something like (2) as a definition of truth.”1 These definitions not-withstanding, philosophers, scholars and theologians continue to debate what constitutes truth. Since the expression of thoughts and beliefs through language is an integral part of being human, “what is truth” is a very vital issue. Communication soon teaches that many definitions are practiced. Among the different theories that have developed down through the annals of time is “The Pragmatic Theory”... “One notion of truth is called the pragmatic theory of truth. It argues that the truth is simply what ʻworksʼ. How many times have you heard someone say, ʻYour Christianity may work great for you, but it doesnʼt work for meʼ? This approach to truth is very practical, if nothing else! If a claim doesnʼt work, itʼs simply not true. But what about realties like ʻdeathʼ? Death is not practical (it doesnʼt ʻworkʼ for me), yet it is definitely true! And what about things that are definitely not true, but are practical and useful like say, a ʻsuccessful lieʼ? While a little white lie might ʻworkʼ for me and help me out of a jam, itʼs doesnʼt make the lie TRUE, does it? While the Pragmatic Theory may be practical and useful at times, it will not lead us to truth.”2

1 Burgess, Alexis G., and Burgess, John P. (March 20, 2011). Truth, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, p. 2 2 Is There An Absolute Truth? Pleaseconvinceme, http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-there-an-absolute- truth/

1 The Case for Divinity

Though sometimes what works is true, like a ladder is a practical reality that can help me reach higher, when ʻwhat worksʼ is not true it is most likely that which is condemned by real truth. Another long-time theory is the “Empiricist Theory”... “The empiricist theory of truth says that the truth is whatever can be sensed using the five senses. Experience is the main factor in understanding and apprehending truth. How many times have you heard someone say, ʻI know it is true because I experienced it myself!ʼ? “While this may seem convincing at first, this theory of truth also falls short of the mark. Think about it: some of us will taste an orange and say that it is sweet, while others will taste the same orange and say it is bitter. Who is telling the truth? Sensory experience is too personal to be trustworthy!”3 Part of our experience is that which we have believed for a long, long time. What we believe is not true just because we believe it. Something we believe true may be false even though we have always thought it true. Always believing he was doing the right thing, Saul persecuted Christians until he was corrected from on high. (Acts 9:1-6; 23:1) Personal biases may unfairly lean us toward certain types of conclusions, conclusions which may prove to be false. We all have biases, but the wise seeker of truth will work at being objective, trying to identify and overcome any biases that may hamper finding and assessing available evidence. It is untruthful to accept portions of truth and dismiss other portions, which may conflict with a desired belief or preferred course of action. To explain, a recent newspaper article tells of a lady who illustrates this point well. She calls herself a Christian and has, in fact, taught the Bible for decades. It seems, however, she has two sons who are gay. No doubt, because of their blood relationship, she is now “one of the faces in a new advertising campaign aimed at softening religious opposition in the Deep South to equal rights for people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.”4 How can this be? A dominant view within Christianity is that the Bible is truth. The fact that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) condemns homosexuality (Genesis 19:1-38; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13-15; Judges 19:22; Romans 1:26-27, 32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:10-11; Jude 1:7) apparently has no impact on this lady, a Bible teacher. Her view of Bible truth is subjective, not objective, picking and choosing that which she wants to believe and rejecting that which does not support her desires or doesnʼt fit well in her experience. It is my view that one of the most deceiving of pitfalls in seeking truth is the human tendency to accept what we believe as being the truth because we believe it. Of course, truth is not truth because I believe it. Many, however, believe it is. It is a growing idea among those who subscribe to New Age philosophy, a philosophy (or should I say “religion”?) gaining acceptance around the world and even among those who profess to be Christians. In fact, it is one of todayʼs most persuasive and pervasive philosophies. The New Age Movement deserves a closer look so that we and our young might avoid it, but in summary it is simply making oneʼs self god.

3 Ibid 4 Reeves, Jay, TV campaign for gay equality starting in Mississippi, Chattanooga Times Free Press (November 9, 2014) Chattanooga Publishing Co., Chattanooga, TN, A8

2 Evidence for Truth

“Those in the New Age Movement believe the individual is the standard of truth, saying that ʻtruth as an objective reality simply does not exist.ʼ New Testament teaching to the contrary is abundant: (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21; Matthew 5:18; and many more.)”5 Whatever faith one has, if it is wholly true, needs to be protected and repeatedly questioned lest personal opinion corrupt it, and it ceases to be truth. “...ʼbeliefsʼ and ʻtruthʼ are sometimes not entirely related. Tertullian once bragged that the main reason he so readily accepted Christianity was that it was fundamentally absurd. Perhaps he was alluding to 1 Corinthians 1-2 which talks about human wisdom and divine wisdom being incompatible. Some people are so committed to their beliefs that despite the evidence of truth they refuse to change their beliefs. In this way we observe that what some atheists claim is their scientific basis for unbelief is nothing more than belief in opinions rather than evidence. Thus despite the mass of evidence to the contrary, many atheists refuse to accept that origin of life is best explained by what appears to be obvious (a Designer/Creator).”6 Tertullian must have been joking. Christianity is divinely logical; it is anything but “absurd”. A third theory of old is the “Emotivist Theory of Truth.” “The emotivist theory of truth says that the truth is based on what we feel! How many times have you leaned on feelings to figure out if something was true? At the same time, however, how many times have you struggled to convince yourself that what you are feeling isnʼt really true, just the way you feel on that particular day? We all know people who hold irrational fears, and these feelings are not the best indicator of what is true! And what if I show you a handful of paperclips and make the claim, ʻThis is a handful of paperclipsʼ? How are your feelings going to assist you in determining if my claim is true? You arenʼt really going to feel one way or the other about the clips, but it will still be true that I am holding paperclips! And people have relied on their feelings to follow Jim Jones, to sleep with a sex partner who later dumped them, to make an impulsive purchase. In each and every case, feelings fail to provide an objective measurement for truth! Like the first two theories, this theory is not a great way to assess truth claims!”7 It should be obvious that just because it feels good or right does not make it so. Nor is it true because it is understandable. Lies are often more understandable than the truth. Maybe it feels right because the majority believes it is true. Or, maybe the public has even known and approved it for a long time. Does that make it true? No! There may be important factors hidden from or unknown by the public that are needed to establish the whole truth. And, what about that which can be argued from silence, that is, from what is assumed may be true because there is no contrary evidence? Evolutionists speak of missing links between man and lower forms of life. If evolution is true, no one knows what the missing link is because it has

5 Brackett, Charlie, Oprahʼs New Age Church? (2008) Clarion Word Publishing, Chattanooga, TN, citing MacLaine, Shirley, Itʼs All in the Playing (1987), Bantam Books, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., New York, NY. 6 Corbett, Dr. Andrew, 5 Proofs for the Existence of God, 2012, EGZAKT FOUNDATION TRUST, Tasmania, Australia, http://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/5-proofs.html © December 2004-2008, Dr. Andrew Corbett, Legana, Tasmania 7 Is There An Absolute Truth? Pleaseconvinceme, http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-there-an-absolute- truth/

3 The Case for Divinity not yet been found. If, however, evolution is not true, no one knows what the missing link is because there is no missing link. An assumption is a very poor basis for determining truth. The fourth theory of what constitutes truth is the “Correspondence Theory of Truth”. “This classic definition of truth is the theory that you and I use on a daily basis, whether we even know it or not. Let me describe it in Aristotelian language: If you say ʻSomething is,ʼ and it is, or ʻIt is not,ʼ and it is not, then you speak truth. If you say ʻIt is,ʼ and it is not, or ʻIt is not,ʼ and it is, then you donʼt speak truth. This is called correspondence, in other words, a thing is true if and only if it actually corresponds to what is really there. As an example, if I claim that there is a chair in the next room, that claim is true if and only if I enter the room and find that there is a chair in the room! The claim corresponds to the reality of the situation.”8 Seem obvious? It should. Truth is that which is in accordance with fact or reality, or in keeping with an original, a standard or an ideal. It will not be profitable to delve into any more of the varying views of what constitutes truth, rather to simply say for the purposes of this course of study that the term “truth” is used in an objective, absolute sense. That is, according to the Correspondence of Truth theory. And since we will be discussing Divinity, to note that perfect knowledge of all truth in a religious context is referred to as omniscience, an attribute of God. Of course, spending much time collecting and evaluating evidence in determining truth may not always be profitable. Some truths may not be that significant. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek zero in on the truths most critical for each one of us, worthy of our time to investigate: “...the five most consequential questions in life are these: “1. Origin: Where did we come from? “2. Identity: Who are we? “3. Meaning: Why are we here? “4. Morality: How should we live? “5. Destiny: Where are we going? “The answers to each of these questions depend on the existence of God. If God exists, then thereʼs ultimate meaning and purpose to your life. If thereʼs a real purpose to your life, then thereʼs a real right and wrong way to live it. Choices you make now not only affect you here but will affect you in eternity. On the other hand, if there is no God, then your life ultimately means nothing. Since there is no enduring purpose to life, thereʼs no right or wrong way to live it. And it doesnʼt matter how you live or what you believe - your destiny is dust.”9 The purpose of this book is to answer the question, “Is there reason to believe in a God who created the universe and those in it?” There is no more important, fundamental question to answer. There are just three primary worldviews, which drive a variety of answers to this question: theism, pantheism and atheism...

8 Ibid 9 Geisler, Norman L., and Turek, Frank, I Donʼt Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (2004) Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, p. 20.

4 Evidence for Truth

“A theist is someone who believes in a personal God who created the universe but is not part of the universe. This would be roughly equivalent to a painter and a painting. God is like the painter, and His creation is like the painting. God made the painting, and His attributes are expressed in it, but God is not the painting. Major theistic religions are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. “By contrast, a pantheist is someone who believes in an impersonal God that literally is the universe. So, rather than making the painting, pantheists believe God is the painting. In fact, pantheists believe that God is everything that exists: God is the grass; God is the sky; God is the tree; God is this book; God is you; God is me; etc. Major pantheistic religions are of the Eastern variety such as Hinduism, some forms of Buddhism, and many forms of the ʻNew Age.ʼ “An atheist, of course, is someone who does not believe in any type of God. To follow our analogy, atheists believe that what looks like a painting has always existed and no one painted it. Religious humanists would fall into this category. “Hereʼs an easy way to remember these three religious worldviews: theism - God made all; pantheism - God is all; atheism - no God at all.”10 And, of course, there is one other type of believer, an agnostic. Agnosticism is the classiﬁcation for those who are undecided about whether or not there is any kind of God. Which are you? Is your faith (religious identity) based upon available evidence for truth? Seeking truth is all about seeking and evaluating evidence, a process which involves observation, investigation, measurement, analysis, reasoning, and accessing the knowledge and testimony of independent, trustworthy sources. This is a process which each of us must engage in personally because out of this comes faith, “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)11 Actually, this process to know truth is required to know any truth. It is a process of developing a set of convictions about the subject in view, convictions which may be correctly called “faith”. As we seek to know truth, we will encounter certain inevitable pitfalls, dangers from which no one is immune. It is imperative that we watch for and avoid erroneous views regarding truth mentioned above. Let us be watchful for what truth is not! Honesty is a vital ingredient for arriving at truth. The process involves drawing a correct conclusion from an honest appraisal of all pertinent evidence. It is the purpose of this book to present a reasonable amount of evidence to support each conclusion reached and to provide the reader with sources for pursuing critical points further.

10 Ibid, pgs. 22-23 11 Please note that Bible believing Christians are admonished by Scripture to seek truth. (The following quotes are from the New King James Version [NKJV] of the Bible.) (1) 2 Timothy 2:15 - “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2) John 8:32 - “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (3) John 14:6 - “Jesus said to him, ʻI am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.ʼ”

5 The Case for Divinity

Chapter 1 Discussion Questions 1. Please name and describe some theories of truth that are common in our society.

2. Please provide a general deﬁnition of truth.

3. Identify some things which prevent us from knowing the truth.

4. How can we guard against personal bias?

5. How can I be sure that what I believe is “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”?

6 Evidence for Truth

6. If you received some important information, what steps would you take to assure that what you received was the truth... From the Internet

From a relative or friend

From the preacher

From the Bible

7. Describe the New Age Movement and explain what is unbiblical about it.

7 Chapter 2 Evidence for a First Cause

n his book, Scientiﬁc Evidence for God, Bob Dutko explains a foundational law of science, a law known and acknowledged by all scientists, which I will use to introduce a fundamental question, a question that concerns us all... What is the beginning of all things? Where did everything come from? Before answering, consider what Dutko said about science: “In science there is a Law of Physics called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Within it is a Conservation of Energy Law that states, as a key principle that all energy in a closed system must be conserved. Okay, fancy language, but what does that mean? It means that while energy can convert into matter (physical ʻstuffʼ), and matter into energy, however much total ʻstuffʼ there is (matter and energy), there can never be an increase in that total amount or a decrease in that total amount. So however much total ʻstuffʼ there is in the universe, (matter and energy combined), there can never have been more and never have been less. All it can do is convert to different forms, like matter to energy or energy to matter, but the total amount of all of it has to remain the same.”1 This 1st Law of Thermodynamics2 is more than simply another law of Physics. This law is foundational to much of science as it is known today. Regardless of whether they believe the universe of today evolved by chance from a lifeless microbe or was created by an all-knowing, all-powerful Intelligent Designer and Creator, all scientists understand the 1st law and do their work within its limits. Where, then, did everything come from? There are only four possibilities: 1. It is illusionary, that is, none of it really exists. 2. It has always existed, that is, it is eternal in nature. 3. It sprang from nothing, i.e., a Big Bang, which evolved to more complex forms. 4. It was created by an intelligent Being. To be true, the answer you choose must be logical and reasonable based on available evidence. It cannot violate any known point of truth. With that in mind, letʼs examine each possibility. ✴ The ﬁrst possibility can be quickly dismissed based upon personal experience and general knowledge. But wait! Maybe our senses are deceiving us. While researching this point, I ran across an article explaining the possibility of ten different views. Michael Allison, the author, says,... “Reality isnʼt as plain and simple as we often like to think. Several things we take for granted as true are, in reality, patently false. Scientists and philosophers have

1 Dutko, Bob, Scientiﬁc Evidence of God, (2014) P.O. Box 380942, Clinton Twp., MI 48038, http:// toptenproofs.com/article.php?id=7 Copyright © Top Ten Proofs (Accessed 4/29/2015) 2 More on the Laws of Thermodynamics on the next page and in Chapters 5 and 7.

8 The Case For Divinity

done their best to overthrow the theories of common sense—as youʼll see by the ten examples below...”3 He then lists ten examples suggesting why reality is not real. Here is one as illustrative of all ten: “Ever wondered what happens to things behind your back? Philosophers have studied this problem intently, and some have reached a simple conclusion: they vanish. Well—not exactly. Some philosophers, known as ʻphenomenalistsʼ, believe that things only exist insofar as they are perceived. In other words, your cheese sandwich only exists so long as you are aware of its existence. So as for trees that fall in forests with no one around to hear them; they donʼt. No perception, no existence. Thatʼs phenomenalism in a nut-shell.” 4 Interesting idea, but not worth much to my mind. If I turn my back toward the table, close my eyes and back up, what will happen? Well, we all know well what will happen. I will bump into the table. Why? Because reality is real. There must be stronger evidence to convince me otherwise. ✴ The second possibility prompts the question, “Is the universe really eternal? Has it always existed?” There are several ways to answer in the negative. One is citing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics5 (also known as the Law of Entropy). This law, accepted and endorsed by all scientists in every field, insists that all closed systems are moving toward more and more disorder, in other words, running down. It means everything left to itself will come to its end. Since the universe is a closed system, and everything tends towards disorder it proves that if the universe were eternal, then it would be in complete disorder by now. Therefore we know the universe had a beginning because we have not yet come to complete disorder. ✴ Of course, the third possibility involves the theory of evolution. Throughout this course of study, various observations will be made which either point to the absence of evidence supporting evolution or identify evidence disproving the theory. We will begin below with a discussion of the Big Bang Theory and follow with more evidence throughout the book, but especially in Chapters 5 through 10. For now, we will simply say the theory cannot be true and postpone reasons until later. ✴ The validity of the fourth possibility - the universe was created by an intelligent Being - is overwhelmingly supported by Scriptural testimony, scientific discovery, human logic and reason and the personal experiences of creationists and evolutionists alike. No one can honestly deny the intelligent design of nature and humanity all around them. If this fourth proposition is true, the first three must be false. Of course, we all know the universe exists. The evidence is all around us. We live in it. And, logic tells us that whatever exists in our universe had a beginning. Logic goes further to insist that whatever had a beginning had a cause for that beginning. In logical form, the argument is... 1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause for that beginning 2. The universe had a beginning 3. Therefore, the universe had a cause for its beginning

3 Allison, Michael, 10 Mind-Blowing Theories About The Universe and Reality, (2013) ListVerse, http:// listverse.com/2013/04/15/10-mind-blowing-theories-about-the-universe-and-reality/ (Accessed 4/29/15) 4 Ibid. 5 More on the Laws of Thermodynamics in Chapters 5 and 7.

9 Evidence for a First Cause

Another important factor to consider when thinking of the cause of beginnings - drawing conclusions from ascertainable facts involves assumptions. Please note that such assumptions are reasonable... “The central principal in forensic science is the Principle of Uniformity, which holds that causes in the past were like the causes we observe today. In other words, by the Principle of Uniformity, we assume that the world worked in the past just like it works today, especially when it comes to causes.”6 As Julie Andrews sang so beautifully in Sound of Music, “Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could.” This is true today, and it must have been true in the past. It is my present, ﬁrm belief that all we know in the natural universe was created by an intelligent Being, and that Being is the God of the Bible. This book is about the vast amount of evidence that supports the truth of that statement.

The Big Bang Theory The Big Bang theory is an attempt to reconcile the Genesis account of creation with evolutionary belief. The concept says that ten to twenty billion years ago all of the matter in the universe we know today was contained in a single microscopic cosmic egg. It is hard to imagine, but so is the creation of the universe in a single week! Wayne Jackson describes it this way: “In one of his books, Dr. Robert Jastrow asserts that in the beginning ʻall matter in the Universe was compressed into an inﬁnitely dense and hot massʼ that exploded. Over many eons, supposedly, ʻthe primordial cloud of the Universe expands and cools, stars are born and die, the sun and earth are formed, and life arises on the earthʼ (1977, 2-3). Dr. Jastrow is describing, of course, what is commonly known as the big bang theory, and it does not require much critical acumen to conclude that the concept is evolutionary to the core.”7 There are at least two problems with Dr. Jastrowʼs idea. Firstly, where did the egg come from? When and where was its beginning? Secondly, and most importantly, what was its ﬁrst cause? Further, it is hard to imagine all matter in the universe being compressed into the relatively small mass (some even call it an egg) that evolutionists say exploded. Some scientists... “...speculate that it possibly resulted from some earlier universe that collapsed upon itself. This assumes that matter is eternal. But this idea is refuted by our knowledge of physics (e.g., the second law of thermodynamics). Jastrow concedes that ʻmodern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe, either in the past or in the futureʼ. Others, like Professor Victor Stenger of the University of Hawaii, muse that perhaps the universe came from nothing (the egg laid itself!): ʻ[T]he universe is probably the result of a random

6 Geisler, Norman L., and Turek, Frank, I Donʼt Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (2004) Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, p. 117. 7 Jackson, Wayne, The Big Bang Theory vs Godʼs Word, (2013) Christian Courier Publications, 7809 N Pershing Ave., Stockton, CA 9520, https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/133-the-big-bang-theory-vs- gods-word citing Jastrow, Robert. 1977. Until The Sun Dies. New York, NY: Warner Books. (©1998 – 2015 by Christian Courier Publications. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1559-2235 See Christian Courier Publicationʼs Terms of Content Use: https://www.christiancourier.com/copyright)

10 The Case For Divinity

quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void . . . the earth and humanity, are not conscious creations but an accident. . . . [I]t is not sufficient merely to say, “You canʼt get something from nothing.” While everyday experience and common sense seem to support this principle, if there is anything that we have learned from twentieth-century physics, it is this: Common sense is often wrong, and our normal experiences are but a tiny fraction of reality (1987, 26-27).ʼ”8 While Wayne Jackson quoted such explanations of the beginning of matter as “the egg laid itself”, he certainly did not buy any of it. About them he said, these... “...scientists should take a hint from the Scottish skeptic David Hume: ʻI have never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a causeʼ (1932, 187). Dr. Mart de Groot, who views the big bang concept as ʻa possible way of understanding the opening statement of the Bible, “in the beginning God . . .”,ʼ admits that there is an objective difficulty to the theory. And it is this: even if the ʻprimordial matterʼ exploded, he says, resulting in our present universe, ʻwhat is the origin or source of this matter?ʼ He confesses that ʻprobably the most serious shortcoming of the big bang is its inability to go back to the very beginning of time and spaceʼ (1999, 20-23).”9 Fact: The Big Bang theory has far more problems than the original source of matter. Here are a few: • Explosions never ever produce organized, intelligently designed structures and systems. • Explosions are known to propel matter outward from the center, never into systems which revolve, such as our earth and many other planets revolve around the sun. • Explosions always radiate destruction of anything in its path. • “If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case.”10 • “The big bang myth allows that the sun was formed long before the earth. Various theories have been formulated to explain how the universe came to be organized after the initial explosion. Take your choice: the planetesimal theory 11, the nebular theory 12, the dust cloud theory.13 They all have one thing in common—they assert that the earth is a new-comer compared to the sun. However, the Bible teaches that the earth was

8 Ibid (Jackson) citing Jastrow, Robert. 1977. Until The Sun Dies. New York, NY: Warner Books, and Stenger, Victor J. 1987. Was the Universe Created? Free Inquiry, 7:3, Summer. 9 Ibid (Jackson) citing Hume, David. 1932. Letters. Vol. 1. J. Y. T. Greig, ed. Oxford, England: Clarendon, and de Groot, Mart. 1999. The Search For A Plausible Cosmology. Ministry, November. 10 Jackson, Wayne, The Big Bang Theory vs Godʼs Word, (2013) Christian Courier Publications, 7809 N Pershing Ave., Stockton, CA 9520, https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/133-the-big-bang-theory-vs- gods-word (©1998 – 2015 by Christian Courier Publications. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1559-2235 See Christian Courier Publicationʼs Terms of Content Use: https://www.christiancourier.com/copyright) 11 Cosmic dust grains collide, stick together and form 1 km. small planets. 12 Clouds of molecular hydrogen stick together, rotate and form a star. 13 Clouds of dust and gas swirl, bump into each other, move closer to the center, and swirl faster and faster until they form the sun and planets.

11 Evidence for a First Cause

created first, and the sun came later—on the fourth day of the first week (Genesis 1:1, 14-16). The same point can be made regarding the stars. The Bible puts them after the earth; the evolutionary model teaches otherwise. Of course some have attempted to solve this difficulty with yet another slippery compromise. They allege that the ʻcreative actsʼ of Genesis 1 are not necessarily ʻin chronological orderʼ (Willis 1979, 92).”14 The evolutionistsʼ Big Bang Theory is based on the notion that the beginning of the universe was a colossal explosion, a blast of disorderly matter, which somehow evolved into the orderly, complexly structured, beautiful universe that we see today. The Bibleʼs explanation is exactly opposite. The beautiful, functional creation by God in the beginning has been steadily moving toward chaotic disorder ever since. (Consider Genesis 1:1-18). That fits well with our understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics15. It is not difficult to agree with Wayne Jacksonʼs conclusion: “The big bang theory is without validity. It has the support of neither genuine science nor responsible biblical exegesis. For once we agree with several evolutionists who admit: ʻCosmology (the study of the origin, evolution and ultimate end of the universe - def. mine, cb) is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few factsʼ (Arp et al. 1990, 812). In view of that, it can hardly be classified as ʻscience.ʼ”16

Space, Matter and Time Belief in a First Cause for existence of the universe involves more than the word “universe” may bring to mind. The universe is composed of three inseparable components: space, matter and time. Dr. Henry Morris refers to the universe as intelligently created, a... “... tri-universe of Space, Matter, and Time, each permeating and representing the whole. However, the universe is not partly composed of space, partly of matter, and partly of time (like, for example, the three sides of a triangle). A trinity is not a trio or a triad, but a tri-unity, with each part comprising the whole, yet all three required to make the whole. Thus, the universe is all Space, all Time, and all Matter (including energy as a form of matter); in fact, many scientists speak of it as a Space-Matter-Time continuum.”17 If, as Dr. Morris wrote, space, matter and time are so closely intertwined, they must have been created together. That means any First Cause for the creation must have existed before and outside all that was created. Outside of space means omnipresent, outside of matter means spiritual and outside of time means eternal. Before the beginning of anything, there was only God.

Whose God? I am writing “God” thinking of Jehovah God of the Bible, but there are some religions that do not worship the God of the Bible, yet believe their “god” created the universe. Among these are some religions which can be classed as “pantheistic”, that is, believing that the divine is synonymous with the universe, and “panentheism”, which holds that the divine extends beyond the universe, the universe being the manifest part of the divine. Because of the Space-Matter-Time continuum, such views cannot be true.

14 Ibid (Jackson). 15 The Laws of Thermodynamics are discussed more fully in Chapters 5 & 7. 16 Ibid (Jackson) citing Arp, H. C., G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J. V. Narliker, and N. C. Wickramasinghe. 1990. 17 Morris, Henry, Ph.D., 2005. The Tri-Universe. Acts & Facts . 34 (12). © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org

12 The Case For Divinity

“Since there is sufficient evidence to show that the universe began and therefore must have had a beginning, we must also include the dimensions of time and space as part of that beginning. Therefore the ʻBeginning Causeʼ must have been outside of time and space. This is one of the central claims of the Bible about God: He is eternal and dwells ʻabove the heavensʼ (Heb. 7:26) - that is, God is outside of time and space. At this point, we could apply these deductions using the scientific method to dismiss the claims of certain religions which present their ʻGodʼ as being a part of time and space (pantheism).”18 Dr. Morris goes on in his article on The Tri-Universe19 to draw an interesting comparison between the creation and the three persons of the Creator. The Persons of a tri-unity of God, as mentioned by Dr. Morris, are reflected in the tri-unity of the universe. Space represents God the Father, the invisible, omnipresent background of the universe and everything in it. Matter, that which is visible and present among us, represents Christ, the Son Who manifests Himself to us. And Time, that which reveals events of the universe thus helping our understanding of it, represents the Holy Spirit Whose work it was to reveal to humanity the mind of God. It is interesting to consider the universe as composed of a Triune just as is the Creator. And, to note that each of the three components of the Tri-Universe are composed of yet another Tri- Unity. Space is composed of length, width and height; the three most common forms of Matter20 are gas, liquid or solid; Energy, which is another component of Matter, may be either kinetic, thermal or potential; and Time is either past, present or future. All of this could have happened by chance? Come on! Someone may object. We have moved from concluding that the universe was created by an intelligent Being (the fourth possibility of where everything came from) to speaking of the God of the Bible as that intelligent Being. But, please hold your objection, at least until considering other evidence presented in subsequent chapters of this book. Chapter 2 Discussion Questions 1. List some ways in which the Big Bang theory differs from or contradicts the biblical account of creation in Genesis 1.

2. What are the four possible origins of the universe?

18 Corbett, Dr. Andrew, 5 Proofs for the Existence of God, Legana, Tasmania, http://www.andrewcorbett.net/ articles/5-proofs.html © Dec. 2004-2008, Dr. Andrew Corbett, Legana, Tasmania 19 Morris, Henry, Ph.D., 2005. The Tri-Universe. Acts & Facts . 34 (12). © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org 20 Bagley, Mary, Matter: Deﬁnition and the Five States of Matter (2014) http://www.livescience.com/46506- states-of-matter.html According to Ms. Bagley there are actually ﬁve phases or states of Matter: solids, liquids, gases, plasma, and Bose-Einstein condensates.

13 Evidence for a First Cause

3. What is the Tri-Universe?

4. What is unique about it?

5. Deﬁne pantheism and panentheism. How do they differ?

6. What is illogical about a pantheistic “god” creating the universe?

7. Please identify and explain the strongest reason you believe there must be a First Cause. If you do not believe there was a First Cause, please explain why.

14 Chapter 3 Evidence for God

he Bible opens with “In the beginning God...” These four words form the most powerful, far- reaching phrase in the history of language. Should we believe it? It is impossible to prove that God does or does not exist. If God exists, He exists in the spirit world, which defies digging up physical evidence, weighing on micro scales, viewing through a microscope, or analyzing in the most advanced laboratory. But, if God does not exist, what are the alternatives? Well, thereʼs only one other clear alternative. That is Darwinian evolution. Todayʼs theory of evolution is generally recognized from the time of Charles Darwin in the mid-nineteenth century and referred to as Darwinʼs theory. Actually, the explanation of all things by natural evolution dates much further back, back in history to Nasiraddin Tusi, a thirteenth century Iranian, who pronounced his view of evolution long before Darwin. Then there is theistic evolution, which denies the Genesis 1 account of creation in an attempt to marry Darwinʼs view with the belief there is a creative God who started the evolutionary process. Of course, that answer will not fly for reasons presented in the next chapter, among them that creation events in Genesis 1 are nowhere near the sequence required by an evolutionary process. Fundamentally then, there are only two possibilities: evolution or creation. Neither can be witnessed or measured. Neither answer can be proven with absolute certainty based on direct evidence. None of us were there to experience the beginning. We must consider the evidence we have and draw a reasonable and logical conclusion from that. Actually, a great deal about God can be learned from nature, and all true conclusions reached by natural means will agree with what is revealed in Scripture. Notice Psalm 19:1-6... The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

15 The Case for Divinity

David saw God in the natural universe. What he saw may be referred to as natural revelation of God. The record of God which we read in Scripture is called special revelation. (More about special revelation in Chapters 11 and 12.) What David saw in nature gave him reason to praise Godʼs name. Those who do not see God in the creation are condemned by the Bible. The apostle Paul wrote of them in Romans 1:18-23 - “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.” Since the Bible says it was written by the inspiration of God, I must conclude that if there is God, He expects us to see Him in His creation. To deny the veracity of divine evidence in the physical universe is a slap in the Almightyʼs face. With the preceding thoughts behind us, letʼs get down to fundamentals, beneath the scientiﬁc evidences which are a prominent part of this book, down to basic arguments about the existence of deity. There are three: “And while we canʼt know most truth absolutely due to our human limitations, we can know many truths to a high degree of certainty (i.e., “beyond reasonable doubt”). One of these truths is the existence and nature of God. From the lines of evidence ... the Cosmological, Teleological, and Moral Arguments - we are able to know beyond a reasonable doubt that a theistic God exists who has certain characteristics.”1 Letʼs consider each one of these in turn...

The Cosmological Argument Much of what we discuss in this book falls under the heading of Cosmological argumentation, that is, evidences from science for a time-space-material universe created out of nothing. Such evidence as the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, introduced in Chapter 2 and discussed more fully in Chapters 5 and 7, make one of the strongest possible arguments for a Creator. But there is more... There are cosmological arguments scattered throughout this book. They argue for the existence of a supreme, everlasting God, and tell us something about Him. One thing we learn is that the undeniable characteristics of God exist outside of the created universe. Not being part of time, space or matter means He is self-existent, timeless and immaterial. He is an eternal Spirit. We know He is a God of love because He designed His creation to spawn and support life in a beneﬁcial way 2. And speaking of design, the universe demonstrates His intelligence and His ability to make choices since He obviously chose to create the universe out of nothing.

1 Geisler, Norman L., and Turek, Frank, I Donʼt Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, (2004) Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, p. 197. 2 Ibid, pgs. 197-198.

16 Evidence for God

The Teleological Argument A teleological argument, also known as an argument from design, is an argument for a Designer, or a Creator, based on evidence of order and design seen in the physical world. Intelligent Design is a very strong argument. We see it everywhere. Michael Denton, an Australian medical doctor and scientist who has done biological research in Sydney, says this,... “While Darwin was attempting to convince the world of the validity of evolution by natural selection he was admitting privately to friends to moments of doubt over its capacity to generate very complicated adaptations or ʻorgans of extreme perfectionʼ, as he described them. In a letter to Asa Gray, the American biologist, written in 1861, just two years after the publication of The Origin of the Species, he acknowledges these doubts and admits that ʻThe eye to this day gives me a cold shudder.ʼ”3 R. L. Wysong puts universal logic, which none of us questions, into words... “ʻEveryone concludes naturally and comfortably that highly ordered and designed items (machines, houses, etc.) owe existence to a designer. It is unnatural to conclude otherwise. But evolution asks us to break stride from what is natural to believe in what is unnatural, unreasonable, and…unbelievable… The basis for this departure from what is natural and reasonable to believe is not fact, observation, or experience but rather unreasonable extrapolations from abstract probabilities, mathematics, and philosophy.ʼ”4 “ʻIn concluding, it is important to realize that we are not inferring design from what we do not know, but from what we do know. We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box. A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed. In the same way biochemistry has opened up the cell to examine what makes it run and we see that it, too, was designed. “ʻIt was a shock to people of the nineteenth century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.ʼ”5

Bad Design? Some evolutionists have made the argument that if there is God who designed and created everything, then there should be no bad design. Since there is, they claim, it follows that

3 Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (1986) Adler & Adler Publishers, Bethesda, Maryland, p. 326, Quoting from Darwin, C. (1860) in letter to Asa Gray in Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1888) 3 vols, ed F. Darwin, John Murray, London, vol 2, p 273. 4 Pack, David C., Does God Exist, The Restored Church of God (2008), p. 25, Wadsworth, OH, citing Wysong, R. L., The Creation/Evolution Controversy, 1976. 5 Ibid (Pack), p. 25

17 The Case for Divinity evolution must be true. In a review of Lee Strobelʼs Case for a Creator, Lita Cosner6 discusses this idea of “bad design”... “Some Darwinists claim that evolution must be true on the basis of ʻbad designʼ in certain structures. However, this argument is a theological argument, not scientific. People who claim that a structure is badly designed often fail to weigh the benefit of a structure to an organism versus the resources it uses. Most structures that evolutionists claim are ʻbadly designedʼ are adequate for the creatureʼs needs, and indeed the alleged ʻbad designʼ turns out to be essential. A good example is the allegedly backwardly wired retina, an arrangement that turns out to be essential so that the light receptors can be regenerated and cooled.7 Furthermore, recent research shows that the eye even has a fibre-optic plate comprising the Muller cells that efficiently guides light through the nerve network.8 “And in a case of true deficiency, it is easier for the creationist to explain how the Fall could corrupt an originally good structure than for an evolutionist to explain how that structure came to exist through mutation.” The Moral Argument While not everyone agrees on how to interpret and apply moral laws, every honest person must admit there is a moral law. Note this from I Donʼt Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist9... “When we say the Moral Law exists, we mean that all people are impressed with a fundamental sense of right and wrong. Everyone knows, for example, that love is superior to hate and that courage is better than cowardice. University of Texas at Austin professor J. Budziszewski writes, ʻEveryone knows certain principles. There is no land where murder is virtue and gratitude vice.ʼ 10 C. S. Lewis, who has written profoundly on this topic in his classic Mere Christianity, put it this way: ʻThink of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five.ʼ”11 The fact there is a Moral Law means there is a Law Giver. Consider the following argument from logic: 1. Every law has a law giver 2. There is a Moral Law 3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver

6 Cosner, Lita, Strong case, but flawed by compromise, A review of the Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel , Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, http://creation.com/strong-case-but-flawed-by-compromise. (Accessed Nov 14, 2014) 7 Ibid (Cosner), citing Gurney, P.W.V., Is our ʻinvertedʼ retina really ʻbad designʼ? Journal of Creation 13(1): 37–44, 1999; creation.com/retina. (Accessed Nov 14, 2014) 8 Ibid (Cosner), citing Sarfati, J., Fibre optics in eye demolish atheistic ʻbad designʼ argument, 3 August 2007, ; after Franze et al. , Müller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina, PNAS USA 104(20):8287–8292, 15 May 2007 | 10.1073/pnas.0611180104, published online before print 7 May 2007; Copyright © 2015 National Academy of Sciences. (Accessed Nov 14, 2014) 9 Geisler, Norman L., and Turek, Frank, I Donʼt Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, (2004) Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, p. 171. 10 Ibid (Geisler), citing J. Budziszewski, Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 208-209. 11 Ibid (Geisler), citing C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 19

18 Evidence for God

(More about this Moral Law, or Law of Human Nature, in Chapter 5: Evidence for Creation.)

Conclusion: God Exists God exists. There is too much evidence to conclude otherwise, no matter how far-fetched the idea of an eternal God. Though there is enough evidence already presented to support this conclusion, the rest of this book will pile evidence upon evidence for what cannot honestly be denied. There are arguably dozens of religious world views as we discussed in Chapter 1: Evidence for Truth. However, there are relatively few major theistic religions, that is, religions that have at their center some deﬁnition of at least one deity. Most major religions are nontheistic. Islam and Judaism deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, which He implied strongly in several ways. (More on evidence for the divinity of Jesus in Chapter 14: Evidence for Jesus Christ.) If there is God, then the following conclusion12 about the worldʼs religions must be true: “...only one of the theistic religions - Judaism, Christianity, or Islam - could be true. All other major world religions cannot be true, because they are nontheistic.

Could Be True (Theistic) Could Not Be True (Nontheistic)

1. Judaism 1. Hinduism (pantheistic and polytheistic)

2. Christianity 2. Buddhism (pantheistic or atheistic)

3. Islam 3. New Age (pantheistic)

4, Secular Humanism (atheistic)

5. Mormonism (polytheistic)

6. Wicca (pantheistic or polytheistic)

7. Taoism (pantheistic or atheistic)

8. Confucianism (atheistic)

9. Shinto (polytheistic)

“This may seem like a grandiose claim - to deny the truth of so many world religions at this stage. But by simple logic - using the Law of Noncontradiction - mutually exclusive religions cannot all be true. Just as certain football players are rightfully cut from the roster of possible players because they lack necessary abilities, certain world religions are rightfully cut from the roster of possible true religions because they lack necessary qualiﬁcations.”13 Of course, this is not to say that the religions which did not make the roster are all bad or that all the tenets of those religions are untrue. They may have many good points, but because of conﬂicting teaching and practices from one to another, not all can contain nothing but truth.

12 Geisler, Norman L., and Turek, Frank, I Donʼt Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (2004) Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, p. 198-199. 13 Ibid.

19 The Case for Divinity

Chapter 3 Discussion Questions 1. Describe the structure of thought in the 19th Psalm.

2. What is the Cosmological argument for the existence of God?

3. What is the Teleological argument for the existence of God?

4. What is the Moral argument for the existence of God?

5. Name and describe a couple of obvious, but profound evidences of special creation, evidences with which we are all familiar.

6. What point(s) about Christianity make it unique among all the religions of the world?

20 Evidence for God

7. Please name some religions which cannot be true if there is God.

8. At this point in our study, do you know of any credible evidence for evolution? If so, please explain.

9. Based on our study so far, do you see any ﬂaws in the evidence presented for the existence of a divine Creator? If so, please explain.

21 Chapter 4 Evidence for Theistic Evolution?

efore moving too far into discussions of evidence for creation, a young earth, etc., mention should be made of so-called theistic evolution theories proposed by those who are trying to hang onto a belief in evolution while believing in an all-powerful God. These attempts to marry theism and evolutionism generally incorporate the Big Bang Theory. All theistic evolution theories are an effort to answer the need for a first cause, and they assume that evolution over a long period of time is proven. “Theistic evolution says one of two things. The first option is that there is a God, but He was not directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to atheistic evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.”1 This is the view of the “Day Age Theory”, i.e., that following a Big Bang caused by God the natural processes described above took over. Read more about the Day Age Theory on the next page. “The second alternative of theistic evolution is that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were constant. He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwinʼs evolutionary tree of life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptileʼs limb evolve into a birdʼs wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to special creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.”2 Within this description there are the Gap, the Modified Gap, and the God of the Gaps theories, the latter often referred to as Progressive Creationism. All of these views in addition to the Day Age Theory are discussed below. Before getting to those, here are a few more general thoughts on theistic evolution. “A person who believes in creation but also in an Old Earth (OE) - billions of years - would be described as a theistic evolutionist. They believe OE theory and in the claimed processes of evolution, but maintain that the initial matter and scientific laws were brought into existence by God (Gen 8.22, Ps 74.16,17, Job 38.4-7, 33 Jer 33.25). They would also take a figurative (non- literal) interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.”3

1 What is Theistic Evolution?, Got Questions Ministries, http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html (Accessed 1/15/2015) 2 Ibid. 3 Scientiﬁc Evidence for a Young Earth, http://www.seekingtruth.co.uk/young_earth_creationism.

22 The Case for Divinity

All the evidence we have points to God as the First Cause, however, we have no credible evidence supporting evolution of the universe over a long period of time by chance. Such would require (as the above quote mentions) some evidence of macro-evolution, that is, the emergence of a new species from a simpler one. Fact is, God being God did not need a long period of time. By the same power with which He brought time, space and matter into existence, He shaped all of those components into the complex, effective universe we occupy and study today, and He did it in the six days of Genesis 1. Still, many efforts have been made to combine long-age evolution with the biblical account of creation. In fact, questions leading in that direction date back to the 17th century, well before Charles Darwinʼs time, though the label “evolution” was not applied until later. Some theistic evolutionary theories found within Christianity today are the Day Age Theory, the Gap Theory, Progressive Creationism, and the Framework Theory. There are also variant views and overlapping explanations as theistic minds have accepted claims that science has proven evolution and tried to combine the two divergent views into one. The fact is, as we are attempting to show in this book, science has not proven Darwinian evolution. Still, the four named theistic evolutionary views persist. We will consider them in the following sections.

The Day-Age Theory Dr. Davis Young, a renown geologist, held belief in both a creative God and the theory of evolution, a theistic evolution theory called the Day-Age Theory. But, there was a problem. He could not reconcile his evolutionary view of geology with the creation record in Scripture. Before we get to that, however, what is the “Day Age Theory”? This deﬁnition is from the Institute for Creation Research:4 “Two elements are essential in any evolutionary scheme, whether it be theistic or atheistic: long periods of time and the assumed validity of the molecules-to-man evolutionary scenario. Atheists care little for the biblical account,... Theistic evolutionists, however, profess a certain allegiance to the Scriptures and must attempt to harmonize the biblical account with the evolutionary scenario. The biblical text,... indicates a universe and earth that were formed in six days; evolutionists suppose at least six billion years. The mechanism by which theistic evolutionists harmonize the two is known as the day-age theory.” Now to the problem a renown geologist, Dr. Davis Young, had with this. His view that God created the energy and materials, which initiated the widely held view that all things then evolved over a long period of time, did not ﬁt with the sequence of creation events recorded in Genesis 1. The following is his reasoning as presented in his book, The Harmonization of Scripture and Science 5: “The Day-Age hypothesis insisted with at least a semblance of textual plausibility that the days of creation were long periods of time of indeterminate length, although the immediate context implies that the term yôm for ʻdayʼ really means ʻdayʼ. Having devised a means for

4 Richard Niessen. 1980. Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory. Acts & Facts . 9 (3). http:// www.icr.org/article/theistic-evolution-day-age-theory/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 1/17/2015) 5 Creation Ministries International, Powder Springs, GA, http://creation.com/davis-young-why-he- abandoned-the-day-age-theory, citing Young, D., The harmonization of Scripture and science, science symposium at Wheaton College, 23 March 1990.

23 Evidence for Theistic Evolution

allowing Genesis 1 to be in harmony with an ancient planet, Day-Age advocates needed to demonstrate that the sequence of creative activities of Genesis chapter 1 matched the sequence of events deciphered by the astronomers and geologists. Well, Day-Agers outdid themselves in constructing impressive correlations. Of course, these correlations … all differed from each other. While a fairly convincing case could be made for a general concord, … specifics of these correlations were a bit more murky. “There were some textual obstacles the Day-Agers developed an amazing agility in surmounting. The biblical text, for example, has vegetation appearing on the third day and animals on the fifth day. Geology, however, had long realized that invertebrate animals were swarming in the seas long before vegetation gained a foothold on the land. This obvious point of conflict, however, failed to dissuade well-intentioned Christians, my earlier self included, from nudging the text to mean something different from what it says. In my case, I suggested that the days were overlapping days. Having publicly repented of that textual mutilation a few years ago, I will move on without further embarrassing myself. “Worse yet, the text states that on the fourth day God made the heavenly bodies after the earth was already in existence. Here is a blatant confrontation with science. Astronomy insists that the sun is older than the earth. How do Day-Agers worm out of this? The usual subterfuge involves the suggestion that the light originally visible on earth was sunlight that was obscured and diffused by the thick atmosphere that began to dissipate with the separation of the waters on the second day. Not until the fourth day, however, had the mists thinned to the point where the sun became visible from the earth.”6

Several “Gap” Theories Some have expended a lot of effort toward deﬁning theoretical gaps in the Genesis record of creation to somehow include billions of years from creation of the universe to the time of man. The result, according to Bodie Hoge and Troy Lacey, is that a number of gap theories have been suggested. The purpose is to marry the long ages of evolutionary theory with the Genesis record. Here are some of the gap models that have been proposed:”7 1. Pre-time gap. This theory accepts the Genesis 1:1 account of creation, but adds long ages of time before. How can there be ages of time before the creation of time? 2. Ruin-reconstruction gap.8 3. Modiﬁed gap/precreation chaos gap. This view adds a long age between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3, and is thoroughly addressed in an article by Bodie Hodge and troy Lacey.9

6 Ibid. 7 Hodge, Bodie, and Lacey, Troy, Modified Gap Theory (November 5, 2010) https://answersingenesis.org/ genesis/gap-theory/modified-gap-theory/ (Accessed 1/30/2015) 8 Perhaps the most popular of the gap theories. Discussed in the next section under The Gap Theory. 9 Hodge, Bodie, and Lacey, Troy, Modified Gap Theory (November 5, 2010) https://answersingenesis.org/ genesis/gap-theory/modified-gap-theory/ (Accessed 1/30/2015)

24 The Case for Divinity

4. Soft Gap as described by Don Batten10: “Recently, some, such as Gorman Gray, have proposed a ʻsoftʼ gap theory in an attempt to fit billions of years into the Bible.11 Soft gap advocates claim that Genesis 1:1–2 refers to the creation of the stars and galaxies and the matter of the earth, and that verses 3–31 describe a forming and filling of earth billions of years later. Gray says, ʻEarth lay in total darkness … for an undefined length of time before the first day until God began to clear the envelope of thick darknessʼ.12 The first day of forming and filling of earth began from the pre- existing matter, according to Gray, in verse 3, and this began the Creation Week.” 5. Then there is the Late Gap view, which maintains there was a long age gap between chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis meaning Adam and Eve had to exist in the garden for that long age. There are problems with this view as with the other Gap Theories. An article by Bodie Hodge explores some of the problems with the Late Gap Theory.13 Each of these gap theories has variations due to the creativity of those combining creation with evolution. But, why? Evolution has not been proven. We will not delve further into all of these Gap Theories, however, the Gap and Modified Gap theories deserve more discussion as does Progressive Creationism, also called the “God of the Gaps” theory.

The Gap Theory The gap theory, another attempt to merge together belief in both God and evolution, has also been called the “ruin and reconstruction theory”, a concept that really involves two divine creations. The Institute for Creation Research describes it this way: “According to this concept, Genesis 1:1 describes the initial creation of the universe. Following this, the standard events of cosmic evolution took place, which eventually produced our solar system about five billion years ago. Then, on the earth, the various geologic ages followed, as identified by their respective assemblages of fossils (trilobites, dinosaurs, etc.). “But then occurred a devastating global cataclysm, destroying all life on Earth and leaving a vast fossil graveyard everywhere. This situation is then said to be what is described in Genesis 1:2. ʻAnd the earth was without form and void;...”14 Proponents of this theory hold that the six days of creation in Genesis 1 are literal 24 hour days of creation. But, they claim there was a long gap of evolutionary time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, which accounts for what they believe is valid scientific evidence of long-age development. They believe Genesis 1:2 describes the result of a great cataclysm caused by the rebellion of Satan and his angels, which in turn caused God to throw them out of heaven.

10 Batton, Don, ʻSoftʼ gap sophistry, Creation Ministries International, Powder Springs, GA, http:// creation.com/soft-gap-sophistry#txtRef1 (Accessed 4/29/2015) 11 Ibid (Batton) citing Gorman Gray, The Age of the Universe: What Are the Biblical Limits? Morningstar Publications, Washougal, Washington, 1997. (Accessed 4/29/2015) 12 Ibid (Batton): A biblical solution to starlight and other problems, , 22 January 2004. (Accessed 4/29/2015) 13 Hodge, Bodie, When Did Adam and Eve Rebel? (April 20, 2010) https://answersingenesis.org/bible- characters/adam-and-eve/when-did-adam-and-eve-rebel/ (Accessed 1/30/2105) 14 Henry Morris, Ph.D. 1997. Why the Gap Theory Wonʼt Work. Acts & Facts. 26 (11) © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 1/15/15).

25 Evidence for Theistic Evolution

Study Bible Notations Teach the Gap Theory It is interesting to note that the Scofield Study Bible, which is widely used internationally (It is the most popular version of the Bible in England and Ireland.), includes notes and cross references to aid in study rather than simply reading. The Scofield Reference Bible study notes have propagated such views as dispensationalism (the belief in literal interpretation of the Bible, division of the Bible into seven dispensations, premillennial eschatology, and that Israel and the church are two distinct groups of Godʼs people), and the gap theory. Among its Genesis 1 notes supporting the gap theory are: • At verse 1 - “Jeremiah 4:23-27; Isaiah 24:1; Isaiah 45:18 clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting imitations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels.”15 • At verse 3 - “Neither here nor in Genesis 1:14-18 is an original creative act implied. A different word is used. The sense is, made to appear; made visible. The sun and moon were created “in the beginning.” The “light” of course came from the sun, but the vapour diffused the light. Later the sun appeared in an unclouded sky.”16 • At verse 11 - “It is by no means necessary to suppose that the life-germ of seeds perished in the catastrophic judgment which overthrew the primitive order. With the restoration of dry land and light the earth would “bring forth” as described. It was “animal” life which perished, the traces of which remain as fossils. Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains.”17 The view these notes are suggesting is that there was a great evolutionary period, a gap, between verses 1 and 2, and that verse 2 is saying the sun and moon, which had evolved over eons of time out of the big bang in verse 1, did not become visible until the vapor that had hidden them cleared. The Scofield Reference Bible is not the only popular version of the Bible that teaches the gap theory. A footnote in the Nelson Study Bible, published in 1997, states on Genesis 1:1 and 1:2... “Here it means that God renewed what was in a chaotic state. God changed chaos into cosmos, disorder into order, emptiness into fullness. . . . The two words, without form and void, express one concept—chaos. The earth had been reduced to this state—it was not the way God had first created it.”18 There are several problems with the concept Godʼs first creation was good (Gen. 1:1), but something cataclysmic happened, everything good entered into an historical gap of chaos and disarray, so God had to step in again and set things right (Gen. 1:2). Here are a few problems: • The Gap Theory is not generally accepted by geologists. Their view of science depends upon continuous development down through the ages. There is no room for a cataclysmic disruption to their theoretical development of new species.

15 Scofield, C. I. Scofield Reference Notes on Genesis 1:1. Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition). http:// www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scoffield-reference-notes/genesis/genesis-1.html. 1917. (Accessed 2/23/2015) 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Henry Morris, Ph.D. 1997. Why the Gap Theory Wonʼt Work. Acts & Facts. 26 (11) © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 1/15/15).

26 The Case for Divinity

• If true, the Gap Theory would require a great period of chaos and destruction, which would have destroyed all fossil and other geological evidence.19 • According to the gap theory, death preceded the arrival of Adam and Eve on the scene. It was part of the gap of chaos. The fact is, death did not enter until later in the biblical record. Eve knew if they ate of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, they would die (Gen. 3:3). They ate, and God pronounced the death sentence on Adam and his wife (Gen. 3:19). God put them out of the garden and blocked access to the tree of life. Until then death was not part of the creation scene. • Gap theorists generally blame Satan for the global destruction they claim occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 2. Thatʼs not biblically possible. Satanʼs fall apparently did not occur until after the Genesis 1 week of creation because it was then that “...God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” (Gen. 1:31) Then in Genesis 2 we learn of Satan working against God. And, Revelation 12 informs us Satan was not cast out of heaven because of an early cataclysm ...., but because of and following Christʼs sacriﬁce on the cross. (Revelation 12:5-12) Thus, the gap theory means God alone was responsible for destruction of the earth. Why?

The Modified Gap Theory Like the gap theory, the “modified gap theory”, or “precreation gap theory”, is widely held. For that reason and because it illustrates thinking that produced various gap theories, it deserves more discussion.This gap theory attempts to blend long ages of evolution with creation by adding a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 2. Of course, doing so destroys a literal Genesis 1. “The first creation was followed by a catastrophe. the first people, fossil cavemen and cavewomen, inhabited the second creation; then there was a second catastrophe. Adam and Eve were created in the third creation, six thousand years ago, and Noahʼs Flood destroyed that world in 2310 BCE.”20 Where did this come from? What valid reason is there to do anything else with the text but accept it for what it says? God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. That record even specifies the sequence of that creation. How else can we understand Genesis 1? But those who proclaim the modified gap theory would join gap theorists in objecting: “The first question raised here is why God would create anything ʻformless and voidʼ.”21 This objection implies that Godʼs initial creation of the heavens and earth was well ordered and beautiful. Then, over the course of billions of years Satan and his angels destroyed and corrupted the earth, changing it into a state of disarray, i.e., the “formless and void” environment of verse two. Rich Deem22 of the Evidence for God website offers this response:

19 Ibid. 20 Mclver, Tom, Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism, Creation/Evolution Journal, Issue 24 (Fall 1988) pg. 15 citing Galusha, Walter, Fossils and the Word of God (1964), http://ncse.com/cej/8/3/formless- void-gap-theory-creationism (Accessed 2/7/2015) 21 Widner, Wes, On the old earth - 1 of 2 (June 28, 2010) Reason to Stand, http://reasontostand.org/ archives/tag/modiﬁed-gap-theory (Accessed 1/30/2015) 22 Deem, Rich, The “Gap” (or Three Earth Ages) Creation Model, Evidence for God, http:// godandscience.org/apologetics/gap.html

27 Evidence for Theistic Evolution

“Proponents of the gap theory translate Genesis 1:2 as, ʻAnd the earth had become formless and void.ʼ It is true, the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:2, hayah, usually translated ʻwas,ʼ is also translated elsewhere as ʻbecameʼ or ʻhad become.ʼ However, this word is extremely common, occurring over 1,000 times in the book of Genesis alone, where it is given over 100 different translations in the NASB version. Since biblical Hebrew is a very small language (containing less than 9,000 words), many Hebrew words have multiple meanings. Therefore, the proper translation must be determined from the context in which the word is found. I have listed some of the more common translations of hayah from the book of Genesis: Translations of Hayah

Translation Number of Times

Became 85

Become 230

Been 98

Came 526

Come 141

Happen 13

Happened 59

Has 19

Have 97

Remain 9

Remained 6 ”As you can see, Genesis 1:2 could be translated ʻAnd the earth remained formless and void...ʼ This would make sense, since the context indicates that God had just begun moving above the waters of the earth to change it for habitation. The word hayah is used 18 times in the first 20 verses of Genesis 1 and it would not make sense to translate it ʻhad becomeʼ in any of the other 17 verses. Therefore, I see no reason from the context of Genesis 1:1 or 1:2 to translate hayah in Genesis 1:2 as ʻhad become.ʼ “Theologically, I find it difficult to support the concept that Satan has the power to destroy and corrupt all of Godʼs creation. Iʼm sure that if he really had that kind of power, he would have used it again to destroy the world or at least prevent the Messiah from living. Nowhere in the Bible is that kind of power attributed to Satan, since his primary method of operation is through lies and deceit.” Interesting thought. And, why would God leave His initial creation sitting idly for billions of years before creating those who He intended to inhabit it? Still, there are questions on the gap side of the issue as well...

28 The Case for Divinity

“The next question at Genesis 1:2 is, if we are supposing that Genesis is a recipe for the creation of all the cosmos, when did God create that formless void? Why start with a formless void in the first place? How old is that formless void? What makes this question even more poignant is that in verse 1:2 we are further told that ʻdarkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the watersʼ. Wait, where did the deep come from, where did the water come from?”23 I find it difficult questioning why God created things the way He did. He could do it anyway He wanted. For His reasons. Still, why not create the materials first and then shape them into a finished creation? Why take six days? Why not do everything in the blink of an eye? The modified gap theory holds that day one was millions of years long, but days two through seven were normal length. Does that make sense? On what hermeneutical basis can that conclusion be drawn from the text? Gap theorists have pointed out another “peculiarity” if we read Genesis 1 “as a blueprint for the creation of the universe”. “... we have to read Genesis 1:1 as a summary or introduction as opposed to an otherwise informative statement. In other words, Genesis 1:1, on the blueprint model (which is required for the young earth view to hold), would make this the only time in Scripture where any author summarizes what they are going to say before they say it.”24 So? That being the case, it seems to me very appropriate that such a summary would be at the opening of the whole revelation of God. What more foundational statement could be made before calling all mankind to obedience than the affirmation that God created all things? What better way to get the readerʼs attention? The fact it is the only place in all the Bible where the summary precedes the detail makes it even more suited to introducing Godʼs revelation. And, the arguments continue, though it seems to me those for the gap become thinner and thinner... “So, does the Genesis (account - cb) require us to accept a young view of the earth? I donʼt think so. Itʼs at this point that the addition of the genealogies is what constrains us to a younger view of the earth. However this is rather spurious as it is 1. Not attested to by the early church fathers or from the Jews prior to the NT (or Jews now). It is surprising that, if this is such a central doctrine, it took until the 15th century before an Anglican Bishop (Ussher) decided it worthwhile to add up the genealogies. Prior to this, the notion that the earth was young was either not considered to frankly be of much import. The few authors who did venture a guess of the age of the earth (like Augustine) only did so in order to combat the prevailing Platonic notion that the essence of the universe was eternal; again, this ancient Greek-based view is what is seen in how Genesis 1:2 is commonly rendered with a ʻformless and voidʼ substance pre-existing the creation narrative.”25 I disagree. The Genesis account does require us to accept a young view of the earth, unless we are willing to twist and manipulate what it says. There is no legitimate reason for arbitrarily changing the meaning of “day”. “The plain meaning of the text is that everything was created

23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid.

29 Evidence for Theistic Evolution sequentially: the earth, light, plants, sun, moon, stars, birds and fish, beasts, and man.”26 And there is no valid reason for believing that any occurrence of the word “day” means anything more than twenty-four hours. Exodus 20:11 confirms this: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” The Lord Himself also confirms it in Mark 10:5-8: “And Jesus answered and said to them, ʻBecause of the hardness of your heart He wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female.” “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.ʼ” Did you notice what the Lord said? God made them male and female from the beginning of the creation. Not millions or billions of years after an initial creation. Besides assuming Satan had more destructive power than the Bible records, the modified gap theory places death before the sin of mankind. Nowhere else in the Bible is death presented as anything but the result of sin. And, if there were death during the millions of years of the chaotic condition of the earth when it was “without form and void”, why would God have recorded in Genesis 1:31: “Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” Death was “very good”? I think not. The sting of death is sin (1 Corinthians 5:55-57), and it lies at the very root of the reason for Christʼs sacrifice on the cross. The only reasonable interpretation of Genesis 1:31 is “Then, at the conclusion of the sixth day, God saw everything He had made, and indeed it was very good.” In other words, just what it says. The earth was complete, mature and fully functioning in that first week. All living species for the time including humans were fully developed. No time for further development or adaptation was necessary. What God created was as He desired it to be. It was very good. There is nothing to be said favoring any of these gap theories unless, of course, one is trying desperately to hold on to evolution and still believe in God. If there really had been such a traumatic disruption in an otherwise fruitful evolutionary process, why would the biblical record not mention it. Considering the Bibleʼs faithful recording of countless other historical events of much less significance, why leave out such a disastrous chapter of chaotic destruction to all animal life? It reports the great flood, why not an annihilation of all life?

Progressive Creationism There have been so many variant views of theistic evolution proposed in a vain attempt to make the Bible record ﬁt the theory of natural evolution, there may be those who would argue with me when I say progressive creationism is the view some have called “the God of the gaps” theory or Process Creation. To explain, letʼs start with this... Theistic evolution says God was the “Big Bang”. In other words, God was the “ﬁrst cause” in that He set the evolutionary ball rolling. But, there is a problem as Geisler and Turk point out...

26 Ibid.

30 The Case for Divinity

“If there were evidence for God and for macroevolution, then there might be a reason to combine the two. But, as we have seen, there is no evidence that macroevolution has occurred!”27 This is where the “God in the gaps” theory steps in. Progressive creation starts with God creating the big bang and setting the evolutionary process in motion. The days of Genesis 1 are each long overlapping periods of millions or billions of years during which all things evolved. Wherever in that process evidence of the evolutionary process cannot be found, as in no transitional fossil forms to prove macroevolution, this theory claims God acted in that gap to keep the evolutionary ball rolling. This view... “... is called progressive creationism. It is fair to say it lies in between theistic evolution and young earth creationism, drawing some points from both but always insisting on the input of an Intelligent Designer. It agrees with the former in believing that there was a much longer time frame than six twenty-four hour periods and holds that each new life form was not, necessarily, created out of nothing, or out of previously non-living material. Or at least that the ʻtemplateʼ of previously existing life is used again - with adjustments. It agrees with the latter, not only in affirming the verbal inspiration of the Bible, but that God was present at every stage of the creation of life and that every new life form was a deliberate and miraculous act of God.”28 Progressive creationists do not believe macroevolution to be a necessary factor because in their theory it is not needed. And, such evidence has not been found. Similarly, they reject the notion of universal descent from a common ancestor, which is also not needed since they believe God created each successive, more developed organism. In other words, the theory is that days of Genesis 1 are long periods, millions of years long. In that time, wherever scientists lack evidence to support the theory of evolution, their lack represents a hole in our knowledge where God operates. If we donʼt know how it happened, then God did it. The clear direction of this concept is toward no belief in God. As mankind finds scientific explanation for what happened, God is pushed out of the picture. Some have carried this view to the point of having God destroy regions by flood or other catastrophe, then recreating all things in it again, i.e., progressive creations. We know what Genesis 1 says about creation. What does the Bible in its entirety say? Did it happen in multiple creative bursts over millions of years of time? Letʼs let it speak for itself: • Psalm 33:6, 9 - “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth... For He spoke, and it was done; • He commanded, and it stood fast.” • Exodus 20:11 - “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” • Exodus 31:17 - “It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.”

27 Geisler, Norman L., and Turek, Frank, I Donʼt Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist , (2004) Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, p. 166. 28 Tooley, Dale, Progressive Creation: An Overview, Evidence for God From Science, Pasadena, CA, http://godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html (Accessed 6/9/2015)

31 Evidence for Theistic Evolution

• John 1:1-3 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” Some inconsistencies with the Progressive Creationism theory are... • “Their timeline includes millions of years of major disasters befalling the animals before Adam or sin, including disease, famines, volcanic destruction, hurricanes, tornadoes, asteroid impacts, supernovas etc. As a result, animals frequently became extinct, never to be seen by man. The belief that death existed prior to the fall undermines the Bibleʼs clear teaching that death is a result of sin (I Corinthians 15:21-22; Romans 5:12). Any theory which places man or animal death prior to the fall of Adam must be rejected.”29 • There are no sound hermeneutic principles supporting the interpretation of the days in Genesis 1 as long periods of time. The use of the Hebrew word for “day” in other parts of the Bible and the fact the days are composed of a “day” and “night” makes each of them a twenty-four hour day. • There is considerable scientific evidence supporting the young age for the earth, not the billions of evolutionary years. We will look at this evidence in following chapters. • Noahʼs flood was global, not local as this theory maintains. The Framework Theory The preceding three theories are based on literal interpretation, but the Framework Hypothesis, takes a figurative view of Genesis 1. Mark Zylstraʼs very informative article on the subject says,.. “As I see it, there are two elements essential to the framework interpretation: “(1) The non-literal element: the days of the creation week are not normal solar days, but are part of an extended metaphor that functions as a literary framework for the creation narrative, and (2) The non-sequential element: the eight creative works of God are arranged topically rather than sequentially within that metaphorical framework.”30 Popularized by Meredith Kline and Dr. Lee Ions, the literary framework is a figurative means of interpreting Genesis 1 without telling us how long God took to complete His work, in what sequence He did it, or the particular manner in which all things were created. The days are not literal days, but a means of pointing us to two groups of three as shown in the charts below. According to this theory, the message we should get from the creation story is that the creation is divided into three distinct spheres, each with its own ruler. Of course, if the text of Genesis 1 is to be taken figuratively, there should be some indication in the language that this is not a literal description. But, first, more about the framework theory...

29 Van Bebber, Mark, What is progressive creationism?, http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c009.html (Accessed 1/15/2015) 30 Zylrsta, Rev. Mark, Re-visiting the Days of Creation, ... Again (Oct. 20, 2000) https://spindleworks.com/ library/zylstra/framework.htm (Accessed 1/15/2015)

32 The Case for Divinity

The perceived structure of two triads found in Genesis 1, looks like this:31

First triad Second triad

Day 1 Let there be light (1:3). Let there be lights (1:14). Day 4

Let there be a ﬁrmament... (1:6). Let the water teem with creatures and Day 2 Day 5 let birds ﬂy above the earth (1:20).

Let dry land appear (1:9). Let the Let the land produce living creatures land produce vegetation (1:11). (1:24). Let us make man (1:26). I Day 3 give you every seed bearing Day 6 plant...and every tree that has fruit with seed in it...for food (1:29)

The events in these two triads are also arranged by “creation kingdoms” and “creature kings”:

CREATION KINGDOMS CREATURE KINGS

Day 1: Light Day 4: Luminaries

Day 2: Sky/Water Day 5: Birds/Fish

Day 3: Land/Vegetation Day 6: Land animals/Man

THE CREATOR KING

Day 7: Sabbath

While the analysis of Genesis 1 text that has brought some to the figurative view is very interesting, how this structure supports evolution escapes me. Further, I believe some basic rules of interpreting figurative scripture have been violated. There is an identifiable pattern to the language, but there is no grammatical, linguistic, or literary reason I know of to think the text is anything but prose. Some disagree. They argue that the Genesis account is figurative language in the form of a metaphor. So, what is a metaphor? “A metaphor is rather easy to recognize. It is when the speaker or writer compares two unlike things by using one in place of the other. Have you ever said something like, ʻHe is a tower?ʼ You probably didnʼt mean he is a literal tower, but that he has the strength of a tower, or perhaps that he is very tall. I doubt anyone would misunderstand my meaning if I said, ʻShe is a walking dictionary.ʼ We do not understand such expressions literally, and we do not try. Nor should we try to understand Biblical metaphors literally. “In the Old Testament, the Lord God came to Abraham in a vision saying, ʻDo not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward.ʼ (Genesis 15:1) Of

31 Kline, Dr. Meredith G., Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony, (Mar. 1996) http:// www.meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/space-and-time-in-the-genesis-cosmogony/

33 Evidence for Theistic Evolution

course, the Lord Himself is neither a literal shield nor a literal reward. He used these metaphorically.”32 I find it very difficult to see metaphorical characteristics when I read Genesis 1. And, I am not alone. Many more qualified than I have the same difficulty. About Genesis 1 being figurative they say... “This is a woefully inconsistent position. Genesis 1 must be viewed literally; there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there is anything non-literal (i.e., mythical, metaphorical, or symbolic) in the narrative. “Let us briefly raise some questions regarding the things mentioned in the opening chapter of Genesis. Is ʻGodʼ a symbol; if so, of what? Are ʻheavensʼ and ʻearthʼ literal or figurative? What about the “waters” of the deep? Was that liquid water, or some mystical, spiritual substance (like that which many denominationalists see in John 3:5)? If the Mosaic narrative is profuse with symbolism, what do ʻearth,ʼ ʻseas,ʼ ʻgrass,ʼ ʻtrees,ʼ ʻstars,ʼ ʻbirds,ʼ ʻfish,ʼ ʻcattle,ʼ and ʻman,ʼ represent?ʼ”33 A study committee of the Reformed Church of the United States analyzed the matter and concluded with this statement: “When David personifies the sun, it ʻis AS a bridegroom coming out of his chamberʼ and ʻrejoiceth AS a strong man to run a raceʼ (Psalm 19:5). The grammatical term ʻASʼ signifies for us that this is a figure. Genesis 1 is not in the form of a psalm nor is it called a song. Indeed when Moses records a song he tells us (Exodus 15; Numbers 21; Deut. 31). Nor is Genesis 1 a parable; it is not a poem; not a liturgy, not a story, not a simile. In fact as Hasel points out in ʻthe literary structures, the language patterns, the syntax, the linguistic phenomena, the terminology, the sequential presentation of events in the creation account, Genesis one is not different from the rest of the book of Genesis or the Pentateuch for that matter.ʼ In a word, Genesis chapter one is prose.”34

Conclusion Too many issues have been stretched or manufactured in an attempt to support theistic evolution. Throughout the Bible, the Hebrew word yôm preceded by a number always refers to twenty-four hours. Yôm plus “evening and morning” occurs over 100 times in the Old Testament. What are the “evening and morning” if “day” is a long period? If the days of Genesis 1 are eons of time, what are the years in verse 14? And, if day is an age, what is night? Seems to me the bottom line issue with theistic evolution can be addressed with the question, What is the point? Couldnʼt God create everything in the exact sequence and timetable of a literal Genesis 1? Could He not do it in six twenty-four hour days? Clearly, the answer must be an emphatic “yes”! “But, what about evolution?”, someone asks. As we have seen already and will continue to see in the remaining pages of this book, there is no clear scientiﬁc evidence supporting

32 Brackett, Charlie, Bible Study for Joy and Proﬁt, (2008) Clarion Word Publishing, Chattanooga, Tenn. pg. 215, http://charliebrackett.com/published-books/bible-study-for-joy-and-pro/index.html 33 Jackson, Wayne, Is the Language of Genesis 1 Merely Metaphorical?, Christian Courier Publications, Stockton, CA, https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1292-is-the-language-of-genesis-1-merely- metaphorical, https://www.christiancourier.com/contact (Accessed 4/30/2015) 34 Study Committee of the RCUS (Reformed Church of the United States), The Days of Creation, page 6 (Accessed 1/15/2015)

34 The Case for Divinity

Darwinian evolution. Known evidence supports the case for divinity. If evolution has not been proven, why attempt to combine it with belief in God? So, my question regarding theistic evolution is: Whatʼs the point? Have you considered the consequences of accepting one of these theories? If we reject the intended meaning of the ﬁrst two chapters of our Fatherʼs divine revelation, what other historical narratives, Bible miracles and most importantly the basis of our faith, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, are safe from similar reinterpretation?

Chapter 4 Discussion Questions 1. What is theistic evolution?

2. Please describe the Day-Age Theory. What is unbiblical about it?

3. Please describe the Gap Theory. How does it differ from the biblical record?

4. In what way does the Modiﬁed Gap Theory differ from the Gap Theory? What are its strengths and weaknesses?

5. Please describe the Progressive Creation Theory, or what is called the “God in the Gaps” Theory. What is wrong with this theory?

35 Evidence for Theistic Evolution

6. Please describe the Framework Theory. How does this theory differ from the others?

7. Is there a common ﬂaw in every theistic evolutionary theory? If so, what is it?

8. What are the likely implications of subscribing to any of these theories of theistic evolution?

36 Chapter 5 Evidence for Creation

ome years back, I ran across the following affirmation published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in a 1999 issue of Science and Creationism: “Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.”1 In the sixteen years since that publication, science has continued to uncover evidence favorable to belief in creation and evidence that has brought the veracity of evolution into more and more question. Their statement is certainly not true today, and available evidence indicates it was never true. Science continues to uncover more and more evidence refuting the theory of evolution. But, here is another statement from the NAS: “Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science… This contrasts with science where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.”2 Interesting explanation, no? Of course, it is true that supernatural intervention cannot be analyzed in a test tube or tested in a laboratory. But, that is equally true of evolution. No physical characteristics or movements were recorded. No one was there to take samples or snap pictures. And, critically, there is no science available to support belief in macroevolution, that is, the emergence of a new more advanced species from a lower form. Further, logic and experience argue that what we see in the universe could not have developed by chance. Fact is, there is indisputable scientific evidence that cannot be explained in an evolutionary context and a weight of scientific evidence that fits nicely within the framework of creation by an intelligent Being. The purpose of this chapter is to explore some of this evidence.

Darwinʼs Finches Evolution is touted by the media, academia, the government, and many in the scientific community as the undisputed answer to the origin of all things. On occasion reference will even be made to “proof” that the intelligently designed and organized world around us arrived here by chance and that the complexities of life began in a pool of lifeless slime. Darwinʼs finches are often held up as “proof” of the evolutionary process. It might be easy to conclude from a study of the Galapagos finches, as did Darwin, that all of them originated from a common ancestor. If we saw what he saw, we might entertain the same conclusion. Michael Deaton, author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, has this to say about Darwinʼs finches...

1 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition, National Academy Press (1999) Washington, DC, p. 28 2 Ibid, p. 25

37 The Case for Divinity

“Altogether there are fourteen different species of finches on the Galapagos Islands which differ so greatly in size, plumage, beak morphology and behavior that were they to visit an average suburban garden they would be classed unhesitatingly as distinct species.”3 Denton goes on to describe the differences that caused Darwin to conclude they were different species with differences in size, color, plumage, beak morphology, song patterns, and in the way they moved and searched for food. “So here on this isolated archipelago was a unique set of distinct finches so closely related that some of them could be arranged into an almost perfect morphological sequence in terms of beak morphology, size and plumage. The idea that they were all related by common descent from an original ancestral species, in other words that new species had arisen from pre-existing species in nature and that, therefore, species were not the fixed immutable entities most biologists supposed, seemed irresistible. As Darwin wrote: “Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends.”4 Further observations by Darwin included adaptation of the Galapagos finches to changing weather conditions on the islands. This ability of a species to change and adapt to circumstance of life is now referred to as adaptation, the process known as microevolution. There is a lot of evidence to support microevolution, however, the theoretical change of one species to a completely different species is known as macroevolution. The two are not the same. Microevolution has been scientifically proven; macroevolution has not. Transitional Forms Proof of macroevolution requires scientific discovery of some transitional forms in the fossil record. After decades of searching, none have been found, which raises the probability that the real problem is that there are none. The claims by scientists that many have been found, are found upon closer examination to be evidence of microevolution (holes in the beaks move, etc) or have actually been tampered with to create a missing link (e.g. Piltdown man, Archaeorapter5). Many times great license is used to recreate full pictures from just a few bones (e.g. Bambiraptor6). When genetics are examined more deeply, it is actually found that many of these so-called missing-link fossils (e.g. Archaeopteryx 7) could not have been the ancient ancestors of the animals they claim

3 Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (1086) Adler & Adler Publishers, Bethesda, Maryland, p. 30 4 Ibid (Denton), p. 32, citing Darwin, C. (1845) The Voyage of the Beagle, new ed (1959) by J. M. Dent, London. 5 ʻArchaeoraptorʼ is the informal generic name for a fossil from China in an article published in National Geographic magazine in 1999. The magazine claimed the fossil “is a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds. It seems to capture the paleontological `moment' when dinosaurs were becoming birds.” Read more in an article by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D. 2000. Archaeoraptor: Featured Dinosaur from National Geographic Doesn't Fly. Acts & Facts. 29 (3). Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX. (Accessed 6/10/2015) 6 Examining paleontologists called this fossil skeleton “the most bird-like dinosaur yet discovered” and a “remarkable missing link between birds and dinosaurs”; it was made to look “bird-like”, “But nothing remotely looking like feathers was found with the fossil.“ Wells, Jonathan, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing, Inc., Washington, DC, pgs. 126 & 128. More is available at https://answersingenesis.org/ theory-of-evolution/what-biology-textbooks-never-told-you-about-evolution/ 7 Evolutionists view archaeopteryx as a “genus of bird-like dinosaurs that is transitional between non-avian feathered dinosaurs and modern birds.” Read more at Archaeopteryx: The Transitional Fossil by Joseph Castro, April 28, 2015, Live Science, http://www.livescience.com/24745-archaeopteryx.html (Accessed 6/12/2015)

38 Evidence for Creation to be related to. From the many fossils we have discovered, there should not just be a handful of transitional forms, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed. The absence of transitional forms serves to disprove evolution, disprove by the lack of, or silence of evidence. “There is no doubt that as it stands today the fossil record provides a tremendous challenge to the notion of organic evolution, because to close the very considerable gaps which at present separate the known groups would necessarily have required great numbers of transitional forms. Over and over again in the Origin Darwin reiterates the same point, leaving the reader in no doubt as to his belief that to bridge the gaps innumerable transitional forms would have to be postulated.”8 It is most interesting to this student that Darwin himself realized the necessity of finding transitional forms to support his theory of macroevolution. Sadly for evolutionists, the “innumerable transitional forms” have yet to be found in more than a century of searching. The graphic on the right illustrates the preponderance of micro evidence within each species and highlights the total lack of macro evidence, that is, fossil forms between species. In view of this lack of evidence, it takes a great deal of faith to believe in evolution. Though believing there is God - a supreme super-natural Being Who no one has seen, One Who has the power and wisdom to create all that we know - may be a very difficult challenge for anyone, believing there is no God and that everything just sprung into existence by chance is a much, much more difficult challenge. Without clear, valid evidence an atheist must believe “...that, without intelligent intervention: 1. “The universe arose from nothing. 2. “Order arose from chaos (the design of the universe). 3. “Life arose from non-life (which means that intelligence arose from non-intelligence, and personality arose from non-personality). 4. “New life forms arose from existing life forms despite evidence to the contrary as: (1) “Genetic limits (2) “Cyclical change (3) “Irreducible complexity (4) “Molecular isolation (5) “Non-viability of transitional forms, and (6) “The fossil record”9

8 Ibid (Denton) p. 172, citing Darwin, Charles, (1872) The Origin of the Species, 6th ed (1962) Collier Books, New York, p 327. 9 Geisler, Norman L., and Turek, Frank, I Donʼt Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, (2004) Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, pgs. 165-166

39 The Case for Divinity

In each of the preceding six areas, known scientific evidence denies that new life forms have arisen from lower forms. They are given for anyone who wants to research these matters further. It is not our purpose to pursue all of the vast array of evidence against evolution. Considering the absence of transitional forms without delving deeper seems adequate for our present purpose. “The absence of transitional forms from the fossil record is dramatically obvious (even to a non-specialist without any knowledge of comparative morphology) where a group possesses some significant ancestral type.”10 Following this statement, Michael Denton lists in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, eighteen examples of discontinuities in the fossil record including fish, bats, seals, whales and several other species. Any of todayʼs scientists who are concerned about the absence of transitional forms are no more perplexed than Darwin himself, who said... “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?”11

Life, Spontaneous or Created Is there life? We know there is. Where did it come from? Well, thatʼs a puzzle to the evolutionist. The only answer available to an evolutionist is about the same as given for the creation of the universe. It sprang from nothing! Or, more accurately from non-life. Is that possible? David Pack answers... “Life can never come from inanimate (non-living) objects. Evolutionists theorize that inanimate objects, under certain unknown circumstances in the misty past, somehow spontaneously gave birth to very primitive life forms. This presents enormous problems for anyone familiar with the nature and complexity of simple cells.”12 Despite the problems, Darwinism continues to be believed and promoted. There have been many attempts to create life from non-life, without success, as in the following:13 “In 1953, Stanley L. Miller of the University of Chicago applied electrical sparks to a combination of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water in a sealed ﬂask. This resulted a week later in amino acids. The process failed to produce life, yet it revived the antiquated concept of abiogenesis—the theory that life can be generated from non-life.14 Millerʼs experiment was ʻenshrined in high school textbooksʼ despite the fact that it had not contributed to ʻthe still unsolved problem of the origin of life.ʼ”15

10 Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (1986) Adler & Adler Publishers, Bethesda, Maryland, p. 166 11 Ibid (Denton) quoting Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species, ch. 6. 12 Pack, David C., Does God Exist, The Restored Church of God, Wadsworth, OH, pg. 15. (Copyright © 2008 The Restored Church of God® All Rights Reserved.) 13 Thomas, Brian, M.S., Origin of Life Research Still Dead, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, Texas, posted on October 27, 2008, www.icr.org/article/origin-life-research-still-dead/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 11/13/14). 14 Ibid (Thomas), citing Johnson, A. P. et al. 2008. The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment. Science. 322(5900): 404, and Chang, K. From Old Vials, New Hints on Origin of Life. The New York Times. Posted on NY Times.com October 16, 2008, (Accessed October 21, 2008) 15 Ibid (Thomas), citing Chang, K. From Old Vials, New Hints on Origin of Life. The New York Times. Posted on NY Times.com October 16, 2008, (Accessed October 21, 2008)

40 Evidence for Creation

David Pack explains why life cannot come from non-life... “Biologists understand that all cells can only come from pre-existing cells. Here is why. Cells, even in their simplest and most rudimentary form, are extremely complex. Consider: ʻThe simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low-tech.ʼ16 The next source is equally powerful in explaining both the complexity of the cell and its origin: ʻThe cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order.ʼ”17 Did you notice that Pack quoted Ranganathan saying “billions of parts had to come into existence” in the proper order at precisely the same time and place? Can you conceive of that? Fact is, the simplest living cell is more complex than anything man has ever designed and created. That simple organism single-handedly demonstrates at least two astonishing facts: the simplest forms of life 1) were designed by an intelligence greater than the most intelligent collaborative human effort, and 2) were formed, organized and assembled by a creative power greater than any available to man. Michael Deaton expounds further... “Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.”18 Please note, this description is of the simplest living cell. And, Denton is not alone in his view. W. H. Thorpe, a scientist and an evolutionist,... “...acknowledges that ʻThe most elementary type of cell constitutes a “mechanism” unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man.ʼ” 19 And... “The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that ʻthe chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.ʼ This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by chance, and therefore it must deﬁnitely have been ʻcreated.ʼ”20

16 Pack, David C., Does God Exist, The Restored Church of God, Wadsworth, OH, pg. 15, citing Johnson, Philip, Darwin on Trial, p. 102 (Copyright © 2008 The Restored Church of God® All Rights Reserved.) 17 Ibid (Pack), pgs. 15-16, citing Ranganathan, B.G., Origins?, p. 15 18 Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (1986) Adler & Adler Publishers, Bethesda, MD., p. 250 19 Oktar, Adnan, Molecular Biology and the Origin of Life, Darwinism Refuted.com, http:// www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_02.html, citing Bird, W.R., The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, pp. 298-99. 20 Ibid (Oktar), citing Hoyle on Evolution, Nature, vol. 294, November 12, 1981, p. 10544

41 The Case for Divinity

Lack of transitional forms and proof for the origin of life are not the only evidence for creation by a divine Creator. Another signiﬁcant evidence is that all we know in the universe, no matter how simple or complex, was intelligently designed.

Intelligent Design The evidence for intelligent design is all around us. Even one of low intelligence realizes that chance does not produce complex, well organized, purposeful objects. Everyone understands objects of design require a designer. It is simple logic. But, donʼt just take it from me. Consider what the experts have to say: “In summary, only with great time and effort, the finest watchmakers in the world can, at best, devise several kinds of relatively imprecise clocks. Can any honest, fair-minded person then believe that the three highly precise clocks—the heavens, atomic and optical clocks—came about by accident? In other words, are we to believe that while very sophisticated, humanly devised watches required the effort and ingenuity of skilled, intelligent men to create them, clocks of far greater sophistication, precision and design developed on their own? How utterly ridiculous!”21 Of course, many intelligent, well-educated people, some even in the scientific community, still do not agree with Packʼs assessment that such belief is ridiculous - even after the dramatic conversion of the British professor and philosopher, Antony Flew (1923-2010). The December 2004 announcement that he had denounced atheism in favor of theism was especially shocking because Flew was regarded by many as “the worldʼs most acclaimed atheist”. Dr. Andrew Corbett cited an interesting reaction to the announcement: “This dramatic conversion has been likened by AstroPhysicist and now one of the worldʼs leading cosmologists, Dr. Hugh Ross, as having the same impact on the academic world as an announcement that Billy Graham had renounced Christianity would have on the Church!”22 Corbett goes on to explain a bit more about why Antony Flew converted... “One of the reasons cited by Prof. Flew was ʻthe evidence.ʼ He admitted that for a long time the growing problem of Evolutionʼs inability to explain how life began, or for that matter, how anything began, led him to the inevitable conclusion that it was an inadequate answer in the face of the evidence. Then when the DNA Genome code was unraveled the evidence for Design became ʻundeniableʼ. These two pieces of evidence (1. the existence of life demanding a Life-Source, and 2. the scientific evidence of an extremely complex code in the make-up of that life - DNA) were enough for Prof. Flew to renounce atheism.”23 Should anyone need more than these two preceding evidential planks to support belief in a universe created instead of one evolved? Probably not, but there is much more. Consider with me traits of human nature as an evidence of creation.

Humanity: Evidence for Creation The very fact humans exist and are composed of many complex biological systems is monumental evidence of creation. But there is more. C. S. Lewis, a proliﬁc writer and atheist turned Christian in

21 Pack, David C., Does God Exist, pg. 8, The Restored Church of God, Wadsworth, OH. 22 Corbett, Dr. Andrew, 5 Proofs for the Existence of God, (2004-2008) Legana, Tasmania, http:// www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/5-proofs.html © December 2004-2008 (Accessed 4/28/2015) 23 Ibid.

42 Evidence for Creation the twentieth century, had a great deal to say about a basic standard of morality that governs the behavior of everyone – an unwritten standard by which all people defend or excuse their actions and to which they hold others accountable. Lewis devoted the first five chapters of his book, Mere Christianity24, to discussing this standard, which has been called traditional morality, moral law, virtue or the knowledge of right and wrong. I will call it the Law of Human Nature. According to Lewis, we learn a great deal about God and, of course, the fact that He created us to adhere to this unwritten law. I am not referring to the Bible. This natural law described by Lewis is written on the hearts of every human being. It embodies a basic principle of behavior not created by humans but one which governs all beings. He argues that the Law of Human Nature calls us to do the right thing, whether or not it involves pain, difficulty or danger. He says this Law of Human Nature is “hard as nails”.25 Lewis explains his idea of the Law of Human Nature better than I: “Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the ʻlaws of natureʼ we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong ʻthe Law of Nature,ʼ they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law—with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.”26 What C. S. Lewis called the Law of Human Nature is reference to a universal moral judgment within the human conscience. All humans understand that “good” is better than “evil”. Everyone has a moral code of some kind. What one person counts as evil or good may differ from anotherʼs view, but everyone knows there is a difference between the two, has drawn a moral line separating the two, and to one degree or another subscribes to their chosen code of conduct. Kindness and care for loved ones is a universal characteristic of humanity. Selfishness, cruelty and dishonesty are abhorred by all no matter their rule of moral conduct. These traits do not have to be learned. They are natural to who we are. Though C. S. Lewis taught his views a few years before studies confirmed the existence of a Law of Human Nature, what Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity seems to be right on target. Later science verified his assessment, an assessment that should appear logical to all of us. If you still doubt the notion of a Law of Human Nature, please consider the following comments by Lewis as a summary of his views: “I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities. “But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the

24 Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity (1952) Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY. 25 Ibid, p. 23 26 Ibid, p. 4

43 The Case for Divinity

appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked. “But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong - in other words, if there is no Law of Nature, what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?”27 Is there any possible explanation for the Law of Human Nature in the context of evolution by chance? None that my research has uncovered or that I can conjure up. There is only one reasonable answer. An intelligent Creator placed these desires in us while we were still in the womb.

Baby Morality Some Yale psychologists set about to learn how soon babies can distinguish between “right” and “wrong”. Here is a report by Brian Thomas28 of what they found... “Yale professor Paul Bloom and his team tested infants and toddlers by using puppets to portray ʻnaughtyʼ and ʻniceʼ actions. They found that from the age of six months, babies differentiated good from bad by overwhelmingly choosing to hold the nice puppet over the mean one.29 Where did this sensibility come from, and why is it so evident at such a young age?” Is it possible that the processes of evolutionary natural selection and chance could instill in infants of all genetic backgrounds and cultural environments the same innate ability to make a moral distinction? Here is what the Yale researchers found: “From Sigmund Freud to Jean Piaget to Lawrence Kohlberg, psychologists have long argued that we begin life as amoral animals. One important task of society, particularly of parents, is

27 Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity, Book 1: Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe, 1. The Law of Human Nature, http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt (Accessed 5/4/2015) 28 Thomas, Brian, M.S., Baby Morality Deﬁes Evolution, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX. http:// www.icr.org/article/5470 © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 11/28/14) 29 Ibid (Thomas) citing M.S. Frank, David Can Babies Tell Right From Wrong? The New York Times online video. Posted on http://www.nytimes.com/video/magazine/1247467772000/can-babies-tell-right-from- wrong.html, accessed May 24, 2010 (Accessed 11/28/14)

44 Evidence for Creation

to turn babies into civilized beings — social creatures who can experience empathy, guilt and shame; who can override selfish impulses in the name of higher principles; and who will respond with outrage to unfairness and injustice.”30 It is true, parenting seems to be largely the task of turning babies into civilized beings able to behave according to the moral code endorsed by the society in which they live. But about the turn of the century, a new view began to emerge... “A growing body of evidence, though, suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. With the help of well-designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone. Which is not to say that parents are wrong to concern themselves with moral development or that their interactions with their children are a waste of time. Socialization is critically important. But this is not because babies and young children lack a sense of right and wrong; itʼs because the sense of right and wrong that they naturally possess diverges in important ways from what we adults would want it to be.”31 Research has shown that our inborn belief system is tuned to the spiritual even more than an inborn moral code might suggest. It is completely normal and natural for us to believe in a divine being. “ʻIt seems that our minds are finely tuned to believe in gods,ʼ according to a new report appearing in the journal New Scientist.”32 It may be strange to learn that by nature we all are geared to worship God. Not too strange for a believer in God, but for the atheist it must be shocking, or at best unbelievable. Consider the great number of people in our society who do not believe there is God in spite of the fact all available evidence supports the notion we were born programmed to believe. “... researchers studied cognition patterns in children to test their capacity for belief in the supernatural. According to anthropologist Justin Barrett from the University of Oxford, children ʻhave a strong natural receptivity to believing in gods because of the way their minds work.ʼ Paul Bloom, a Yale University psychologist, noted that humans of an early age have an ʻinnate assumption that mind and matter are distinct.ʼ ... the basic framework for mankind to be able to consider the divine.”33 If youngsters are born with a propensity to believe in divinity, what happened to that belief in many? Is our culture so godless as to strip youngsters of their inborn desire before it matures? Of course, not all agree that such conclusions regarding morality of the very young are valid. Did those conducting the studies skew the results by cueing the babies with the tone of their voice or the movement of their eyes? I entertained such thoughts until I viewed a CBS News video on YouTube.

30 Bloom, Paul, The Moral Life of Babies. The New York Times. Posted on nytimes.com/2010/05/09/ magazine/09babies-t.html?ref=magazine_r=0, May 5, 2010. (Accessed 5/4/2015) 31 Ibid. 32 Thomas, Brian, Study Shows Our Minds Are Tuned to Believe, Feb. 18, 2009, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, Texas, citing Brooks, M. 2009. Born believers: How your brain creates God. New Scientist. 2694: 30-33. https://www.icr.org/article/4524/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. (Accessed 5/2/2015) 33 Ibid (Thomas) citing Brooks, M. (2009) Born Believers: How Your Brain Creates God, New Scientist 2694:30-33

45 The Case for Divinity

The film, entitled Born Good? Babies help unlock the origins of morality,34 is a report on studies being conducted by Yaleʼs Infant Cognition Lab, or the so-called Baby Lab. Their procedures are quite interesting. Babies as young as three months are tested for their reaction to good versus bad behaviors. In one test a puppet at center stage struggles, as the baby watches, to open a box with a toy in it. A yellow puppet at stage right comes over and lends a helping hand to open the box. In a second scenario, as the first puppet struggles with the lid, a blue puppet from stage left jumps up on the box slamming the lid shut, then runs off stage. Later, the baby who witnessed these two types of behavior, is offered a choice of the bad blue puppet or the helpful yellow one. An overwhelming majority (some 80%) of babies choose the nice yellow puppet. The video discusses other interesting traits of youngsters the Baby Lab is finding, all of which point to the possibility of inborn intelligent design of humanity. Someone may object saying perhaps these studies were skewed to force a predetermined conclusion. Or, the group tested was too small to produce a valid result. Perhaps, but neither seems to be the case. Several studies have been done over the last fifteen or so years, studies of adults as well as children, both atheists and theists from different cultures. They found an almost universal internal wiring to not only side with the nice guy, but to believe in God and divine creation. Not surprisingly, the studies also indicated infants universally act selfishly. Though the idea of baby morality is still being debated, there is an abundance of evidence in support of the concept. Consider the following from Dr. Jim Nelson Black:35 “In a November 2008 broadcast appearance and public lecture, Dr. Justin Barrett, senior researcher at the University of Oxfordʼs Centre for Anthropology and Mind, reported on studies showing that children tend to believe in God, regardless what theyʼre taught in the classroom. ʻThe preponderance of scientific evidence for the past ten years has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of childrenʼs minds than we once thought,ʼ he said, ʻincluding a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose.ʼ36 “From studies with children ages twelve months to five years, Barrett discovered that by the age of four children understand that although some objects are made by humans, the natural world is different. As a result, he said, children are more likely to believe in creationism than evolution, despite what they may be told by parents or teachers.”37 While Dr. Barrettʼs conclusion may be surprising, or even shocking to some, he explains further the belief generated by his studies... “During a radio interview on Londonʼs BBC 4, Barrett said that anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them. ʻChildrenʼs normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to

34 Born Good? Babies help unlock the origins of morality, (Nov. 18, 2012) CBS News, New York, NY http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU (Viewed 3/3/2015) 35 Black, Jim Nelson, Ph.D., The Death of Evolution: Restoring Faith and Wonder in a World of Doubt (2010) Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Mich. pgs. 24-26 36 Ibid (Black) citing Barrett, Justin, Children Are Born Believers in God, Academic Claims, The Daily Telegraph, Nov. 25, 2008 37 Ibid, p. 25.

46 Evidence for Creation

believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast,ʼ he said, ʻevolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe.ʼ”38 Inasmuch as these conclusions fly in the face of what has always been believed, Dr. Black makes note of objections, which are to be expected... “Needless to say, the scientistʼs conclusions provoked an outpouring of angry rebuttals in Britain and elsewhere. But Barrett isnʼt the only one making such claims. According to Dr. Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University, our minds are finely tuned to believe in God. This happens, Bloom said, because some of the cognitive capacities that have made humans so successful as a species tend to create a predisposition for supernatural thinking. ʻThereʼs now a lot of evidence,ʼ he said, ʻthat some of the foundations for religious beliefs are hard-wired.”39 Though views among the professionals vary, there are a great number who have reached the same conclusions through their own study or have bought into the research of others. “Dr. Olivera Petrovich of the University of Oxford found much the same things when she asked preschool children about the origins of natural objects such as plants and animals. She and her associates found that kids are seven times as likely to say the objects were made by God than by people. The responses are so strong, Petrovich said, that itʼs readily apparent that children have an innate concept of God, even without adult intervention: ʻThey rely on their everyday experience of the physical world and construct the concept of God on the basis of this experience.ʼ”40

Fundamental Laws of Science Support Creation There are a number of other facts of science which argue for the existence of a Creator of the universe. We will consider some from various scientific fields of study in subsequent chapters. But, here in the chapter on evidence for creation it seems appropriate to at least mention two fundamental laws of science that touch every field dealing with energy and matter. They are... The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. These laws are fundamental to a lot of science, and are unquestioned by evolutionists and creationists alike. Briefly, the first law says that no closed system is capable of adding new energy or matter to itself. The second law, also called the Law of Entropy, states that every system left to itself is running down, that is, is moving toward more disorder. Both of these laws support creation. The first law defies the universe beginning without an external first cause, and the second is contrary to the concept of evolution, which insists on the opposite being true by claiming that given a great amount of time the universe (a closed system) has evolved to more and more order and complexity without the infusion of outside assistance. (More on the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics in Chapter 7: Evidence from Physical Science.)

Chapter 5 Discussion Questions 1. What regarding ﬁnches did Charles Darwin claim he observed on the Galapagos Islands?

38 Ibid. 39 Ibid (Black), p. 25, citing Bloom, Paul. 40 Ibid (Black), p. 26, citing Petrovich, Dr. Olivera.

47 The Case for Divinity

2. What did Darwinʼs ﬁnches prove? What did they not prove?

3. Describe the differences between micro and macro-evolution.

4. What evidence is lacking to prove the validity of macro-evolution? What future possibility is there that such evidence will be found? Why?

5. What do evolutionists claim about the origin of life?

6. What is the scientiﬁcally proven source of all life?

7. Identify and describe a couple of illustrations of intelligent design.

48 Evidence for Creation

8. How long does it take chance to produce a basic object displaying design and having function? Please describe such an object.

9. Please list some things about humanity that show design for a useful purpose?

10. To what was C. S. Lewis referring when he wrote of the Law of Nature?

11. To what does the expression “baby morality” refer?

12. What aspects of baby morality have been discovered by scientiﬁc tests?

13. What evidence for creation by an Intelligent Being do you ﬁnd especially intriguing?

49 Chapter 6 Evidence for a Young Earth

he idea the earth is billions of years old is hard to resist. It is all around us. All levels of academic institutions preach it to our young; the media often mentions very long time spans for the development of humans; many scientists and other well educated people talk of a four to five billion year old earth; and even our friends, family and fellow members of church may have bought into the notion that the universe and its natural elements took billions of years to evolve. One might be considered an oddball to insist on a young earth, that is, an earth no more than 10,000 or so years old instead of 4.5 billion, the age most widely accepted in modern times. “Creationism believes that the universe and all living organisms originate from the Creator God of the Bible. On this definition a theistic evolutionist could also be described as a creationist simply because they believe God created all things. But the usual assumption of Creationism is also that no macro-evolution is involved, and so all living organisms were created substantially as they now exist, although it is accepted that small changes (micro-evolution) within created ʻkindsʼ (Gen 1.25) do occur. On this definition it is not necessary to assume an Old Earth (OE) and Young Earth (YE). Creationism is the belief that the universe and the Earth are just 6,000 to 10,000 years old as inferred from a literal interpretation of the Old Testament.”1, 2 Of course, beliefs should be supported by facts, by evidence, rather than what is popular on the air waves or commonly believed by the masses. The fact is, apart from biblical evidence, there is more than sufficient evidence to support belief in a young earth, and even evidence that demonstrates it is not possible for the earth to be billions of years old. In this chapter, we will look at some of this evidence, which all points to the fact our earth is young. First, an explanation from the Seeking Truth3 website. “Like the theory of evolution and an OE (old earth - cb), any YE (young earth - cb) theory or model will be incomplete and uncertain, and so models will vary. Nevertheless, there seems growing scientific support for a generic YE model, and increasing doubt over OE theory. Moreover, there appear to be definite events and features that should be incorporated into any YE model. In no particular order we have: • “A catastrophic global flood - Noahʼs Flood • “Unusually warm oceans • “Severe tectonic plate movement and volcanic activity • “Sudden change in the tilt of the earthʼs axis • “Severe climate changes • “A single, short Ice Age following the Flood

1 Scientiﬁc Evidence for a Young Earth, Seeking Truth, http://www.seekingtruth.co.uk/ young_earth_creationism.htm (Accessed Nov 12, 2014) 2 See Chapters 5 and 7 for a description of micro and macroevolution mentioned above. 3 Ibid.

50 The Case for Divinity

There is scientific evidence in each of these categories and more, much of which we will briefly consider throughout this book. But first, I found this comment from another source interesting: “Contrary to what weʼve been told over and over by the mass media, the ʻscientificʼ establishment, and old-Earth (slow) Creationists, there are numerous geophysical and astronomical clocks which point to a young age for the earth, solar system, and universe. In fact, such young-earth indicators are in the majority. But because the scientific establishment and the media are biased against a Creator, and because evolution requires an old earth to appear plausible, the public at large is rarely told about the mounting evidence that contradicts the belief in an old earth and the many holes in evolution.”4 The Earthʼs Young Age The author of an earlier statement about the OE versus YE model posted on the Seeking Truth website5 the following list of reasons for believing in a young earth: • “Fossils in the Cambrian strata appear fully formed with no ancestral forms, implying abrupt creation! Also, in order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. The fossil record is therefore evidence of a single global cataclysmic flood and not the record of a series of slow changes accumulating over millions of years. Polystrate fossils, vertical fossilised trees spanning multiple strata and found all over the world, give strong support for a catastrophic global flood. But there is much more supporting evidence, such as extremely large ʻbouldersʼ (erratic boulders) weighing 10,000 tons which were transported many miles by some mysterious force.” • “Polystrate fossils sometimes span many coal seams, providing strong evidence that the coal did not take millions of years to form. Moreover, sometimes the trees found in coal beds didnʼt grow there, indicating that they were washed there by a catastrophic flood. On the other hand, buried redwood forests (with roots indicating that they grew in place and were not transported) are found well inside the Arctic Circle, and coal is found near the South Pole. This indicates that these areas were once temperate, a concept compatible with a temperate earth before the Flood, and a temperate climate nearer the poles immediately after the Flood when the earthʼs axis tilted.” • “A mummified forest has been found on northern Canadaʼs Ellesmere Island. Tree rings were very narrow (indicating stress), and logs, leaves, needles and seedpods are found ʻexquisitely preservedʼ - which does not fit with OE dating of millions of years. But the Flood-Ice Age model provides a plausible explanation: the water in some temperate corridors being still warm permitted forest growth as ice built up elsewhere. The forest was then rapidly destroyed (and preserved) by a landslide [as proposed by National Geographic News]. This was then followed by perpetual cold during the Ice Age. This relatively short time-frame would permit ʻexquisite preservationʼ.” • “Studies of glaciers in the Andes and the Himalayas have shown that glacier melt has now exposed plants that have been frozen for over 5,000 years. This implies a generally continuous melt from around 3,000 BC. And in 1991 Otzi the Iceman was discovered in

4 Evidence for a Young Earth, The Age of the Earth: Part Five, http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/ evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm 5 Scientiﬁc Evidence for a Young Earth, Seeking Truth, http://www.seekingtruth.co.uk/ young_earth_creationism.htm (Accessed Nov 12, 2014)

51 Evidence for a Young Earth

the Italian Alps in a gully at the edge of the melting Niederjoch glacier. His body (preserved by ice) is C-14 dated at around 3300 BC. In this protected area beneath the glacier, the ice of the glacier moved above the iceman, allowing him to stay securely in place. But then glacier retreat, the most for 5,000 years, exposed his body. Both these observations are in accord with the YE Ice Age Model which maintains that glaciers have been on quasi-continuous retreat ever since the Ice Age after the Flood some 4,300 years ago. [Note: c3300 BC corresponds to some 1000 years before the Ice Age and so appears to be inconsistent. The date discrepancy can be explained by the rapid increase in atmospheric C-14 after the Flood - a factor not accounted for in standard C-14 dating6.]” • “The earthʼs liquid iron outer core (between the mantle and the hot solid inner core) generates the earthʼs magnetic field. According to computer models (the dynamo theory) the complex movements of the liquid iron generates a changing magnetic field. It is the waxing and waning and ʻN-S polarity flippingʼ of this field that is much debated. [...] According to this theory, the field energy (trillions of kWh) has always been rapidly decreasing and it is this fact that yields a young earth. Estimation of the earthʼs maximum energy and extrapolating the current energy decay rate backwards yields a young earth of less than 10,000 years. It is interesting to note that measurements of the earthʼs magnetic field strength show a 10% decay over the last 150 years.” • “A major model of human aging is based on human cells and how the many proteins inside a cell coexist and interact. It is claimed that defective proteins result in aging and that ʻproper agingʼ depends upon proper protein folding. Put another way, it is claimed that protein misfolding is strongly related to age-related degenerative diseases, and that misfolding can arise from radioisotopes that speed up or slow down protein folding. Moreover, damage caused by radiation can be cumulative. So it is scientifically plausible that a significant increase in radioisotopes in the atmosphere after the Flood could cause the observed progressive reduction in the age of man after the Flood.” Even beyond the confines of the earthʼs surface there is evidence for a young earth: “The very existence of comets in our solar system strongly argues for its recent creation, since comets only last on the order of thousands of years, not millions. Now, the β Pic comets also make their system look young. But what else should Bible readers expect, since it says God made the skyʼs luminaries on Day Four of the creation week, only thousands of years ago?”7

Geology of the Earth Despite all the foregoing evidence of a young earth, many cling to belief in the old earth theory. Perhaps the most important of several reasons lays in the ﬁeld of geology. Geology is an earth science concerned with the study of earthʼs rocks and how they have changed over time. There are several ways geologists date rocks depending on the nature of the material and with varying degrees of accuracy. The U.S. Geological Survey website explains the general methodology in this way...

6 There is more discussion of radiometric dating including C-14, i.e., Carbon-14, dating later in this chapter and in Chapter 8: Evidence from Paleontology. 7 Thomas, Brian, M.S., Exocomets: Evidence of Recent Creation (Nov 7, 2014) Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, Texas, http://www.icr.org/article/exocomets-evidence-recent-creation/ citing Lisle, J. 2014. The Solar System: Asteroids and Comets. Acts & Facts. 43 (5): 12-15. © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 11/12/2014)

52 The Case for Divinity

“Radioactive elements were incorporated into the Earth when the Solar System formed. All rocks and minerals contain tiny amounts of these radioactive elements. Radioactive elements are unstable; they breakdown spontaneously into more stable atoms over time, a process known as radioactive decay. Radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate, speciﬁc to each radioactive isotope. Since the 1950s, geologists have used radioactive elements as natural "clocks" for determining numerical ages of certain types of rocks. “Radiometric clocks are ʻsetʼ when each rock forms. ʻFormsʼ means the moment an igneous rock solidiﬁes from magma, a sedimentary rock layer is deposited, or a rock heated by metamorphism cools off. It's this resetting process that gives us the ability to date rocks that formed at different times in earth history.”8

Radiometric Dating The Smithsonian Instituteʼs explanation, an interesting supplement to the above, provides more detail: “Radiometric dating provides science with a powerful tool for reconstructing our planetʼs history. The idea that radioactivity could be used as a measure of the age of geologic formations was first suggested in 1905 by a British physicist, Lord Rutherford. In 1907 Professor B. B. Boltwood, a radiochemist at Yale University, made the first attempt to establish a geologic time scale. The invention of the mass spectrometer after World War I led to the discovery of isotopes (see below) and the calculation of accurate decay rates. Not until the 1950s, however, was precise dating achieved and accepted by the scientific community. The methodologies and instruments for radiometric dating have been expanded and fine- tuned in the half-century since, and very accurate dating is now possible. “Atoms are composed of a nucleus orbited by negatively charged electrons. The nucleus is made up of protons, particles with a positive charge, and neutrons, particles with no charge. Every atom of a given element has the same number of protons in the nucleus. Each element may have one or more isotopes. Different isotopes of a given element have the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons. “Radioactive elements are unstable atoms that give off particles. Emitting these particles transforms the unstable atoms into different, more stable elements. This is called radioactive decay, and it occurs at a constant rate specific to each isotope of each element. The original radioactive material is called the parent; the stable product is called the daughter. The rate of decay is described by the half-life of the isotope—the average time an atom of a radioactive element remains in the parent state. When the half-life has elapsed, half the parent element will have decayed into the daughter element.”9 Sounds like a fairly reliable system, but... Scientists from the Institute for Creation Research have identified radiometric dating as one of the key reasons people believe in a long age for the earth and have published several articles identifying details exposing the fallacies of radiometric dating. The introduction10 to these articles claims they are not alone, but...

8 How do geologists date rocks? Radiometric dating! U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior/USGS, Reston, VA, http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/radiom.html (Accessed 4/2/2015) 9 Absolute Dating, Radiometric Dating, Foundational Concepts, Department of Paleobiology, The Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C., http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating3.html (Accessed 3/30/2015) 10 Radiometric Dating, The Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, Texas, http://www.icr.org/creation- radiometric © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. (Accessed 3/23/2105)

53 Evidence for a Young Earth

“...with scores of other Bible-believing geologists, ICR scientists have made key observations that compel us to reject the millions-of-years apparent ages that these techniques yield: • “First, rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope ʻages.ʼ • “Second, various radioisotope methods or even various attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages. • “Third, many dating methods that don't involve radioisotopes—such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils—conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages. “These observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy.” Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is accomplished by many different methods, however, the three best known are radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. These methods and their weaknesses are discussed in Chapter 8: Evidence from Paleontology. Now, to other matters... Both the relationship of moon to earth and earth to sun argue that these bodies cannot be as old as the billions of years required by evolution. Either one is strong evidence of a young earth. But there are two.

The Earth/Moon Relationship Fundamental laws of physics and the collection of considerable observational data declare the moon is too young to support the theory of evolution. The moon is receding from the earth at a known speed. “As the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. ... by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we ﬁnd that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago.”11

“This known dynamical limit in the earth-moon system is a great problem to knowledgeable evolutionists. Robert C. Humes in his book Introduction to Space Science (John Wiley, 1971) acknowledges the problem and states that ʻThe whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative.ʼ Dr. Louis B. Slichter, Professor of Geophysics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology treats this problem in great detail and concludes that ʻthe time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem.ʼ”12 Lord Kelvin studied earth-moon tidal friction and the resultant slower spin rate of the earth. Assuming an initial molten earth, he concluded that if the earth were a billion years old, its shape would be different.13 Of course, scientiﬁc measurement is possible of space and matter only in the present time. Conclusions about processes in the distant past must be extrapolated from present evidence. And,

11 Jason Lisle, Ph.D. 2013. The Solar System: Earth and Moon. Acts & Facts. 42 (10) http://www.icr.org/article/ 7691 © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 3/7/15) 12 Barnes, Thomas G., D.Sc. 1982. Young Age for Moon and Earth. Acts & Facts. 11 (8) citing Slichter, Louis B., Secular Effects of Tidal Friction Upon the Earthʼs Rotation, Jour . Geoph. Res., 1964, Vol. 8, No. 14, pp. 4281-4288. http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed Nov 14, 2014) 13 Ibid (Barnes), citing Barnes, Thomas G., ICR Impact No. 16.

54 The Case for Divinity the conclusions reached must be in conformity with all other known evidence. Further, the process by which they are reached must be logical. (By the way, logical reasoning is another evidence of creation by an intelligent God, discussed in Chapter 10: Evidence from Formal Science.) The past discussion of the moon-earth relationship and the following one about the sunʼs age are good examples of reaching logical conclusions about the past based on scientific evidence in the present. Of course, reaching such conclusions requires assuming, if there is no clear contrary evidence, that observed processes have not changed appreciatively during the passing of thousands of years. Evidence for a Young Sun Now, regarding evidence for a young sun: Keith Davies identified three characteristics of the sun that mark it as young. Each of these three he explained in detail in his article.14 The headings are listed here: “The fundamental oscillation of the Sun matches the model for a young star. “The Solar Neutrino Emission is that of a young star. “The Lithium and Beryllium abundance in the sun is consistent with that of a young star.”15 After describing each of the above, Davies concluded that they... “...correlate with the expected characteristics of a young star that is obtaining its energy from gravitational contraction. The sun simply does not seem to have a large core that is very dense and has the high temperature that can sustain hydrogen nuclear burning. In other words, the sun definitely does not show the characteristics of a multi-billion-year-old star,...“16 If the sun does not display the characteristics of an old star, it must be a young one.

Further Evidence of a Young Earth There are many more scientific evidences proving our earth is much younger than evolutionary theory demands. We have thus far noted only a few. An article by Dr. Humphreys in the Creation Matters17 publication lists and explains twelve reasons to believe the young earth proposition. For brevities sake, each of the twelve headings are listed here, however, the details of each are well worth the time to read at http://www.creationism.org/articles/HumphreysYoungWorld.pdf: “1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast” “2. Comets disintegrate too quickly” “3. Not enough mud on the sea floor” “4. Not enough sodium in the sea” “5. The earthʼs magnetic field is decaying too fast”

14 Davies, Keith. 1996. Evidence for a Young Sun. Acts & Facts. 25 (6) http://www.icr.org/article/evidence- for-young-sun/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 3/7/2015) 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Humphreys, D. Russell, Ph.D., Evidence for a Young World, Creation Matters, Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MO., http://www.creationism.org/articles/HumphreysYoungWorld.pdf © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 3/7/2015)

55 Evidence for a Young Earth

“6. Many strata are too tightly bent” “7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ʻagesʼ” “8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ʻagesʼ to a few years” “9. Helium in the wrong places” “10. Not enough stone age skeletons” “11. Agriculture is too recent” “12. History is too short” We are grateful to Dr. Humphreys for publishing the preceding list. Of course, it should be noted that ongoing research may, at any time, provide reason to alter the explanation of one or more of these processes. If there were only one or two evidences for a young earth, there would be a possibility of future revisions putting our conclusion in doubt. But, thatʼs not the case. There are dozens of scientifically analyzed conditions and processes supporting a young earth. Dr. Henry Morris published a very interesting list of scientific processes, which have indicated a young age for the earth. As he points out, it is impossible to know with certainty the age of the earth. We can only weigh known conditions today in the scales of known scientific processes, and make reasonable and logical conclusions from what we have observed. With that in mind, he lists 76 processes such as the accumulation of sediments for sedimentary rocks, influx of calcium to the ocean via rivers, and decay of comets of both short and long life and indicates the probable age of the earth based on each process. Here is the conclusion he reached: “Thus, it is concluded that the weight of all the scientific evidence favors the view that the earth is quite young, far too young for life and man to have arisen by an evolutionary process. The origin of all things by special creation—already necessitated by many other scientific considerations—is therefore also indicated by chronometric data.”18 There are many more evidences not included here, which demonstrate the earth is too young to have evolved. Since there are only two possible explanations for the earthʼs beginning - Darwinian evolution by chance or special creation by a supreme, intelligent Being - the correct explanation must be creation. I can remember when evolutionists spoke in terms of millions of years for everything to evolve to what we know today. Over the past few decades of finding no evidence that clearly supports their theory, evolutionists have gradually increased the required time until now it is not uncommon to see estimates as high as twenty billion years for everything to evolve by chance. In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species, which laid out the proposition that evolution did its job in a period of millions of years. But, scientists are yet to find clear, irrefutable supporting evidence for this theory. Seems to me it is reasonable to ask, after a century and a half of not finding even a shred of supporting evidence, how much longer must we wait for all to conclude there is no evidence and the theory should be discarded.

Chapter 6 Discussion Questions 1. Deﬁne the OE (old earth) model.

56 The Case for Divinity

2. Deﬁne the NE (new earth) model.

3. What is radiocarbon dating? For what kind of objects does it apply and for what kind does it not work?

4. Does radiocarbon dating support the old earth theory? Why, or why not?

5. If the moon is moving away from earth due to tidal waves, what does that mean if that rate of recession has been constant throughout history and the theory of evolution is true? If creation is true?

6. Since Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species in 1859, what has happened to the evolutionistʼs estimate of time required for the universe to evolve from the “Big Bang” to its present state? Why?

57 Evidence for a Young Earth

7. If the universe is billions of years old, what impact would such age have on the earth-moon relationship?

8. Of all the evidences of a young earth presented in this chapter, which one(s) did you ﬁnd particularly compelling? Can you add any other evidences not mentioned here?

58 Chapter 7 Evidence from Physical Science

he study of science is commonly divided into these main branches: 1. Earth and space1 (astronomy and geoscience), 2. Physical science (the study of nature including its fundamental forces - gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear), 3. Life science2 (biological science, i.e., the study of life and living organisms), 4. Formal science 3 (including mathematics and logic), and 5. Social science4 (the study of human behavior and societies). Special creation of the universe is consistent with known truth in all of these fields. In this chapter and the next three, we will consider a number of scientific evidences of my preceding statement about the above scientific fields. Under the heading Evidence from Physical Science, this chapter looks into the fields of earth and space as well as physical science considering evidences which support belief in special creation and/or prove Darwinian evolution is not true. Several of these are in the category of physical science, that is, the scientific study of non-living organisms.5 In his article, Can Creationists be Scientists?6, Dr. Jason Lisle quotes the evolutionistʼs belief that creationists cannot be real scientists. His interesting article is summed up in its byline: “Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution.” Not only does science work well without a connection to evolution, science has demonstrated that evolution has not and cannot work. Science does this by analysis of physical facts, which prove evolutional theory untrue, as well as by the absence of supporting evidence. Our purpose in this chapter will be to highlight additional areas where evolution lacks evidence and present a few examples of physical evidence supporting creation... all to make the point facts uncovered in various scientific fields deny evolutionary theory and support belief in special creation. The following two interrelated laws of science alone are sufficient to assure for an honest mind the existence of a Divine, All-Powerful Being. Their scope is broad covering many fields of

1 Included in this chapter, i.e., Evidence from Physical Science. 2 Focus of Chapter 9: Evidence from Life Science. Evidence from Geology that relates to Biology is in Chapter 8: Evidence from Paleontology. 3 Focus of Chapter 10: Evidence from Formal Science. 4 Included in Chapter 9: Evidence from Life Science. 5 Additional evidence from physical science is presented in Chapter 6: Evidence for Creation. 6 Lisle, Dr. Jason, Can Creationists Be Real Scientists? (2005), 1:1, Answers in Genesis, https:// answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/can-creationists-be-scientists/ (Accessed 11/14/2014)

59 The Case for Divinity science, i.e., biology, chemistry, geology, ecology, physics and meteorology to name a few. But there are more reasons to believe in creation than these two laws. Weʼll get to those later, but for now consider...

Two Laws of Thermodynamics Their are four Laws of Thermodynamics, which are fundamental to the science of all systems in which temperature, energy and entropy (a measure of the systemʼs disorder) are present. The scientific community is quite familiar with these laws. We need to consider only two. The first and second laws alone show that creation rather than evolution is true. “The FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine origin—a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful.”7 This first law pertains to any closed system, closed meaning that no outside source is adding either matter or energy to the systemʼs store. Our universe, a closed system, is unable of itself to increase its quantity of energy or matter, both of which are required for evolution to be true. Going back to the beginning of all things, where did the initial matter and energy come from to begin a process of evolution? The Big Bang Theory discussed in Chapter 2: Evidence for a First Cause provides no answer for an initial store, even if small, to start the evolutionary ball rolling. So, the First Law is a problem. And, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is no less so... “Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other. Consider: ʻRegarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, “It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true.”ʼ”8 Some are now claiming the second law does not apply to living systems. It is true that living things do become more ordered as they naturally grow, but they still lose energy even in the process of growth. The food that goes into a living system is not processed at 100% efficiency. So the second law applies to living systems as well. Also, the principle of increasing entropy is seen more readily in closed systems, which living organisms are not. If food, water and air supply are cut off, in other words, the

7 Pack, David C., Does God Exist?, The Restored Church of God, Wadsworth, OH., p. 9, http://rcg.org/ books/dge.html 8 Ibid, p. 10

60 Evidence from Physical Science system is closed we know it would not last long. Even when these necessities are supplied to the built-in growth mechanism, entropy eventually dominates. Growth stops in time, and the body turns in the direction of disorder and decay. No amount of input in the form of food, water and air overcomes the eventual disorder of old age. Oceanography Chemical processes maintaining atmospheric conditions which support life have been discovered in the oceans causing concern about high levels of methane in ocean surface waters, a problem scientists call the “methane enigma”. Production of the gas appears to come from within the waters in sufficient amounts to cause concern that too much methane in the atmosphere would harm the planet earth. David Karl, an oceanographer at the University of Hawaii, worked with the problem, and... “According to Karlʼs research, bacteria are converting methylphosphonates into methane in the oceans. The methane diffuses from there into the atmosphere. We have long known that bacteria help to maintain a proper balance of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen levels in the atmosphere. Bacteria are now known to play a vital role in maintaining methane levels as well. This makes sense within the creation science model--a loving God created a robust atmosphere, complete with bacterial systems that balance amounts of atmospheric gases in order to support life.”9 Other oceanic facts argue for divine involvement. Do you realize the Bible reported natural phenomenon long before they were uncovered by scientists? The 38th chapter of the book of Job tells of God answering Job in a whirlwind. God asked, “Have you entered the springs of the sea?” (vs. 16a) There is no question but Job had to answer, “No!” He probably didnʼt know about springs of the sea until God asked. Other biblical passages also reference springs of the sea. Genesis 7:11 mentions “the fountains of the great deep”, and Proverbs 8:28b reads, “When He strengthened the fountains of the deep.” (Some translations use “springs” for “fountains”.) Did Moses and Solomon who wrote these statements know about springs in the sea? Had they investigated for themselves? The fact is modern day scientists didnʼt know about sea springs until a few decades ago. Before 1930 little was known about the ocean floor. In the 1930s undersea volcanos were discovered. It was not until the late 1960s that man discovered shallow water hot springs along the California coast, and then a few years later things began to change. “Deep diving research submarines have been constructed to withstand the three-tons-per- square-inch pressure at the ocean floor. These submarines have carried scientists into the deep. The first direct observations of deep sea springs, or their mineralized vents, appear to have been made on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge by Project FAMOUS in 1973. Spectacular hot springs were then discovered on the Galapagos Rift in the Pacific Ocean by the 23-foot

9 Thomas, Brian M.S., A Natural Cause of Greenhouse Gas, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, Texas, http://www.icr.org/articles/view/3953/278/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org citing New Pathway For Methane Production In The Oceans Discovered. Science News. Posted on ScienceDaily.com on 7/4/2008, accessed 7/10/2008. (cb access on 11/15/14)

61 The Case for Divinity

long submersible Alvin in 1977. Alvin also explored, photographed and sampled hot springs on the East Pacific Rise just south of the Gulf of California in 1979.”10 Research at the bottom of the oceans continues. Meteorology “In March of 2001 a significant paper by Richard Lindzen of MIT was published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society which addresses the cloud-cover feedback mechanism.”11 The significance of this paper regards global warming, a national concern since the issue was raised by former Vice President Al Gore. The cloud-cover feedback mechanism is natureʼs method of regulating atmospheric temperature, in other words, a natural, climatic thermostat. Dr. Vardiman explains Lindzenʼs discovery this way... “His paper reports that clouds in the tropics respond to warmer sea-surface temperatures (SST) by permitting long-wave radiation to space to increase, causing greater cooling of the atmosphere.”12 Is it reasonable to believe that such a well designed and functioning climate control system could develop by chance? It is one more in a long line of natural phenomenon, which work to the benefit of humanity and all living organisms. Astronomy In Best Creation News of 2013: Astronomy,13 dated December 18, 2013, Brian Thomas, M.S., science writer at the Institute for Creation Research, lists a number of astronomical discoveries supporting belief in special creation rather than evolution by chance. Among them, he cites the moonʼs age. If the moon has been around for an evolutionary billions of years old,... “... then it should be dry as a bone. The violent impact would have melted all the minerals and thus would have ejected any water from its magma. But this year researchers reported discovering water within the minerals of some moon rocks. Not only does this refute the molten moon narrative, but it supports Scriptureʼs recent and watery lunar origins.14

10 Austin, S. 1981. Springs of the Ocean. Acts & Facts. 10 (8), (http://www.icr.org/article/springs-ocean/) © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org citing Ballard, Robert D., and Grassle, J. Frederick, Incredible World of Deep-sea Rifts, National Geographic , V. 156, No. 5, November 1979, pp. 680-705, and West, Susan, Smokers, Red Worms, and Deep Sea Plumbing, Science News, V. 117, No. 2, January 12, 1980, pp. 28-30. (Accessed 11/19/14) 11 Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. 2001. Earthʼs Climate Thermostat. Acts & Facts. 30 (9), http://www.icr.org/article/earths- climate-thermostat/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org citing Lindzen, Richard S., Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou, 2001, Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society , 82 , 417-432 12 Ibid. 13 Thomas, Brian, M.S., Best Creation News of 2013: Astronomy, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, Texas, posted Dec 18, 2013, http://www.icr.org/article/7861/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed Nov 13, 2014) 14 Ibid (Thomas) citing Thomas, B. Water in Rocks May Support Moonʼs Bible Origins. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org September 25, 2013, accessed December 9, 2013. © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org

62 Evidence from Physical Science

Another fact about the moon cited by Thomas regards the moonʼs magnetic field. Scientists have determined that “a theoretical field that fits the moonʼs size can last only 10,000 years. These features support the idea that God made the moon recently and that its magnetic field has been steadily decaying since creation.”15 Dr. Jake Hebert, a Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research, describes a puzzle for evolutionary scientists, a puzzle about four of the bodies in our solar system16 : Jupiterʼs moon named “Io”, the planet Saturn, and two of Saturnʼs moons (Enceladus and Titan). All four of these possess certain properties that could not exist for the billions of years required by evolution. The planet Jupiter has at least 63 moons. One of the four largest, named “Io”, has a great many active volcanos, which is puzzling to an evolutionist because such activity is not normally sustainable for a long period of time. Existence in the creationist timescale is not a problem.17 Saturn, another planet in our solar system, is encircled by very bright rings, the brightness of which should have been dimmed during the passage of time by dust from comets and asteroids. However, they are still very bright, which argues for a young age.18 In support of a young solar system theory, Dr. Hebert cites evidence on Saturnʼs moons: “...watery geysers erupting from the south pole of Saturn's moon Enceladus suggest that the moon is giving off a great deal of heat, yet this heat should ʻdie downʼ relatively quickly. A mechanism proposed by Australian planetary scientist Craig O'Neill can theoretically provide enough release of heat to sustain the geysers for only about ten million years—far fewer than billions of years.19 “Secular researchers are also puzzled by the methane in Titan's atmosphere. Because sunlight degrades methane, Titan's atmospheric methane should have been depleted after only a few tens of millions of years. Yet methane is still present...”20 Is it reasonable to believe that any of the foregoing could develop by chance? Is it even reasonable to suggest that any of these could be created by the most talented and skilled consortium of engineers and scientists humanity has to offer? There is no reasonable conclusion except these are creations of an all wise, all powerful God.

Chapter 7 Discussion Questions 1. What are the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics?

15 Ibid (Thomas) citing Thomas, B. The Moonʼs Latest Magnetic Mysteries. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org June 7, 2013, accessed December 9, 2013. © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org 16 Hebert, Jake Ph.D., Youthful Solar System Bodies Puzzle Evolutionary Scientists, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, http://www.icr.org/article/youthful-solar-system-bodies-puzzle/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 3/20/15) 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid.

63 The Case for Divinity

2. What is the signiﬁcance of the ﬁrst law in determining the truth of the theory of evolution?

3. What is another name for the second law, and what is its signiﬁcance in determining the truth of the theory of evolution?

4. What in physical science argues for evolution of the universe over a period of billions and billions of years?

5. What in physical science argues that the universe was created from nothing and the earth is young?

6. Name and describe some types of evidence supporting creation that most impress you.

64 Chapter 8 Evidence from Paleontology

eology is a very broad ﬁeld, an earth science involved, among other things, in study of earth materials including the dating of rocks and the history of life. The specialized ﬁeld of human paleontology is the study of fossils and their environments and links geology with biology.1 Human paleontology, also known as paleoanthropology, will be the focus of this chapter. Key to studying the history of past life is an understanding of some of the methods used for determining the age of fossils. Current dating methods are based on the fact that all of the earthʼs rocks contain small amounts of radioactive elements, which decay over time at a measurable rate. Use of these radiometric clocks to determine the age of rocks is referred to as radiometric dating, a subject introduced in Chapter 6: Evidence for a Young Earth. Radiometric or radioactive dating is performed in many different ways, three of the most popular being radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating.

Radiocarbon Dating Radiocarbon dating, also called carbon-14 dating, began as a simple method for dating the age of once living organisms, but is now very technical. What is it? It is a... “...method of age determination that depends upon the decay to nitrogen of radiocarbon (carbon-14). Carbon-14 is continually formed in nature by the interaction of neutrons with nitrogen-14 in the Earthʼs atmosphere; the neutrons required for this reaction are produced by cosmic rays interacting with the atmosphere. “Radiocarbon present in molecules of atmospheric carbon dioxide enters the biological carbon cycle: it is absorbed from the air by green plants and then passed on to animals through the food chain. Radiocarbon decays slowly in a living organism, and the amount lost is continually replenished as long as the organism takes in air or food. Once the organism dies, however, it ceases to absorb carbon-14, so that the amount of the radiocarbon in its tissues steadily decreases. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years—i.e., half the amount of the radioisotope present at any given time will undergo spontaneous disintegration during the succeeding 5,730 years. Because carbon-14 decays at this constant rate, an estimate of the date at which an organism died can be made by measuring the amount of its residual radiocarbon.” 2, 3 Of course, this process is stopped by the death of either the animal or the plant. Then, the amount of carbon-14 contained in the object begins to reduce at a predictable rate. Thus, careful

1 Paleoanthropology (Human paleontology), Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. Chicago, IL, Copyright 2015, http://www.britannica.com/science/paleoanthropology (Accessed 6/12/2015) 2 Carbon-14 dating, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. Chicago, IL, Copyright 2015, http://www.britannica.com/ science/carbon-14-dating (Accessed 6/12/2015) 3 More detail about how radiocarbon dating makes use of the atmosphereʼs radiocarbon to determine the age of once living objects is available at Georgia State Universityʼs HyperPhysics website, i.e., http://hyperphysics.phy- astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html (Accessed 1/29/2015)

65 The Case for Divinity measurement and calculation based on remaining carbon-14 can determine the time of death. Radiocarbon dating is accurate for dates back a few thousand years. The website Answers in Genesis published an article entitled Six Evidences of a Young Earth,4 which claims that carbon-14 dating is actually strong evidence for creation rather than evolution. The reason given is that carbon-14 decays too rapidly to remain in substances for the long age, millions of years, required by the evolutionary scenario. Carbon-14 dating is effective in measuring ages of only a few thousand years. Scientists from the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project examined diamonds, the hardest known substance, which are thought by evolutionists to be 1-2 billion years old. The result? They found a considerable amount of radiocarbon, which dated them at about 55,000 years rather than the billions of years if evolution were true. Carbon-14 dating is evidence for a young earth rather than an old one. The radiocarbon dating technique is so technical many misconceptions and myths about the method have sprouted. Because of its complexity I recommend an article, Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating, by Dr. Aardsma of the Institute for Creation Research, an article which lists and answers several myths. The ﬁrst of six myths listed is presented below. Following it Iʼve summarized the other ﬁve, the details of which can be reached at http://www.icr.org/article/293. “MYTH #1. Radiocarbon is used to date the age of rocks, which enables scientists to date the age of the earth. “Radiocarbon is not used to date the age of rocks or to determine the age of the earth. Other radiometric dating methods such as potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium are used for such purposes by those who believe that the earth is billions of years old. Radiocarbon is not suitable for this purpose because it is only applicable: a) on a time scale of thousands of years and b) to remains of once-living organisms (with minor exceptions, ... ).”5 The other myths addressed by Dr. Aardsma refer to radiocarbon dating of organic materials (such as peat deposits) in excess of 50,000 years; freshwater clams in excess of 1,600 years; coal samples dated at 20,000 years or less; wood samples dated during the past 10,000 years, which validate conventional radiocarbon dating; and a myth that creationists are not interested in truth but in discrediting radiocarbon dating. Dr. Aardsma addressed each of these claims explaining available evidence, or lack of it. The explanations can be technical, therefore, I recommend that anyone interested in further detail click on http://www.icr.org/article/293 for Dr. Aardmaʼs explanation.

Potassium-Argon Dating What is potassium-argon dating? Here is an answer from the creationist viewpoint... “One of the most widely used dating methods is the potassium-argon method, which has been applied to ʻdatingʼ rocks for decades, especially igneous rocks that have solidiﬁed

4 Six Evidences of a Young Earth, Answers in Genesis, Hebron, KY, https://answersingenesis.org/ evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/, citing Snelling, Dr. Andrew, Diamonds—Evidence of Explosive Geological Processes (1993) https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rocks-and-minerals/ diamonds-evidence-of-explosive-geological-processes/, (Accessed Nov 14, 2014) 5 Aardsma, G. A. 1989. Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating. Acts & Facts. 18 (3). http://www.icr.org/article/ 293 © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 1/28/2015)

66 Evidence from Paleontology

from molten magma. The attraction of the method lies in the fact that one of the daughter elements is argon which is an inert gas. This means that the geologist can plausibly assume that all argon gas escapes from the molten magma while it is still liquid. He thinks this solves his problem of not knowing the initial quantity of the daughter element in the past and not being able to go back in time and make measurements. He assumes the initial argon content is zero.6 “He assumes that any argon-40 that he measures in his rock sample must have been produced by the radioactive decay of potassium-40 since the time the rock solidiﬁed. He imagines that his radioactive hour glass sealed when the rock solidiﬁed, and his radioactive clock started running. And he hopes the rock has remained sealed until the time he collected his sample. “With these assumptions the geologist only needs to measure the relative amounts of potassium-40 and argon-40 in the rock at the present time to be able to calculate an age for the rock. Although it is a simple calculation the big question is whether his assumptions about the rock were correct.”7 There is still argon in the earthʼs depths indicating a young earth. All argon would have long ago escaped from an earth billions of years old. Further, volcanic rock samples have been... “...analyzed for K-Ar and Ar-Ar ʻdating,ʼ the investigators can never really be sure therefore that whatever 40Ar* is in the rocks is from in situ (Latin meaning ʻin placeʼ - cb) radioactive decay of 40K since their formation, or whether some or all of it came from the mantle with the magmas. [...] the 40Ar* from radioactive decay of 40K cannot be distinguished analytically from primordial 40Ar not from radioactive decay, except of course by external assumptions about the ages of the rocks. Thus all K-Ar and Ar-Ar ʻdatesʼ of volcanic rocks are questionable, as well as fossil ʻdatesʼ calibrated by them.”8

Uranium-Lead Dating Of the many radiometric dating methods available today, uranium-lead dating is the oldest and, if done carefully, thought to be the most reliable. Uranium comes in two unstable, radioactive isotopes (235U and 238U), which shed nuclear particles until they become lead.9 While this method of dating is quite precise, it is based upon certain assumptions such as assuming the decay rate was not affected by some outside force and the beginning amount of uranium can be

6 Footnote with Tas Walker quoted text: “Actually, geologists assume that a small amount of argon was present in the rock due to the tiny concentration of argon in the earthʼs atmosphere. They usually make a small atmospheric correction for this.” 7 Walker, Tas, How potassium-argon dating works (24 June 2008) Creation Ministries International, Powder Springs, GA, http://creation.com/how-potassium-argon-dating-works (Accessed 6/12/2015) 8 Snelling, A. A., PhD. 1999. "Excess Argon": The "Archilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks. Acts & Facts. 28 (1). Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, https:// www.icr.org/article/436/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 4/3/15) 9 Alden, Andrew, Uranium-Lead Dating, About Education, New York, NY, http://geology.about.com/od/ geotime_dating/a/uraniumlead.htm (Accessed 4/8/2015)

67 The Case for Divinity known. In one noted study conducted at the Arizona State University, a team headed by Gregory Brennecka...10 “...measured the relative amounts of Uranium 238 to Uranium 235 from several samples [...] With the more sensitive instrument, they detected small differences in isotope ratios from different inclusions within the same meteorite.11” The reason given for these differences is that isotopes spring from an element with differences in nuclear components.12 “...varying quantities of these isotopes call into question the calculated age of the solar system, since ʻone of the equationʼs assumptions — that certain kinds of uranium always appear in the same relative quantities in meteorites — is wrong.ʼ13” Great care was taken to produce very precise measurements, but measuring dates of antiquity always involves assumptions, which are questionable. Assumptions that other forces in the beginning did not affect the expected process. About the Arizona State University study... “Gerald Wasserburg, emeritus professor of geology at Caltech, commented, ʻEverybody was sitting on this two-legged stool claiming it was very stable, but it turns out itʼs not.ʼ 14” These and other methods of radiometric dating are an important part of analyzing and interpreting the fossil record.

The Fossil Record The fossil record is one of the most often used evidences to support evolutionary theory. But... “...there are several facts about the fossil record which do not ﬁt well with Darwinʼs theory of evolution – facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory. Charles Darwin was very aware of this and devoted a whole chapter of The Origin of Species to the subject. “The key problem is this: Darwinʼs theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it: “ʻGeology assuredly does not reveal any such ﬁnely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.ʼ (The Origin of Species)”15

10 Thomas, Brian, M.S., It's Ofﬁcial: Radioactive Isotope Dating Is Fallible, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, http://www.icr.org/article/its-ofﬁcial-radioactive-isotope-dating/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 4/8/2015) 11 Ibid (Thomas) citing Brennecka, G. A. et al. 238U/235U Variations in Meteorites: Extant 247Cm and Implications for Pb-Pb Dating. Science Express. Published online December 31, 2009. 12 A full technical report appeared in the January 22, 2010, issue of the journal Science. 13 Ibid (Thomas) citing Grossman, L. Age of Solar System Needs to Be Recalculated. Wired Science. Posted on wired.com January 4, 2010, accessed January 12, 2010. 14 Ibid 15 The Fossil Record, Truth in Science (Article corrected 26 October 2006 and 19 March 2007) http:// www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/evidence-for-evolution-mainmenu-65/48-the-fossil-record.html © Truth in Science 2005-13 (Accessed 11/14/2014)

68 Evidence from Paleontology

Darwin longed for evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record, the finely graded steps that would reveal evolution from a lower to higher form. The lack of such forms was discussed in Chapter 5: Evidence for Creation as a major evidence of creation rather than evolution. It would be hard to overemphasize the importance of transitional forms, and the only place we would expect to find evidence of them is in the fossil record of once living organisms. There is none. If evolution were true, the fossilized record of many gradual changes from one species to the next should have been found, but they have not been. “This quote, from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, in a letter to L. Sunderland, summarized the ʻfossil problemʼ: ʻ…I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them…Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils…I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a water tight argument.ʼ”16 Not one solid transitional fossil has been found after more than a century of diligent searching by professionals committed to proving the veracity of the Darwinian theory? And, even after all of that we still have intelligent scientists claiming evolution is true! Amazing! Their belief and dedication to the search is so strong, human biases must be the rule... “ʻA five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a human like creature is actually part of a dolphin rib…The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid [human] that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid boneʼ (Dr. Tim White, p. 199). ʻIn fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ʻbendʼ their observations to fit in with itʼ” (H.S. Lipson, 138).17

The Cambrian Explosion A problem for Darwin and his followers is The Cambrian Explosion, which refers to a time of rapid diversiﬁcation in the fossil record of most animal lifeforms. In lower (older) rock layers, the fossil bed records animal life to have been only simple, unicellular organisms. According to the theory of evolution, the Cambrian period began roughly 500 million years ago and lasted 50 to 100 million years. Fossils indicate an apparent explosion of superbly preserved fossilized early animals (mostly marine species) within a relatively short period on the clock of evolutional time. One evolutionist says this about it: “The Cambrian Explosion is often posed as a challenge for evolution because the sudden burst of change in the fossil record appears to be inconsistent with the more typical gradual pace of evolutionary change.”18

16 Pack, David C., Does God Exist? (2008) The Restored Church of God, Wadsworth, Ohio, quoting Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, p. 18. 17 Ibid (Pack), citing Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, Univ. of California, Berkeley, New Scientist, April 28, 1983, p. 199, and H.S. Lipson, FRS, Prof. Of Physics, Univ. of Manchester, UK, ʻA Physicist Looks at Evolution,ʼ Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, 1980, p. 138 18 Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?, BioLogos Foundation, https:// biologos.org/questions/cambrian-explosion. (Accessed 2/15/2015)

69 The Case for Divinity

Continuing on in his article, he attempts to explain how the Cambrian Explosion fits the theory of evolution without ever admitting that fossils demonstrating “the more typical gradual pace of evolutionary change” have never been found. Some scientists have approached this problem differently by claiming... “...molecular clock procedures, though known to be unreliable, provide the real evolutionary history, not fossils. “The fact that these authors calibrated their ʻclockʼ to fossil age assignments proves that their clock was just as unreliable as prior clocks. It relied on the very fossil ages that their attempted solution to the Cambrian Conundrum tried to avoid! They can't have it both ways, and they should not have cherry-picked parts of the fossil record to serve their story—or the seven genes that best served their molecular clock estimates. “The Cambrian Conundrum is still a fossil-based problem for evolution.”19 The Cambrian Explosion has caused considerable debate in the scientific community. Was there really an “explosion” of complex organisms over a reality short period of time? If so, what caused it? And, what does that tell us about the origin of life? From creationist Carl Wielandʼs viewpoint20, the Cambrian Explosion can be explained within the framework of creation theory. Wieland refers to an article in Scientific American21 which described the Cambrian explosion as “Evolutionary biologyʼs deepest paradox”, and offers this explanation...... “ʻCambrianʼ rocks are a system of fossil-bearing rocks containing certain ʻindex fossilsʼ. In evolutionary theory, these rocks represent an ʻageʼ beginning nearly 600 million years ago and ending about 500 million years ago. Going from the bottom of the evolutionistʼs geological column upwards, the ʻCambrianʼ has for years been known as the ʻfirstʼ system in which there is a proliferation of significant, multicelled animals.22 “In creation theory, of course, the division between ʻCambrianʼ rocks and other catastrophically deposited fossil-bearing rocks is not due to vast periods of time. The reasons for the distinctive fossil assemblages are largely sought in physical and ecological areas. Marine creatures would tend to be buried in a Flood catastrophe in different zones (and at varying stages during the Flood) than those living on land, for example. The kinds of creatures found fossilized in ʻCambrianʼ rocks once inhabited the same earth at the same time as those kinds found fossilized higher up the ʻgeological columnʼ. “Creationists have long pointed out the problem for evolution theory, namely that all the major groups (phyla23) of life which we know today appear in the Cambrian with no evolutionary

19 Thomas, Brian, M.S., Is the Cambrian Explosion Problem Solved? (Dec 12, 2011) http://www.icr.org/ article/cambrian-explosion-problem-solved/, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, icr.org (Accessed 6/13/2015) 20 Wieland, Carl, Exploding Evolution, Creation Ministries International, Powder Springs, GA, http:// creation.com/exploding-evolution 21 Ibid citing J. Levinton, The Big Bang of Animal Evolution, Scientiﬁc American, Nov 1992, pp.52–59 22 Ibid, “The only multicellular animal fossils found beneath ʻCambrianʼ rocks are the so-called Ediacaran group, a peculiar group which is regarded as an evolutionary dead end. The article frankly admits that they cannot represent the ancestors of the ʻCambrianʼ types or any creatures alive today.” 23 Phyla is the plural form of phlum, which is one of eight principal, biological classiﬁcations according to taxonomic ranking. Phlum ranks above the class category and below kingdom.

70 Evidence from Paleontology

ancestors. This is why evolutionists refer to it as an ʻexplosionʼ of evolution. There are no groups which have been identified as ancestral to any of the phyla, and geologically these phyla ʻseem to have appeared suddenly and simultaneouslyʼ.” Evolutionists have appropriately referred to the appearance and rapid diversification of multitudes of animals as an “explosion”. In his On the Origin of Species, Darwin cited this rapid appearance of numbers of species of the same group as a major objection to his theory of evolution by natural selection.24 While evolutionists struggle to explain the Cambrian explosion, it fits well the Genesis account of creation, i.e., multitudes of animals appeared at once and then proceeded to die off. Dinosaurs Though none live today, everyone knows about dinosaurs. We have seen their skeletons in museums and read about them in books. No one questions the skeletal and fossil evidence proving they lived and roamed the earth a long time ago. But, there are questions... ✦ What are dinosaurs and when did they live? ✦ Did they roam the earth before or during the time of mankind? ✦ What happened to dinosaurs; why are there none today? The evolutionary model has dinosaurs living long before the human species developed 250-400 thousand years ago. “Dinosaurs are a group of terrestrial reptiles that first appeared in the Late (or perhaps Middle) Triassic Period, about 230 million years ago. Although dinosaur bones have been discovered throughout human history, these animals were only described scientifically in the early nineteenth century. Since that time, scientists have identified nearly a thousand different dinosaur species, from all continents, and ranging in size from a few kilograms to tens of tons. “Dinosaurs are also a popular and evocative group of animals, familiar to children and adults around the world. For a century they embodied the concepts of failure, sloth, and obsolescence, but the recent renaissance in dinosaur paleontology has led us to understand them as active, successful organisms that dominated terrestrial ecosystems for over 160 million years.”25 In previous chapters of this book we have seen evidence of a young earth with an age of 6-10,000 years rather than the millions of years cited by evolutionists. In addition to the earth and everything in it being comparatively young, there are reasons to believe that man and dinosaurs roamed the earth together. Really, you say? What reasons? First, Iʼll mention what some have claimed to be evidence, and others have refuted. For decades, there has been a controversy over fossilized footprints in the bottom of the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas. Residents of the area claimed seeing human footprints together with those of dinosaurs long before notice was taken by the scientific community.

24 Darwin, Charles (1859) On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. London: Murray, Darwin Online, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1, p. 306 (Accessed 6/5/2015) 25 Dinosaurs, What is a Dinosaur? Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C., http:// paleobiology.si.edu/dinosaurs/info/everything/what.html (Accessed 4/9/2015)

71 The Case for Divinity

In a New York Times article by John Noble Wilford published June 17, 1986, the controversy was summarized: “... the Paluxy River tracks, which were known of for decades, had posed a problem for scientists. The tracks were indeed humanlike. Each print is elongated, about 15 to 20 inches in length, and ends with an apparent round heel. The toes are missing or indistinct, however, and this made it impossible to reach any satisfactory identification. The identified dinosaur prints in the same sediments have the distinctive three long digits, resembling the feet of huge birds.”26 Later, as with all science that is subject to change based on new evidence, what appeared in the Paluxy River fossil bed took on a new meaning. Further investigation by Mr. Kuban, an experienced student of dinosaur tracks, uncovered impressions of the missing toes. “Two summers ago, pursuing the investigation, Mr. Kuban said he found evidence that ʻpractically jumped out at you.ʼ Ronnie J. Hastings, a high school science teacher from Waxahachie, Tex., made a similar discovery at about the same time. Almost every one of the alleged human tracks, they found, was accompanied by distinct colorations in the rock that, upon detailed analysis, revealed the pattern of dinosaurian digits. “The colorations ranged from blue-gray to rust, in contrast to the ivory to tan color of the surrounding limestone bearing the rest of the fossil footprint. To Mr. Kuban and scientists who had a look, this suggested that the digit impressions were somehow filled in with sediments different from those in the rest of the track. These sediments later hardened to rock. This phenomenon presumably went undetected until exposure to air and flood waters from the river eroded the surface and contributed to oxidation processes.”27 At the invitation of Mr. Kuban and Dr. Hastings, Dr. John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research and other creationists visited the site to see for themselves. Following that visit, Dr. Morris wrote an interesting article explaining what had transpired and concluding with...: “Even though it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution, in the light of these questions, there is still much that is not known about the tracks and continued research is in order. We stand committed to truth, and will gladly modify or abandon our previous interpretation of the Paluxy data as the facts dictate.ʼ”28 Actually, the odds of ever finding indisputable fossil evidence that dinosaurs lived among humans are slim. There is very little evidence of humanity in the fossil record to date. As rare as it is, it is unlikely it will ever be found coupled with dinosaur forms, but believing they lived together is reasonable in the creation model. Consider... It is known that as dinosaurs roamed dry land others occupied the oceans. God created sea and air creatures on the fifth day and land animals and man on the sixth. (Genesis 1:20-31) Verse 21

26 Wiford, John Noble, FOSSILS OF 'MAN TRACKS' SHOWN TO BE DINOSAURIAN (June 17, 1986) The New York Times, New York, NY, http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/17/science/fossils-of-man-tracks-shown- to-be-dinosaurian.html (Accessed 4/10/2015) 27 Ibid. 28 Morris, John D., Ph.D., The Paluxy River Mystery (1986) Acts & Facts.15(1), Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, http://www.icr.org/article/paluxy-river-mystery/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 5/4/2015)

72 Evidence from Paleontology says “So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded,...” After the great Flood, which would have killed all of the dinosaurs not on Noahʼs ark, God questioned Job about the great behemoth (Job 40:15-24)... “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox. “See now, his strength in his hips And his power is in his stomach muscles. “He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. “His bones are like beams of bronze; His ribs like bars of iron. “He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword. “Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there. “He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh. “The lotus trees cover him with their shade; The willows by the brook surround him. “Indeed the river may rage, Yet he is not disturbed; He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth, “Though he takes it in his eyes, Or one pierces his nose with a snare.”29 The word “behemoth” has come to mean a very large creature, but there is disagreement as to what creature. Some have said this text is referring to an elephant or hippopotamus, but neither bends its “tail like a cedar”. Others have suggested the whole description best fits a dinosaur. The leviathan, a large sea creature of unknown identity, is also mentioned in the Bible (Job 41:1; Psalm 74:14; 104:26; and Isaiah 27:1). Could it be one of the many species of dinosaurs? The King James Bible often mentions “dragons”, an appropriate reference to dinosaurs at the time inasmuch as the word “dinosaur” was not known until the 1800s, long after the writing of the Bible. According to Strongʼs Concordance, the Hebrew words “tanniyn” and “tanniym” translated “dragon” and “dragons”, respectively, means “a marine or land monster, i.e., sea-serpent or jackal: - dragon, sea-monster, serpent, whale.”30, 31 We cannot be certain biblical references refer to dinosaurs, but no one can be certain they donʼt.

29 Job 40:15-24 30 Strong, James, Strongʼs Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, p. 125, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts. 31 Other Bible translations render these Hebrew words as serpent, jackal, etc.

73 The Case for Divinity

Biological Homology Merriam-Webster defines homology as “1) a similarity often attributable to common origin, 2) likeness in structure between parts of different organisms (as the wing of a bat and the human arm) due to evolutionary differentiation from a corresponding part in a common ancestor, and 3) correspondence in structure between a series of parts (as vertebrae) in the same individual.”32 “In the Origin of the Species Darwin argued that the best explanation for homology is descent with modification. ʻIf we suppose that an early progenitor -- the archetype as it may be called -- of all mammals, birds and reptiles, had its limbs constructed on the existing pattern,ʼ then ʻthe similar framework of bones in the hand of a man, wing of a bat, fin of the porpoise, and leg of the horse... at once explain themselves on the theory of descent with slow and slight modifications.ʼ Darwin considered homology important evidence for evolution, listing it among the facts which ʻproclaim so plainly, that the innumerable species, genera and families, with which this world is peopled, are all descended, each within its own class or group, from common parents.”33 “For Darwin, homologies were similar structures explained by common ancestry.”34 Of course, not all similar structures come from a common ancestor. For example, the human eye is very similar in structure to the eye of an octopus, but no one believes they have a common ancestry. So, common ancestry must be proven before similar structures can be called homologous. For Charles Darwin and those who preceded him... “...evolution was a theory, and homology was evidence for it. With Darwinʼs followers, evolution is assumed to be independently established, and homology is its result. The problem is that now homology cannot be used as evidence for evolution except by reasoning in a circle.”35 Fact is, evolution has not been proven, and similarities in bone structures do not prove common ancestry. Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson raises some interesting questions and quotes a common evolutionary answer... “Why do you share DNA with an ant? Why do mammals generally have four limbs? Why do different creaturesʼ limbs often develop via similar genetic programs? Evolutionists attribute these biological similarities—this ʻhomologyʼ—to a ʻcommon ancestorʼ among diverse creatures. “...evolutionists like Stephen Matheson reject ʻcommon designʼ by an omnipotent Designer as an explanation for these facts. ʻAs a competing explanation, design is currently a failure….We have no good reason to suppose that [shared anatomical patterns and genetic programs] could not have been otherwise, and in some cases, we know that it can work in other ways.ʼ”36

32 Homology, Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2015) Merriam-Webster, Inc. http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/homology 33 Wells, Jonathan, Icons of Evolution (2000) Regnery Publishing , Inc. Washington, DC, p. 61 34 Ibid (Wells) p. 62 35 Ibid (Wells) p. 63 36 Jeanson, Nathaniel T., Ph.D., Does 'Homology' Prove Evolution? (2013) Acts & Facts. 42 (9): 20. http://www.icr.org/article/does-homology-prove-evolution/ Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX. citing Matheson, S. New Limbs from Old Fins, Part 6. The BioLogos Forum. Posted on biologos.com on Oct 20, 2011, accessed by ICR June 26, 2013. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 6/3/2015)

74 Evidence from Paleontology

Though Darwin considered homology important evidence for evolution, it has proven not to be the case. Scientists cannot agree on an homologous process or its value. “As Sokal and Sneath pointed out in 1963: ʻEven when fossil evidence is available, this evidence must ﬁrst be interpretedʼ by comparing similar features. Any attempt to infer evolutionary relationships among fossils based on homology-as-common-ancestry ʻsoon leads to a tangle of circular arguments from which there is not escape.ʼ “In fact, inferring evolutionary relationships from the fossil record is more difﬁcult than inferring them from live specimens, because the record is fragmentary and because fossils to not preserve all relevant features.”37 The bottom line is that when biases and assumptions are removed from linking fossils as ancestors of present species, the effort has failed. Homology does not prove evolution.

Vestigial Organs What are vestigial organs? In his book, The New Answers Book 3,38 Dr. David Menton describes them as organs that functioned in the past, but have become useless, or at least of little importance. Many evolutionists, he points out, believe such organs to be proof of evolution because a divine Creator would not make anything that was useless. You may wonder how “classic” this argument is for evolution, and the degree to which vestigial organs are common. In his Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin devoted a chapter to what he called “rudimentary, atrophied and aborted organs.”39 He wrote,... “Organs or parts in this strange condition, bearing the plain stamp of inutility (having no practical use - cb), are extremely common, or even general, throughout nature. It would be impossible to name one of the higher animals in which some part or other is not in a rudimentary condition.”40 Darwin named a number of useless organs including the appendix, the tailbone, muscles that move the ear, and wisdom teeth among other things. In 1893, a German anatomist expanded Darwinʼs list to 89, which was used as evidence for evolution in the widely publicized Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925. The list has now grown to over 100 useless organs in humans.41 This raises the question, at what point can an organ be labelled “vestigial”? Perhaps an organʼs usefulness is yet to be found. Thatʼs what happened regarding the appendix. Frank Sherwin reports42 the Grolier Encyclopedia as saying... “ʻLong regarded as a vestigial organ with no function in the human body, the appendix is now thought to be one of the sites where immune responses are initiated.ʼ”43

37 Ibid (Wells), p. 68 38 Menton, Dr. David, Chapter 24: Vestigial Organs -- Evidence for Evolution? The New Answers Book 3 (July 7, 2014) Answers in Genesis, Hebron, KY. https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial- organs/vestigial-organs-evidence-for-evolution/ 39 Darwin, Charles, On Origin of the Species, 6th Edition (1872) p. 517 40 Ibid (Darwin) 41 Ibid (Menton) 42 Sherwin, Frank, M.A. (2003) For Every Structure There Is a Reason . . . Acts & Facts. 32 (11) 43 Ibid (Sherwin) citing Hartenstein, Roy, Grolier Encyclopedia, 2002, Grolier Interactive Inc.

75 The Case for Divinity

Authors Kent Van De Graff and Stuart Fox identify the reason for these immune responses: “ʻThe appendix contains masses of lymphoid tissue that may serve to resist infection.ʼ”44 Kenneth Saladin and anatomist Fred Martini explain further... “ʻThe appendix is densely populated with lymphocytes [a type of white blood cell] and is a signiﬁcant source of immune cells.ʻ“45 “ʻThe mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and the appendix's primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system.ʼ” 46 The lymphatic system has the important function of a drainage network as well as helping to protect the body against infection. The appendix is now known to be a secondary lymphoid organ, which assists in these functions. How many other so-called “useless” organs will yet be found to be useful?47 And, how many which appear useless in our society have purpose in a less medicated population or in a different geographical environment? Chapter 8 Discussion Questions 1. Why is evidence in the ﬁeld of paleontology important in determining the age of the earth and its live forms?

2. Describe the general technique known as radiometric dating.

3. Name some common methods of radiometric dating and brieﬂy describe how they differ.

44 Ibid (Sherwin) citing Van De Graff, Kent M., & Fox, Stuart Ira, Concepts of Human Anatomy & Physiology, 1999, p. V837. 45 Ibid (Sherwin) citing Saladin, K., Anatomy & Physiology, McGraw Hill, 2001, p. 974. 46 Ibid (Sherwin) citing Martini, F., Fundamentals of Anatomy & Physiology, Prentice Hall, 1998, p. 899. 47 This question might bring to mind what some have referred to as “junk DNA”, which is discussed in the next chapter.

76 Evidence from Paleontology

4. Upon what does the accuracy of radiometric dating depend?

5. What is the fossil record and what can be learned from it?

6. What are Darwinian scientists earnestly seeking to ﬁnd in the fossil record?

7. Why is that important?

8. Describe the Cambrian explosion. What does it imply about the theory of evolution?

9. Describe dinosaurs. What were they called before the name “dinosaur” was created in the 1900s?

10. What evidence is there, if any, that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans?

77 The Case for Divinity

11. What is homology and how is it being used to prove evolution?

12. Are such efforts successful? If not, why not?

13. What does the term “vestigial organ” mean?

14. What argument do evolutionists raise because of so-called vestigial organs? How would you answer?

78 Chapter 9 Evidence from Life Science

f the major fields of scientific study, this chapter will deal with evidence from life sciences, that is, the study of living organisms. Among those fields are the study of plants (botany), animals (zoology), fish (ichthyology), and organisms and their environment (ecology) in the Natural Science category and the study of human beings (anthropology) in Humanities. Though geological study of fossilized life forms might be included under the heading Life Science, fossil evidence is discussed in Chapter 8: Evidence from Paleontology.

Origin of Life Early in the biology textbook cited in the Preface of this book, two important points are made. Firstly, scientists today agree that all life forms are composed of cells. Secondly, the first principle of cell theory is that living cells originate only from other living cells. Cells can never originate from inorganic material.1 Of course, that being true rules out the possibility of living cells evolving from non-life. Despite any validity to the first principle of cell theory, a later discussion in that biology textbook explores possible ways in an evolutionary framework that life on earth could have begun. One possibility mentioned is that organic compounds could have been delivered to earth via comets, meteorites or space dust, which invade the earthʼs atmosphere. For example, in 1969 a meteorite impacted earth in Western Australia bringing with it what scientists determined to be amino acids, one of the simple organic molecules.2 Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe and his associates at Cardiff University's Centre for Astrobiology in Wales believe that is how life originated on earth.3 Scientists at the Institute for Creation Research disagree... “British scientists ʻcalculate the odds of life starting on Earth rather than inside a comet at one trillion trillion (10 to the power of 24) to one against.ʼ “Creation scientists agree. Life on Earth springing from rock, water and raw, unfiltered sunlight simply will not happen--no matter how long Darwinists posit. To remove the ʻspontaneous abiogenesisʼ problem and place it on a comet does not help. ...Paul von Ragué Schleyer, Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry at the University of Georgia, stated, ʻAsteroids may have brought |biomolecules forming DNA| from outer space, but how did biomolecules form there?ʼ”4 Someone may ask, “What are the ingredients necessary for life?”

1 Walpole, Brenda; Merson-Davies, Ashby; and Dann, Leighton, Biology for the IB Diploma (2011) Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, p. 12 2 Ibid, ppg. 360-362 3 Life from Space? Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, http://www.icr.org/article/life-from-space © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org 4 Ibid.

79 The Case for Divinity

“As our knowledge of the chemistry of living systems (biochemistry) increases, we learn more about essential elements. Mammals like ourselves are thought to use only 25 of the 116 known elements.”5 What elements are necessary for human life? “Scientists believe that about 25 of the known elements are essential to life. Just four of these – carbon (C), oxygen (O), hydrogen (H) and nitrogen (N) – make up about 96% of the human body.”6 There have been attempts to manufacture the required elements. In the early 1950s, scientists from around the world were eager to determine the environment needed for life to begin. Two scientists - Harold Urey and Stanley Miller - developed a machine for duplicating conditions they believed existed on earth when life formed. Their theory was that organic molecules would be generated by recreating the simple molecular structure of early Earth.7 Their efforts led to other research with sources of energy and mixtures of gas. In 1961, John Oro combined hydrogen cyanide and ammonia, both of which he believed may have been in the early earth atmosphere. The combination formed adenine, the base found in DNA and RNA. By including sand and quartz, he formed complex types of amino acid.8 Such efforts, no doubt, continue. But, suppose all of the ingredients for life were either found on earth, were imported from outer space, or could be manufactured by a smart team of scientists. What about the assembly of those elements to form a living organism? Evolutionists seem to be captured by the belief that given enough time intelligent assembly can somehow spring from the presence of the proper ingredients. If they are correct, how much time would be required for a laboratory containing a skeleton, sinew, skin, blood and other necessary parts to assemble a functioning body? Natural Selection Natural selection is a key component of the theory of evolution. In natural selection, those variations in the genotype that increase an organismʼs chances of survival and procreation are preserved and multiplied from generation to generation at the expense of less advantageous ones. Evolution often occurs as a consequence of this process. Natural selection may arise from differences in survival, in fertility, in rate of development, in mating success, ..”9 This is similar to the process by which humans breed animals and plants for improving or strengthening selected traits.

5 The Essential Elements, Science Learning Hub (2009) The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Just-Elemental/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/The-essential- elements 6 Ibid. 7 Miller/Urey Experiment, Cruising Chemistry, http://people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/ miller.html (Accessed 3/31/2015) 8 Walpole, Brenda; Merson-Davies, Ashby; and Dann, Leighton, Biology for the IB Diploma (2011) Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, p. 362 9 Natural selection, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. Chicago, IL, Copyright 2015, http://www.britannica.com/ science/natural-selection (Accessed 6/12/2015)

80 Evidence from Life Science

“Darwinists say this happened by natural selection. But the term ʻnatural selectionʼ is a misnomer. Since the process of evolution is, by definition, without intelligence, there is no ʻselectionʼ at all going on. Itʼs a blind process. The term ʻnatural selectionʼ simply means that the fittest creatures survive.”10 Survival of the fittest by adaptation is not a step to a higher form. For example, what happens when an antibiotic attacks bacteria? “...surviving bacteria are resistant to that antibiotic because the parent bacteria possessed the genetic capacity to resist, or a rare biochemical mutation somehow helped it survive...”11 Those who want to believe Darwin was onto the real understanding of our origins explain this phenomenon differently, but fall short of explaining organic evolution: “Darwinists say that the surviving bacteria have evolved. Having adapted to the environment, the surviving bacteria provide us with an example of evolution. Fair enough, but what kind of evolution? ...defining ʻevolutionʼ is perhaps the greatest point of confusion in the creation-evolution controversy...... Hereʼs what observation tells us: the surviving bacteria always stay bacteria. They do not evolve into another type of organism. That would be macroevolution.”12 The difference between micro and macroevolution is important to remember, and should be emphasized to our young people who are still being educated by modern academia. Chapter 7: Evidence from Physical Science and Chapter 5: Evidence for Creation delve more thoroughly into the details distinguishing these two, including a discussion of Darwinʼs finches, an often used “proof” of macroevolution, though it demonstrates only microevolution.

Ribosome Design Experience proves that any assembly produced by chance will display randomness rather than intelligent design. Living organisms have an intelligently designed assembly, a complex molecular machine known as the ribosome, which links together amino acids to form proteins according to the instructions of DNA as delivered to the assembly by a messenger, RNA. A general understanding of what is involved will impress the requirement there be intelligent design for living cells to exist. Here is a bit more detailed explanation... “Scientists recognize the machine-like nature of the ribosome, as indicated in a recent article describing attempts to determine its mechanism of action, ‘The ribosome is really a machine that moves along the messenger RNA, all the while transferring amino acids from incoming tRNA and forging peptide bonds in the growing protein.’ After four decades of intensive study, scientists are beginning to understand the incredible design of the ribosome, a molecular machine composed of two subunits of 54 proteins and 3 RNA strands (composed of 4500 nucleotides). It has taken decades to attempt to determine the structure of the ribosome through x-ray crystallography, because of its large size and difficulty to crystallize. A further trick has been to try to catch the ribosome in the act of producing proteins, with the tRNA and mRNA bound to it. The structure is dynamic, so that multiple snapshots of its action will be necessary to piece together the

10 Geisler, Norman L., and Turek, Frank, I Donʼt Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, (2004) Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, p. 140. 11 Ibid, p. 140. 12 Ibid, p. 141.

81 The Case for Divinity

actual function. Much work remains to be done, but the first images are beginning to come in.”13

The website quoted from above goes on explaining more of the intricacies of the ribosome assembly and its process, but the above should be enough to establish the fact intelligent design was required to form even the simplest living cell. Central to this vastly complex information system is DNA coding.

DNA Coding For anyone who still has doubts, who perhaps questions the source of the foregoing explanation, David Pack discusses the impossibility of chance producing proteins, DNA or any other code, for that matter... “This extensive quote summarizes the enormous difficulty of believing that DNA happened by chance: ʻThe complexity and intricacy of the DNA molecule—combined with the staggering amount of chemically-coded information it contains—speak unerringly to the fact that this ʻsupermoleculeʼ simply could not have happened by blind chance. As Andrews has observed. “ʻIt is not possible for a code, of any kind, to arise by chance or accident…A code is the work of an intelligent mind. Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could not work out a code of any kind. It is obvious then that chance cannot do it…This could no more have been the work of chance or accident than could the “Moonlight Sonata” be played by mice running up and down the keyboard of my piano! Codes do not arise from chaos.ʼ (Andrews, E.H., 1978, From Nothing to Nature, pp. 28-29). “Here is a second statement: ʻIndeed, codes do not arise from chaos. As Dawkins correctly remarked: ʻThe more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designerʼ14 (1982, p. 130, emp. Added). That is the exact point the theist is making: an intelligent Designer is demanded by the evidenceʼ (Bert Thompson, Ph.D., The Case For The Existence of God [Part II]). “Dr. Carl Sagan wrote an article for the Encyclopedia Britannica about DNA. He said, ʻThe information content of a simple cell has been estimated at around (one trillion) bits.ʼ He then went on to explain the enormity of this number by stating, ʻ…that if one were to count every letter of every word of every book in the worldʼs largest library (over ten million volumes), the final tally would be approximately a trillion letters. Thus, a single cell contains the equivalent information content…of more than ten million volumesʼ” (“Life on Earth,” Vol. 10).

13 Ribosomes - The molecular machines that manufacture proteins, Design -- Everywhere, The Designing Times, Volume 1, Number 10, November, 2002, God and Science, Pasadena, CA, citing Pennisi, E. 1999. The Race to the Ribosome Structure. Science 285: 2048-2051 and Liljas, A. 1999. Function Is Structure. Science 285: 2077-2078. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/design.html(Accessed 6/12/2105) 14 This quote is taken out of context. Immediately following Dawkins wrote, "But Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical forces to mimic the effects of conscious design, and, by operating as a cumulative ﬁlter of chance variations, to lead eventual to organized and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers.” (Dr. Richard Dawkins Dept. of Zoology, Oxford University, UK, The necessity of Darwinism. New Scientist, vol. 94, 15 Apr 1982, p.130) Dawkins argued for chance producing well ordered, complex forms without citing indisputable evidence to support his claim.

82 Evidence from Life Science

“In conclusion, regarding DNA, nothing works unless EVERYTHING works at the same time. It could not have gradually come into existence. Special creation is required for DNA to exist!”15 How complex is DNA coding? More complex than you might imagine... “The discovery of DNA has opened a whole new level of organic marvels -- a world of codes much more complex than any human coding system. For example, in one tiny virus the DNA actually layers message upon message. Molecular biologist Frederick Sanger discovered that in this particular virus (virus φX174), the mRNA starts at one place on the DNA molecule and “reads off” one message. Then it starts a single letter down to read off a second message. Itʼs as though you picked up a Shakespeare play and started at the beginning to read Romeo and Juliet -- and then started a single letter down to read A Midsummer Nightʼs Dream. This is astonishing complexity, meaning packed upon meaning.”16 While the complexity of DNA coding is impressive, there has been a problem, which evolutionists have highlighted. Rich Deem explains... “The existence of large amounts of non-coding "junk" DNA (up to 97% in humans) in the genomes of eukaryotes has been used as an argument against intelligent design (and the role of a Creator) and as an argument for the random process of evolution.”17 Deem goes on to answer evolutionists by describing in some detail the host of functions of non- coding DNA that have been uncovered by several studies since “junk” DNA was ﬁrst discovered. He concludes his article... “The roles of non-coding DNA are so numerous and pervasive that evolutionary studies are now looking at these sequences for patterns of ʻconcerted evolution.ʼ18 In summary, the non-coding DNA, contrary to statements by evolutionists, is not useless, but is, in fact, required for genomic functionality, therefore actually providing evidence of intelligent design. The ʻjunkʼ DNA is really some rather amazing ‘junk.’”19 Complexity of Life Dr. Scott Peck said, “Abandon the urge to simplify everything, to look for formulas and easy answers, and begin to think multidimensionally, to glory in the mystery and paradoxes of life, not to be dismayed by the multitude of causes and consequences that are inherent in each experience -- to appreciate the fact that life is complex.” 20 Iʼm not sure I agree with his whole statement, but this is certain: life is complex and worthy of glorying in its mysteries and paradoxes.

15 Pack, David C., Does God Exist, http://rcg.org/books/dge.html, The Restored Church of God, Wadsworth, OH, p. 14 (Accessed 3/25/15) 16 Pearcey, Nancy R., and Thaxton, Charles B., The Soul of Science (1994) Crossway Books, Wheaton, ILL, p. 227 17 Deem, Rich, "Junk" DNA: Why non-coding DNA Isn't Really Junk, Evidence for God From Science, http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkDND.html (Accessed 6/8/2015) 18 Ibid (Deem) citing Elder JF Jr, Turner BJ. 1995. Concerted evolution of repetitive DNA sequences in eukaryotes. Q Rev Biol. 70: 297-320. 19 Ibid (Deem) 20 Peck, M. Scott, Goodreads, http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/212298-abandon-the-urge-to-simplify- everything-to-look-for-formulas (Accessed 4/16/2015)

83 The Case for Divinity

“Dr. B. G. Ranganathan said, ʻ…the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop” (Origins?, p. 15). And this only speaks to the likelihood of any life at all, rather than the most highly complex forms such as large animals or human beings—let alone all the different kinds of life that exist today.ʼ”21 Complex? Yes, even the simplest living molecule is more complex than manʼs most advanced automated factory. (See discussion in Chapter 5: Evidence for Creation on the origin of life and intelligent design.) And, as we all know, some forms of life are much more complex than simple life. As Dr. Ranganathan recognized in the above comment, there are some forms which can be termed “most highly complex”, or as having “irreducible complexity”. Irreducible Complexity Many inventions of man have interrelated parts or components, which must all be present and properly connected for the device to work. Remove one component and the rest will not function. Many living organisms are no different. Each part must be fully developed and in its proper relationship with all of the other parts for the organism to function. Darwin understood this and had something to say about it: “Charles Darwin, in his famous work, The Origin of Species, framed a great problem that he and all other evolutionists face: ʻIf it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break downʼ (emphasis Packʼs).”22 The fact is, there are many such complex organs. Why is it that so many in the scientific community and academia insist on promoting Darwinʼs theory in the face of so much evidence of irreducible complexity all around us? Could it be they simply do not want to accept the alternative? “Nature contains many different biochemical systems that cannot be reduced in complexity. They are sometimes referred to as ʻmolecular machinesʼ and, like a four- stroke gasoline engine, cannot be simplified and still function.”23 It is claimed that organic evolution produces in a gradual step by step process more complex organisms from simpler ones, and all of it by chance, i.e., pure blind luck. Forgetting for a moment the “by chance” part, by what reasonable process could such production work? What are the graduating steps? If each component depends upon full development of all of the others and the proper relationship of each to the others, by what human logic would such an evolution proceed? I must reach the same conclusion as David Pack: “Organisms are all complicated—some wonderfully so. And yet they cannot be reduced, diminished or simplified in their complexity. They had to come into being exactly as they are, because they never could have arrived at their present condition gradually.”24 The Human Eye Regarding irreducible complexity, there is probably no more dramatic example than the human eye. David Pack explains:

21 Pack, David C., Does God Exist?, The Restored Church of God, Wadsworth, OH, citing Ranganathan, B. G., Origins? (2003) Pleasant Word, A Division of WinePress Publishing, http://rcg.org/books/dge.html (Accessed 6/8/2015) 22 Pack, David C., Does God Exist, p. 12, http://rcg.org/books/dge.html 23 Ibid, p. 12. 24 Ibid, p. 13.

84 Evidence from Life Science

“Here are three statements from Dr. David N. Menton. The first represents the magnitude of difficulty in having the human eye evolve to its current state of extraordinary design and complexity: “ʻThe most amazing component of the camera eye is its “film” or retina. This light sensitive layer, which lines the back of the eye ball, is thinner than a sheet of Saran Wrap and is vastly more sensitive to a wider range of light than any man-made film. The best man-made film can handle a range of 1,000-to-one. By comparison, the human retina can handle a dynamic range of light of 10 billion-to-one (or 10 million times more) and can sense as little as a single photon of light in the dark! In bright daylight, the retina bleaches out and turns its “volume control” way down so as not to overload. “ʻThe light sensitive cells of the retina are like an extremely complex high gain amplifier. There are over 10 million such cells in the retina and they are packed together with a density of 200,000 (per millimeter) in the highly sensitive fovea. These photoreceptor cells have a very high rate of metabolism and must completely replace themselves about every 7 days! If you look at a very bright light such as the sun, they immediately burn out but are rapidly replaced in most cases. Because the retina is thinner than the wavelength of visible light it is totally transparent. Each of these minute photoreceptor cells is vastly more complex than the most sophisticated man-made computer.ʼ “Now notice: The evolutionist Dr. Ernest Mayer once said: ʻIt is a considerable strain on oneʼs credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates or the birdʼs feather) could be improved by random mutations.ʼ “Even Darwin once said that the very thought of the complexity of the eye gave him chills. Here is another reason Darwin said this. This quote, while inspiring, certainly is chilling: ʻIt has been estimated that 10 billion calculations occur every second in the retina before the light image even gets to the brain! It is sobering to compare this performance to the most powerful manmade computer. In an article published in the computer magazine, Byte (April 1985), “Dr. John Stevens said: ʻTo simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous non-linear differential equations one hundred times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways it would take a minimum of a hundred years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every secondʼ” (Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D., The Eye, Missouri Assoc. for Creation, Inc.—emphasis Packʼs).”25 The eye defies every principle of evolution, but not only the eye. Other organs display a level of irreducible complexity and intelligent design that not only defy evolution but the creative intelligence of man as well. Hummingbirds “Hummingbirds represent true genius. They weigh one-fourteenth of an ounce and, like helicopters, can fly forward, backward, sideways and can hover in mid-air. Their flight mechanism is incredibly complex and the quills in their feathers are stronger for their weight than any structure designed by man. These quills constantly change shape to adjust for wind and air pressure. The leading vane of their feather functions much like a propeller, to offer lift and propulsion.

25 Ibid, pps. 20, 21.

85 The Case for Divinity

“Three-quarters of their entire weight is in their wing muscles. They possess a kind of jet- assisted takeoff mechanism that they can use during landings and takeoffs. Air flows only one way into their lungs so as to bring a constant supply of oxygen for such strenuous high-speed flight. They also possess retractable landing gear, a migration navigation system, streamlining and camouflage and an extraordinary respiration system where they can store extra air inside their hollow bones. In turn, this provides buoyancy and an internal air conditioner. Hummingbirds must eat continuously to satisfy their high level of metabolism. To stop eating would mean death. Only by undergoing a kind of ʻhibernationʼ at night, can they survive. Could all this have evolved or just happened? “Like the bumblebee, which also appears to completely defy the laws of physics in its ability to fly, the hummingbird is just as unique but is practically an aerodynamic perfection. Only God could have made such an efficient flying machine. No aeronautical engineer has ever designed anything close to this tiny marvel of flight!26 Fish27 “The angler fish, the archer fish, and the anableps are three fish that literally swim in the face of evolution. “The female angler fish has a lure hanging from an appendage extending from the front of her nose. It lures fish close so that she can strike and swallow them. The male does not have one because he never eats. Rather, he attaches himself to the female, allowing the bloodstreams of both to merge, thus feeding him. Evolutionists cannot explain the angler fish. “The archer fish can shoot down bugs above the surface by squirting water at them. Water severely bends (refracts) light and should cause an impossible targeting problem for the fish. How do all archer fish instinctively know how to perfectly compute the severe angle of refraction of light in order to successfully hit their prey as they do? “The anableps is a fish with absolutely extraordinary eyes. They allow it to sit on the surface and see out of water and under water at the same time. Its eyes are literally divided into two entirely separate parts. How did evolution cause half an eye to gradually evolve so that it can see out of water and vice-versa with the other half? “What engineer has ever made such efficient submarines, whose design makes them perfect hunters, so well-suited for their needs and environment?”28 Bacterial Flagellum The human eye, hummingbirds and fish. Do you think these are the only things in nature which see, fly or “swim in the face of evolution”? Theyʼre not. The bacterial flagellum (primary organ of motion) is too complex to have evolved. The blood clotting process also. And tears, believe it or not. Books have been written about their beneficial complexity. Even when you clear your throat, you set in motion a highly complex operation controlled by the cilia. Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemical researcher and professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, who did a lot of work with the concept of irreducible complexity cited the cilia as one example that proves the concept...

26 Ibid, ppg. 23, 24. 27 Some aquariums have examples for public viewing of the ﬁsh species described here. 28 Ibid, pg. 24.

86 Evidence from Life Science

“Cilia are hair-like structures, which are used by animals and plants to move fluid over various surfaces (for example, cilia in your respiratory tree sweep mucous towards the throat and thus promote elimination of contaminants) and by single-celled organisms to move through water. Cilia are like ʻoarsʼ which contain their own mechanism for bending. That mechanism involves tiny rod-like structures called microtubules that are arranged in a ring. Adjacent microtubules are connected to each other by two types of ʻbridgesʼ-a flexible linker bridge and an arm that can ʻwalkʼ up the neighboring microtubule. The cilia bends by activating the ʻwalkerʼ arms, and the sliding motion that this tends to generate is converted to a bending motion by the flexible linker bridges. “Thus, the cilium has several essential components: stiff microtubules, linker bridges, and the ʻmotorsʼ in the form of walker arms. While my description is greatly simplified (Behe notes that over 200 separate proteins have been identified in this particular system), these 3 components form the basic system, and show what is required for functionality. For without one of these components, the system simply will not function. We canʼt evolve a cilium by starting with microtubules alone, because the microtubules will be fixed and rigid - not much good for moving around. Adding the flexible linker bridges to the system will not do any good either - there is still no motor and the cilia still will not bend. If we have microtubules and the walker arms (the motors) but no flexible linker arms, the microtubules will keep on sliding past each other till they float away from each other and are lost.”29 These examples should be enough to convince even the skeptic that evolution is not true. Of course, scientists who claim belief in evolution try to explain away irreducible complexity, but without scientific proof or convincing evidence that their claims are valid. Fish with Legs Evolutionists have searched for decades for any fossilized record linking water creatures with land animals. Amphibians have been cited as an evolutionary step between fish with gils and fins to creatures that can breathe air and walk on dry land. Of thousands of amphibian species all but about 10% are frogs. Could these be links between fish and tetrapods (vertebrates with limbs rather than fins)? Someone says, “Tadpoles live in water, then become frogs with legs for hopping on land. Isnʼt that an example of a fish acquiring a backbone and legs?” It is true that tadpoles live in water and look like fish, but tadpoles are not fish. They are the frog specie at an earlier stage before becoming adults. Tadpoles are... “...offspring of fully functioning frogs, complete with all the genes for legs and the structures needed to use them. The tadpole is not yet fully grown, and in the incomplete stage has not acquired all the features present in the adult, but it is a juvenile frog nonetheless. “However, it does have all the genes needed for life in the water, as well as those genes needed to grow legs at the right time, then live on land, and eventually produce tadpoles which themselves become frogs. No new genetic information must be acquired by mutation as required by evolution.”30

29 Irreducible Complexity: The Challenge to the Darwinian Evolutionary Explanations of many Biochemical Structures, Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, Seattle, WA citing Michael Behe, biochemical researcher and professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. http://www.ideacenter.org/ contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840 (Accessed 5/5/2015) 30 John D. Morris, Ph.D. 2004. When a Tadpole Turns into a Frog - Is This Evolution in Action?, Acts & Facts. 33 (6). https://www.icr.org/article/509/235 © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 3/30/2015)

87 The Case for Divinity

For evolution to be true, the necessary genes to produce features required for creating a new species from an earlier one must appear from somewhere. Speaking of fish with legs, what about the axolotl? The axolotl is called the “Mexican walking fish”, or more accurately the “Mexican salamander”. Fact is, the axolotl is not a fish at all. It is a salamander, and like the frog, an amphibian. Still, there are other so-called “walking fish”. In 1996, a fossil discovery was made which evolutionists thought to be clear evidence of a transitional form linking fish fins and land legs. The fish, long extinct, was named the tiktaalik roseae. A decade or more later, the journal Nature examined available evidence and concluded that tetrapods were walking on dry land about 397 million years ago.31 Tiktaalik with fins, it is claimed, preceded them and were an evolutionary step from fish to tetrapods. Later, questions were raised about the evolutionary ages involved. Frank Sherwin reports32: “This evidence, like many others before it, ʻpushes back evolution.ʼ33 The Nature article stated, ʻ[The tracks] force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.ʼ”34 Based on the fossils discovered, evolutionists decided that fish crawled onto land millions of years ago and eventually evolved into creatures like tiktaalik but with more developed legs... “But after Cambridge paleontologist Jennifer Clack reviewed the timing of these Polish tracks, she told UK newspaper The Guardian, ʻIt blows the whole story out of the water, so to speak.ʼ”35 Apparently the fossil of whatever made the tracks found in Poland does not look like an expected transitional link, but like something walking with “stout legs”.36 “How could fully-formed land walkers have evolved from lobe-finned fish if they were walking around in a time before the fishesʼ ancestors were alive?” How indeed? And, where is the fossil evidence showing the gradual evolutionary steps required to change a fish to a tiktaalik and those needed to change a tiktaalik to a tetrapod?

31 Grzegorz Niedźwiedzki, Piotr Szrek, Katarzyna Narkiewicz, Marek Narkiewicz & Per E. Ahlberg, Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland (7 Jan 2010) Nature Publishing Group, New York, NY, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/nature08623.html (Accessed 3/31/15) 32 Sherwin, Frank, M.A., Banner Fossil for Evolution Is Demoted, Article posted on January 27, 2010, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, http://www.icr.org/article/banner-fossil-for-evolution-demoted/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 4/2/2015) 33 Ibid (Sherwin) citing Roach, J. Oldest Land-Walker Tracks Found—Pushes Back Evolution. National Geographic Daily News. Posted on news.nationalgeographic.com January 6, 2010, accessed January 21, 2010. 34 Ibid (Sherwin) citing Niedzwiedzki, G. et al. 2010 Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland. Nature. 463 (7277): 43-48. 35 Ibid (Sherwin) citing McVeigh, K. Footprints show tetrapods walked on land 18m years earlier than thought. The Guardian. Posted on guardian.co.uk January 6, 2010, accessed January 21, 2010. (Accessed 4/2/2015) 36 Ibid (Sherwin).

88 Evidence from Life Science

Experimental Evolution Analysis of the fossil record is but one of the ways evolutionists are trying to prove their theory. Evolutionary biologists have for decades attempted to support their “life from nothing” framework by finding or creating evidence to support their case. Brian Thomas reports on research with fruit flies...37 “In 1980, this search for proof led researchers to painstakingly and purposefully mutate each core gene involved in fruit fly development. The now classic work, for which the authors won the Nobel Prize in 1995, was published in Nature.38 The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes―mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature―merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve.” But, fruit flies are not the only front being investigated... “It has long been known by Darwinists and non-Darwinists alike that neither the fossil record nor empirical laboratory research has proven or even supported the philosophy of macroevolution (the particles-to-people idea). For example, since 1988 evolutionary researcher Richard Lenski has worked with the common bacterium Escherichia coli (E. coli) in an effort to authenticate evolution. Only trivial changes have been observed after many bacterial generations. Yes, the bacteria have changed slightly, but they stubbornly remain E. coli. Real vertical change—macroevolution—has yet to be empirically validated.”39 As noted, Lenski began his research with the “stubborn” Escherichia coli (E. coli) in 1988, and just as stubbornly continued his investigation for many years... “In 2010, biochemist Michael Behe reviewed 12 new phenotypes, which are outward expressions of genetic coding, that Lenski's E. coli displayed from 1994 to 2008.40 Behe categorized the known genetics producing each new bacterial phenotype as either losing, shuffling, or gaining what he called ʻfunctional coded elements,ʼ which include genes and gene promoters. All the known changes in the bacteria were either a loss or reorganization of pre-existing functional coded elements. None of the new phenotypes came from a gain of functional coded elements, and yet this is what molecules-to-man evolution requires.”41 After years, though not finding desired evolutionary evidence, Lenski continues his search. On another front, Biologist Joe Thornton operates the Thornton Lab at the University of Oregon where he and his colleagues are focused on understanding “the mechanisms and dynamics by which genes and the proteins they code for evolved their diverse functions. We employ a synthesis

37 Thomas, Brian, M.S., No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, Article posted on Nov 16, 2010, http://www.icr.org/article/no-fruit-ﬂy-evolution-even-after-600/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 4/2/2015) 38 Ibid (Thomas) citing Nüsslein-Volhard, C. and E. Wieschaus. 1980. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature. 287 (5785): 795-801. 39 Avida, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, http://www.icr.org/articles/view/2987/ © 1994- 2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 4/2/2015) 40 Thomas, Brian, M.S., Bacterial 'Evolution' Is Actually Design in Action, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, Article posted on October 15, 2012, http://www.icr.org/article/bacterial-evolution-actually- design/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org citing Behe, M., Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and "The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution." The Quarterly Review of Biology. 85 (4): 419-445. 41 Ibid (Thomas).

89 The Case for Divinity of evolutionary and phylogenetic techniques with functional molecular biology and biochemistry.”42 In pursuit of this goal, Thornton and his team attempted... “...rebuilding hypothetical protein components of the ring-shaped base of a vital molecular machine called V-ATPase, which is found in yeast.43 The idea was that if his team could reconstruct ʻpriorʼ versions of this protein, then they could put together a story explaining each evolutionary change that led to today's V-ATPase structure.”44 Unfortunately for them, the experiment did not accomplish what they had hoped. “The study authors wrote that because ʻlosses occurredʼ in the history of V-ATPase, ʻthe complexity of the ring increased,ʼ and that their study results ʻprovide no evidence that VmaII [a V-ATPase protein component] evolved novel functions in addition to those that it inherited.ʼ”45

Is Creation of Life Proven? We have considered a lot of evidence in this chapter and some previous ones, evidence indicating life could not have evolved, and therefore must have been created. Does that evidence prove the creation of life? No. There is no way to prove the origin of life. Many evolutionists have tried, and no doubt are continuing in their effort to somehow prove their case for how life formed from non-life. The fact is, all we can do is consider the evidence and draw a reasoned conclusion about where life came from. Antony Flew (1923-2010), said to have been the worldʼs most noted atheist, spent his life working with the evidence and ﬁnally concluded the only logical conclusion is There is a God. Flew wrote a book with that title explaining the reasons he converted, the most obvious of which was that evolution cannot explain the intelligent design on every hand in our universe.46

Chapter 9 Discussion Questions 1. How would you describe the complexity of the simplest living cell?

2. What uniqueness do all living cells have in common?

42 Thornton Lab, molecular mechanisms of evolution, The Evolution of Gene Function, http:// thorntonlab.org/research-2/ © THORNTON (Accessed 4/2/2105) 43 For ATPase information, see Thomas, B. 2009. Creation Ministries International, ATP synthase: majestic molecular machine made by a mastermind. Creation. 31 (4): 21-23. (Accessed 4/2/2015) 44 Thomas, Brian, M.S., Study Finds Molecules Evolving in Wrong Direction, Article posted on January 23, 2012, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, http://www.icr.org/article/study-ﬁnds-molecules-evolving- wrong/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org 45 Ibid (Thomas) citing Finnigan, G. C. et al. Evolution of increased complexity in a molecular machine. Nature. Published online January 9, 2012, accessed January 13, 2012 46 There is more about Antony Flew and his conversion in Chapter 5: Evidence for Creation.

90 Evidence from Life Science

3. What is natural selection? Evolutionists say it demonstrates evolution of a simple species to a more complex one. Does it?

4. Please describe the ribosome. What is its function?

5. Describe one of the elements within DNA and how it contributes to life, i.e., what is its relationship and function?

6. What about this relationship deﬁes the theory of evolution?

7. What is “junk” DNA, and what do scientists now know about it?

8. What is “irreducible complexity”?

91 The Case for Divinity

9. Name some common examples of irreducible complexity.

10. Describe the steps necessary for the evolution of the... human eye.

hummingbird

11. What kind of experiments have attempted to establish the process for creating life from non- life? To what degree has there been success?

12. Name and describe a couple of evidences which are absolutely essential to proving that evolution is the process by which nature and humanity originated and developed.

13. Do these things you named exist? If they do not and evolution is not true, what explanation for the origination of all things is there?

92 Chapter 10 Evidence from Formal Science

ormal science is concerned with the study of abstract structures such as logic, mathematics, game theory, computer theory, linguistics and others. Though these abstract structures play an important role in various evidences for creation in the physical and life sciences, they also stand alone as abstract evidence supporting the creation model. In this chapter, we will consider mathematics, linguistics and logic. First, a couple of examples of the usefulness of mathematics in physical science... Mathematics and Physical Science Many evidences supporting a young earth and other evidences for creation depend upon mathematics to make their point. Here is one from the field of astronomy regarding the earth/ moon relationship discussed in Chapter 6: Evidence for a Young Earth. The moonʼs gravitational pull creates on earth what is referred to as a “tidal bulge”, which causes the moon to slowly spiral outward. This movement has been calculated to be about 133 feet (42 m) every thousand years of the earthʼs age. That rate of recession presents no problem for a young earth/moon relationship. If, however, the moon is over four billion years old, as is generally taught, there is a colossal problem. Less that 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!1 Of course, as weʼve observed before, scientific calculations such as the above are based on the assumption todayʼs rate of recession has not changed. Such conclusions are alway subject to modification or discarding because of the discovery of new factors affecting the outcome. In the field of anthropology, mathematicians have conclusively shown human population growth could not be even 50,000 years old or more as maintained by Darwinian evolutionists. In fact, it is not difficult to determine the years humans have been on earth knowing, as we do by conservative calculation, that the population doubles every 150 years. If (as creationists claim) the earth is about 6,000 years old, there is no problem. If, however, humanity has occupied the earth for just 50,000 years, the population would be at the ridiculously high number of 10 to the 99th power, i.e., higher than the number of atoms in the universe!2, 3 Evolutionary timescales have man evolving for the past 5 to 8 million years. If the assertion that the population has doubled every 150 years is changed to every 1500 years because of global disease or other catastrophe, mathematics still shows the evolutionary timescale cannot be correct. Mathematics, at one level or another, is a part of the lives of everyone of us. It is hard to imagine a more precise scientific tool. And, even harder to imagine such precision developing without an

1 Six Evidences of a Young Earth, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/ six-evidences-of-young-earth/, citing Is the Moon Really Old? (1992) Answers in Genesis, https:// answersingenesis.org/astronomy/moon/is-the-moon-really-old/. 2 Ibid citing White, Monty, Billions of People in Thousands of Years? Answers in Genesis, 2006, https:// answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/billions-of-people-in-thousands-of-years/, © 2015 Answers in Genesis (Accessed Nov 14, 2014) 3 For more detailed calculations see Billions of People in Thousands of Years? by Monty White

93 The Case for Divinity originating cause, purely by chance with no plan or organized arrangement of its parts. Nothing in our universe argues more strongly for intelligent design.

Mathematical Precision Someone might object saying, “Mathematics is not really as precise as commonly thought. How precise is a formula such as a/3=x when the value of a is 1?” Dividing 1 by 3 produces an unending decimal number of the type .33333.... into infinity. Reversing the process and multiplying .33333.... by 3 produces .99999...., which is not 1. Some have cited this type of calculation as showing the imprecision of mathematics. Mathematicians do not agree. There are actually several reasons they would say, “.99999....into infinity equals 1”. The website, http://www.purplemath.com/modules/howcan1.htm, explains several calculation techniques (proof by geometric series and calculus arguments including the arguments from precedence, arithmetic, philosophy, algebra, and semantics), which prove the formula equals 1. As I think about this, it occurs to me that such a calculation may actually demonstrate the inherent precision of math. It is the quality of precision that causes division of 1 by 3 to produce a never ending number. It is that very quality of precision that insists the numerical language of math always expresses predictable results and refuses to force an apparent, perfect answer to a formula such as 1 divided by 3. Besides, what is the reason for the “imprecision” in the foregoing formula? Is it mathematics or the numbering system? Wherever you may be in that debate, surely you agree that the laws of nature could not produce anything intelligently designed, certainly not a mathematical language. While the language of math has its origin in the mind of man, the mere fact such a language can be constructed and relied upon to produce the same results over and over is evidence for the existence of a higher mind... “The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserveʼ (Eugene P. Wigner).4 “There is an objective mathematical structure seen in the physical universe. An example is the relationship of the periodic table and mathematics. One element is distinguished from another by the number of electrons, neutrons, and protons. “ʻHow can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?ʼ (Albert Einstein).”5 Linguistics Linguistics is the scientific study of language, its structure, meaning and context. Dennis Farrell offers some thought-provoking thoughts6 on the subject... “There is widespread evidence to substantiate the contention that language is a designed or created communicative faculty, with accompanying complexity. A designed communicative

4 The Laws of Science Require a Creator, http://www.icr.org/laws-science, © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org citing Wigner, E.P. 1960. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13, No. I. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Accessed Nov 15, 2014) 5 Ibid citing Einstein, A. 1983. Sidelights on Relativity. New York: Dover. 6 Farrell, Dennis, Creation and Human Language, Creation Social Science and Humanities Society, Quarterly Journal, Vol. VI, 1983, http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v06n1p25.htm (Accessed 4/20/15)

94 Evidence from Formal Science

faculty in the biblical creation sense would be expected to ʻdemonstrate a remarkable combination of extremely efficient and economical organization on the one hand, and incredible potential for functional flexibility on the other.ʼ 7 “Linguists uphold the design model, probably a natural inference based on existing evidence. Chomsky, a well-known linguist and an evolutionist, says that we are ʻspecifically designedʼ to learn language.8 Wilson, a creationist, calls speech both ʻspecies specific and species universalʼ to human beings.9 Linguists use these quotes to describe a ʻmechanismʼ that is unseen, but their inferences are based on the observable. Hockett has identified unique ʻdesign featuresʼ of human language.10 Designed capability seems necessary to produce these variations, because communication of thought and meaning via symbols is so intricate. “If language is designed, it seems reasonable to propose that a natural linguistic complexity would result. The alternative would be an evolutionary development of simple animal sounds to complex human language. Chomsky claims that human language complexity is ʻremarkable.ʼ 11 The child's acquisition of language abilities and our overall use of language support a designed complexity. Even primitive tribes speak complex languages which in most cases are more grammatically complicated than civilized languages.12 Thus the evidence of language complexity in human beings supports the language design model.” How language could have evolved has stumped some notable evolutionists in the field of linguistics. In the above quote, Noam Chomsky speaks of humanity being “ʻspecifically designedʼ to learn language.” That from an evolutionist? But, who can argue in view of his expertise in linguistics? Not the Harvard University psychologist and biologist Marc D. Hauser. He is another evolutionist who has this to say: “Although it is certainly reasonable to say that language, morality and music have design features that are adaptive, that would enhance reproduction and survival, evidence for such claims is sorely missing. Further, for those who wish to argue that the evidence comes from the complexity of the behavior itself, and the absurdly low odds of constructing such complexity by chance, these arguments just donʼt cut it with respect to explaining or predicting the intricacies of language, morality, music or many other domains of knowledge.” 13

7 Ibid (Farrell) citing Paul D. Ackerman, Considerations Regarding a Model for Experimental Psychology, Acts and Facts, Impact Series no. 50, 6, no. 8 (August 1977), II. 8 Ibid (Farrell) citing Noam Chomsky, Reﬂections On Language (New York: Pantheon Books, 1975), p. 4. (Accessed 4/20/15) 9 Ibid (Farrell) citing Clifford Wilson, Some Aspects of Human Communication Compared and Contrasted with Animal Communication, Unpublished Personal Notes, p. 9. All of Dr. Wilson's articles were obtained through personal correspondence. (Accessed 4/20/15) 10 Ibid (Farrell) citing Clifford Wilson, The Silent Ape, Extracts from forthcoming publication, pp. 2-3. (Accessed 4/20/15) 11 Ibid (Farrell) citing Chomsky, p. 4. (Accessed 4/20/15) 12 Ibid (Farrell) citing Henry Morris, Scientiﬁc Creationism (San Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1974), pp. 184-85. (Accessed 4/20/15) 13 Hauser, Marc D., The Limits of Darwinian Reasoning, World Question Center, The Edge Foundation, http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_3.html (Accessed 4/20/15)

95 The Case for Divinity

As the evolutionary search continues for some reasonable evidence to explain intelligent design in language, morality and many other aspects of human knowledge and abilities, honest evaluation of all available evidence clearly points the way to belief in a Creator.

Rational Thought C. S. Lewis spends much of the first four chapters of his book, Miracles14, discussing the possibility that something outside of Nature could operate apart from and even intrude upon Nature. In other words, an argument for existence of the Supernatural separate and apart from the Natural. Concluding that is true, he then argues that rational, human thought is a product of the Supernatural and could not be a product of evolutionʼs natural selection. He logically reasons to and through the following points: ★ “Some people believe that nothing exists except Nature; I call these Naturalists. Others think, that, besides Nature, there exists something else: I call them Supernaturalists.”15 ★ “We are now in a position to state the difference between the Naturalist and the Supernaturalist despite the fact that they do not mean the same by the word Nature. The Naturalist believes that a great process, or ʻbecoming,ʼ exists ʻon its ownʼ in space and time, and that nothing else exists -- what we call particular things and events being only the parts into which we analyse the great process or the shapes which that process takes at given moments and given points in space. This single, total reality he calls Nature. The Supernaturalist believes that one Thing exists on its own and has produced the framework of space and time and the procession of systematically connected events which fill them. This framework, and this filling, he calls Nature.”16 ★ “If necessities of thought force us to allow to any one thing any degree of independence from the Total System (Nature - cb) -- if any one thing makes good a claim to be on its own, to be something more than an expression of the character of Nature as a whole -- then we have abandoned Naturalism. For by Naturalism we mean the the doctrine that only Nature -- the whole interlocked system -- exists.”17 ★ “It is clear that everything we know, beyond our own immediate sensations, is inferred from those sensations.” . . . “We infer Evolution from fossils: we infer the existence of our own brains from what we find inside the skulls of other creatures like ourselves in the dissecting room.”18 ★ “All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning.”19 ★ “We may in fact state it as a rule that no thought is valid if it can be fully explained as the result of irrational causes.”20 ★ “The shortest and simplest form of this argument is that given by Professor J. B. S. Haldane in Possible Worlds (p. 209). He writes, ʻIf my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose

14 Lewis, C. S., Miracles, A Preliminary Study (1947) The Macmillan Company, New York, NY. 15 Ibid, p. 10 16 Ibid, p. 14 17 Ibid, p. 17 18 Ibid, p. 19 19 Ibid, p. 19 20 Ibid, pgs. 20-21

96 Evidence from Formal Science

my beliefs are true. . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.ʼ”21 ★ “If our argument has been sound, rational thought or Reason is not interlocked with the great interlocking system of irrational events which we call Nature.”22 ★ “To believe that Nature produced God, or even the human mind is, as we have seen, absurd.”23 Lewisʼ argumentation is very detailed and is, hopefully, fairly represented in the above excerpted quotes. Of course, his view has been countered by evolutionists in the field of evolutionary psychology, which is... “...the study of human cognition and behavior with respect to their evolutionary origins”24 Evolutionary psychologist argue that the mind is of similar structure to the body. Therefore, if natural selection and adaptation changed the body and human behavior is the product of how we think, then evolutionary processes must also have produced psychological adaptations. This might make sense if evolution of the body were proven, which it is not. On one website, http:///www.evolutionnews.org, which claims to present news both for and against evolution, John West discusses C. S. Lewisʼs view of man in his article, Darwin in the Dock: C.S. Lewis's Doubts about the Creative Power of Natural Selection25: “The ultimate challenge to Darwinian natural selection in Lewis's view was man himself. How could such a blind material process produce man's unique capabilities of reason and conscience? Lewis, of course, was far from the first intellectual to doubt Darwinism's ability to explain man. Alfred Russel Wallace, co-founder with Darwin of the modern theory of evolution itself, raised the same doubts, as did Roman Catholic zoologist St. George Jackson Mivart, whose best-selling book The Genesis of Species gave Darwin fits. To rebut the naysayers, Darwin responded in 1871 with two volumes and nearly 900 pages of prose in his treatise The Descent of Man, which forcefully argued that unguided natural selection could produce man's mental and moral faculties perfectly well, thank you. “Lewis thought otherwise, and he was tutored in his doubts by a book from one of his favorite authors, G.K. Chesterton. The book was Chesterton's The Everlasting Man (1922), which Lewis read for the first time in the mid-1920s. Near the end of his life, Lewis placed The Everlasting Man on a list of ten books that ʻdid [the] most to shapeʼ his ʻvocational attitude and... philosophy of life.ʼ In Chapter 2 of The Everlasting Man (ʻProfessors and Prehistoric Menʼ), Chesterton skewered the pretensions of

21 Ibid, p. 22 22 Ibid, p. 25 23 Ibid, p. 32 24 Deﬁnition of Evolutionary psychology, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary copyright © 2015 by Merriam- Webster, Incorporated, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolutionary%20psychology (Accessed 6/11/2015) 25 West, John G., Darwin in the Dock: C.S. Lewis's Doubts about the Creative Power of Natural Selection (November 21, 2013) Evolution News and Views, The Center for Science and Culture, http:// www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/darwin_in_the_d_2079331.html (Accessed 4/22/2015)

97 The Case for Divinity

anthropologists who spun detailed theories about the culture and capabilities of primitive man based on a few ﬂints and bones, likely inspiring Lewis's discussion of ʻthe idolatry of artefactsʼ in The Problem of Pain. But Chesterton also provides in his book a full- throttled argument as to why Darwinism cannot explain the higher capabilities of man. In Chesterton's words, ʻMan is not merely an evolution but rather a revolutionʼ whose rational faculties far outstrip those seen in the other animals. Chesterton acknowledged the possibility that man's ʻbody may have been evolved from the brutes,ʼ but he insisted that ʻwe know nothing of any such transition that throws the smallest light upon his soul as it has shown itself in history.ʼ26 Again: ʻThere may be a broken trail of stones and bones faintly suggesting the development of the human body. There is nothing even faintly suggesting such a development of the human mind.ʼ27 “Chesterton's book prepared the ground for Lewis's own eventual critique of natural selection with regard to man -- as did a lesser-known volume, Theism and Humanism (1915) by Sir Arthur Balfour. Balfour, best remembered today as the British Prime Minister who issued the Balfour Declaration, adapted Theism and Humanism from the Gifford Lectures he had presented at the University of Glasgow in 1914. Balfour's goal was to show his audience ʻthat if we would maintain the value of our highest beliefs and emotions, we must ﬁnd for them a congruous origin. Beauty must be more than accident. The source of morality must be moral. The source of knowledge must be rational.ʼ Balfour thought that once this argument ʻbe granted, you rule out Mechanism, you rule out naturalism, you rule out Agnosticism; and a lofty form of Theism becomes, as I think, inevitable.ʼ28 With regard to the human mind, Balfour argued that any effort to explain mind in terms of blind material causes was self-refuting: ʻ[A]ll creeds which refuse to see an intelligent purpose behind the unthinking powers of material nature are intrinsically incoherent. In the order of causation they base reason upon unreason. In the order of logic they involve conclusions which discredit their own premises.ʼ29 Balfour offered a similar critique of materialistic accounts of human morality, which he thought destroyed morality by depicting it as the product of processes that are essentially non-moral. Balfour takes special aim throughout his book at Darwinian explanations of mind and morals.”

Conclusion As has been presented in depth, the precise processes and sequences of daily life are too complex to have evolved. How can pure chance produce precision? The possibility defies any definition of human logic or reason. Based on human experience, it is hard to believe there is an eternal God of inconceivable power, wisdom and creativity. But, in view of what we know from experimentation and personal experience, it is more logical to believe in God than a theory based on chance refinement of unordered natural elements. Think about it! What about the ability to express thoughts in language, a linguistic code; or measuring and calculating sums in a mathematical code; or the ability to arrive at useful conclusions by logical reasoning? What about the human emotions we all experience? We all know that unlike animals, humans have the ability to gain knowledge by gathering and weighing facts, acquiring knowledge, drawing conclusions, making decisions, and building

26 Ibid (West) citing G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993), 42. 27 Ibid (West) citing Ibid., 38 28 Ibid (West) citing Arthur J. Balfour, Theism and Humanism, edited by Michael W. Perry (Seattle: Inkling Books, 2000), 138. 29 Ibid (West) citing Ibid., 141.

98 Evidence from Formal Science character.30 Where did these things originate? How did they develop? All spontaneously by chance? And thereʼs more. Can we prove God? No, but logically dealing with all available evidence demands this conclusion... There is God!

Chapter 10 Discussion Questions 1. What abstract structures in the formal sciences support the creation model?

2. What of the formal sciences serves as evidence for the theory of evolution?

3. If the earthʼs beginning population of two doubled every 1500 years, would it take more or less than a million years to exceed todayʼs worldwide population of 7.3 million? What conclusion does that suggest?

4. Make a list of the beneﬁts of precision in mathematics.

5. What design features in a typical paragraph of language depend upon a precise, logical arrangement for the paragraph to convey sensible meaning?

30 Pack, David C., What Science Will Never Discover About Your Mind, http://rcg.org/books/ wswndaym.html (Accessed 11/34/14)

99 The Case for Divinity

6. What features of language could have developed by pure, materialistic chance?

7. In your own words, please describe the person C. S. Lewis called a “Naturalist”.

8. Describe the one Lewis called a “Supernaturalist”.

9. True or False... T or F

a. Given enough time, a blind material process could produce manʼs capability of reason and conscience...... ____ b. Darwinism cannot explain the higher capabilities of mankind...... ____

c. Man is a revolution rather than an evolution...... ____

d. Fossil evidence has been found showing the gradual steps of evolution from apes to man...... ____ e. The source of morality is moral, not a blind, material cause...... ____

f. The source of knowledge must be rational, not irrational...... ____

g. It is possible for non-reason to produce reason if given enough time...... ____

h. Some creeds produced by the thoughtless powers of material nature are intrinsically coherent...... ____

100 Chapter 11 Evidence for Scripture

eʼve looked at a lot of evidence for creation of the universe. The fact the universe exists demands a first cause, and weʼve considered supporting evidence for an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Creator. Weʼve even concluded that the Creator of the universe is loving and merciful. All of that raises the questions, “Why did He create mankind after His likeness, i.e., intelligent, creative and loving? Since He did, isnʼt it reasonable to expect such a Creator to have a purpose for creating humans? And, if so, wouldnʼt He communicate that purpose to His creation?” The psalmist, David, thought so when he penned the 19th Psalm. In the first 6 verses, David painted a picture of the glorious and expansive natural creation of God. Then in verses 7 through 11, he described the “law of the Lord”, its power to convert the wayward soul, give wisdom to the simple, provide instruction in Godʼs commandments, and explain His promised “great reward” for obeying Him: “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, Yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them Your servant is warned, And in keeping them there is great reward.” The last verses of Psalm 19 recognize that all of this that God created coupled with the fact He gave mankind instructions in how to govern his existence in that creation places upon each soul a monumental responsibility to... 1. ...honor God by living in thought and deed according to His instructions (vs. 11) 2. ...realize that not doing so is “sin”, that is, transgression of Godʼs law, (vss. 12, 13) 3. ...be comforted by the fact the Creator is loving and merciful and will forgive transgressions when we repent of having failed to obey His word. (vss. 12, 13) If any creator creates for a purpose, it is reasonable for that creator to include with his creation a built-in process or instructions governing the proposed function of the creation. Psalm 19 is structured upon that premise. God put His purpose into all created matter. The heavens declare His glory. The sun lights and warms the day. And, man requires instructions no less than the rest of the creation. According to Psalm 19, that instruction is in the form of Godʼs law, the Creatorʼs own words, which our Bibles claim to be.

101 The Case for Divinity

It is now our study purpose to demonstrate that the Bible is the Creatorʼs words to mankind. There are two ways this can be done. First, we will consider evidence outside the Bible itself, that is, evidence for the Bible. That is the purpose of this chapter. But, there is more. There is evidence within the Bible, not only in support of its own divinity, but predictions about historical events long before they happened, information no man could know or even guess. The predictions must be Divine. Exploring evidences from the Bible will be the purpose of the next chapter. So, letʼs get to it... The Bible has been called “the Book of books”, and it has been claimed to be superior to all other books. Is it really? If it is, in fact, Creative Divinityʼs message to mankind, it is truly superior to other books, i.e., the Book of books. We will see. First, consider that the “book” we call the “Bible” is not one book but sixty-six. It can rightly be called one book because of its very unusual consistency. All sixty-six books carry one overriding message, which was written by forty different men from various locations and walks of life. Many did not know the others, they lived in widely scattered places, and some were educated, some were not. In fact, They lived in different times. Their writings were spread over a period of about 1500 years! How could they write one message from such wide perspectives? There was no opportunity to collaborate. Though men have tried to ﬁnd contradictions, there are none proven, and there are countless interwoven, accurate facts of history. Even if forty authors, all with equivalent education, were put into a room together, I donʼt believe they could produce so factual and well- crafted a manuscript ﬁlled with truthful and useful principles of life... one which could change the lives of so many people century after century. Clearly, God is the Author who guided selected men to pen His words.

Authority One might inquire by whose authority the Bible was written. There are two ways that has been answered. Men have decided what is and is not authoritative, and the Bible itself lays claim to the authority by which it came into being. 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17 says... “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is proﬁtable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” In the early days of the church, the various books of the Bible were not neatly bound together in one book as we have today. Many were in the form of scattered letters to early churches. So, early church leaders gathered them together. They decided what should be considered given by Godʼs authority and what should not, which raises the question... “How do we know that the 66 books in our Bible are the only inspired books? Who decided which books were truly inspired by God? The Roman Catholic Bible includes books (called the Apocrypha) that are not found in other Bibles. How do we know that we as so-called Protestants have the right books? These questions are addressed by a study of canonicity. “ʻCanonʼ is a word that comes from Greek and Hebrew words that literally means a measuring rod. So canonicity describes the standard that books had to meet to be recognized as scripture.

102 Evidence for Scripture

“On the one hand, deciding which books were inspired seems like a human process. Christians gathered together at church councils in the first several centuries A.D. for the purpose of officially recognizing which books are inspired. But itʼs important to remember that these councils did not determine which books were inspired. They simply recognized what God had already determined.”1 Early church councils recognized our sixty-six biblical books as authoritative over all others because they had been proven as the most valuable. Of course, based on the evidence weʼve seen, it is logical to conclude that God Himself guided those men in their selection. Consider: If God inspired the writing, as 2 Timothy 3:16 claims and Psalm 19 confirms, it is only reasonable that God oversaw which books would be in the collection and assure that His word is all-sufficient for every good work as claimed in 2 Timothy 3:17. God obligated Himself to protect His word from destruction by inspiring Peter to write in 1 Peter 1:22-25,... “Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, because ʻAll flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away, But the word of the Lord endures forever.ʼ” And, He obligated Himself to keep His word pure, free from any form of corruption, when He inspired James to write James 1:25... “But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.” Plus, He underscored that obligation when He inspired the apostle Peter to write 1 Peter 2:2... “...as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby,...” So, if early Christians gathered together what God wrote and providentially guided them in selecting, it surely was the pure, perfect truth of God, able to complete us in every good work. But, what guarantee do we have that through all the subsequent centuries we have the same thing God gave?

Historiography Historiography is the study of the historical reliability of ancient writings. There are three ways that historiography tests writings: 1. Bibliographical test 2. Internal test 3. External test

1 Canonicity, Biblical Studies Foundation, Richardson, Texas, https://bible.org/seriespage/canonicity

103 The Case for Divinity

Some of the characteristics of Scripture already mentioned serve as part of the internal test. Such things as the unique unity of all sixty-six books and their ability to change the lives of so many people. But, we will reserve a full look at the internal test until the next chapter. The Bibliographical Test So, what is the bibliographical test? It is analysis of the transmission of ancient manuscripts down to our time based on number of copies, how close they date to writing of the original and any other evidence of transmission accuracy or corruption. The bibliographical test alone shows the Bible was transmitted through manuscript copies to our time with no consequential change. The following chart, Literary Works of Antiquity Compared2, illustrates how much more reliable the New Testament as compared with all other ancient writings:

Old # of New # of Work and/or Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Span Copies Copies

Homerʼs Iliad 900 BC 400 BC 500 yrs. 643 1,757

Caesarʼs Gallic Wars BC 58-50 850 AD 900 yrs. 9-10 251

Livyʼs Roman History 59BC-17AD 4th Century 350-450 yrs. 20 150

Platoʼs Tetralogies 427-347 BC 900 AD 1,200 yrs. 7 210

Tacitusʼ Annals 100 AD 1,100 AD 1,000 yrs. 20 (-)

Pliny the Youngerʼs 61-113 AD 850 AD 750 yrs. 7 History

Thucydidesʼ History 460-400 BC 900 AD 1,300 yrs. 8 96

Suetonius 75-160 AD 950 AD 800 yrs. 8

Herodotusʼ History 480-425 BC 900 AD 1,300 yrs. 8 109

Sophocles 496-406 BC 1,000 AD 1,400 yrs. 193

Lucretius Died 55 or 53 BC 1,100 yrs. 2

Catullus 54 BC 1,550 AD 1,600 yrs. 3

Euripides 480-406 BC 1,100 AD 1,500 yrs. 9

Demosthenes 383-322 BC 1,100 AD 1,300 yrs. 200 340

Aristotle 384-322 BC 1,100 AD 1,400 yrs. 49

New Testament 40-100 AD 125 AD 25-85 yrs. 24,000+

(All 27 New Testament books are intact!)

2 McDowell, Josh, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol. 1 (1990) Hereʼs Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA., pgs. 42-43.

104 Evidence for Scripture

As I understand, this chart comparing the number of copies and time span of original to earliest copy was first published in 1990. The total shown of New Testament manuscripts is composed of three categories... “There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9.300 other early versions (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today. “No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation...”3 In 2012, the Christian Research Institute4 updated some of the figures shown in the chart. They claimed, for example, the updated number of Illiad manuscripts (under the heading “New # of Copies”) is 1,757, which includes a papyri count of 1,5695 and a parchment manuscript count of 1886. Thatʼs a huge change in the “Old # of Copies” of 643. They also say new discoveries has reduced the time gap of writing to earliest known copy of Thucydidesʼ History from 1,350 to 200. And, there are other changes, different numbers of copies and time gaps for some of the other manuscripts listed. Their changes for each of the manuscripts are discussed more fully at http:// www.equip.org/article/the-bibliographical-test-updated/#christian-books-4. Such changes remind us that new discoveries can potentially change much of the evidence of different types cited in this book. Of course, any new, valid conclusion is what is most important. In the case of the bibliographical test, despite these updated firgues, the weight of evidence for the reliability of the New Testament as a reliable ancient manuscript is still overwhelmingly superior to all other ancient writings. F. F. Bruce puts it this way... “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.”7 Notice in the chart on the previous page the short span of time between the oldest New Testament copies found and its original writing. Short time from writing to oldest copy is a significant factor in assessing reliability. Regarding the New Testament, “The earliest undisputed manuscript is a segment of John 19:31-33, 37-38 known as the John Rylands fragment... Scholars date it between A.D. 117-138, but some say it is even earlier.”8 But, thereʼs more...

3 Ibid (McDowell) p. 39 4 Jones, Clay, The Bibliographical Test Updated, The Christian Research Institute, Charlotte, NC, http:// www.equip.org/article/the-bibliographical-test-updated/#christian-books-4 5 Ibid (Jones) citing Martin L. West, Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad (München: K. G. Saur, 2001), 86. 6 Ibid (Jones) citing Thomas W. Allen, Homeri Ilias (1931; repr., New York: Arno, 1979), 11–55. Personal correspondence with West on October 30, 2010. 7 Ibid (McDowell), p. 42, citing Bruce, F. F., The Books and the Parchments, Rev. ed. Westwood: Fleming H Revell Co., 1963. 8 Geisler, Norman L., and Turek, Frank, I Donʼt Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (2004) Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, p. 225.

105 The Case for Divinity

“Even earlier than the John Rylands fragment are nine disputed fragments that date from A.D. 50 to 70, found with the Dead Sea Scrolls.9 Some scholars believe these fragments are parts of the New Testament books including Mark, Acts, Romans, 1 Timothy, 2 Peter, and James. While other scholars resist this conclusion (perhaps because its admission would undermine their liberal leanings that the New Testament was written later), they have not found any other non-New Testament texts that these fragments could be.”10 This short time span between writing and earliest copies coupled with the superior number of copies available for comparison makes the case for the New Testament very strong... “Of all of the literary compositions by the Greek people, the Homeric poems are best suited for comparison with the Bible… In the entire range of ancient Greek and Latin literature, the Iliad ranks next to the New Testament in possessing the greatest amount of manuscript testimony.”11 Homerʼs Iliad has far and away more copies for comparison, therefore accuracy, than any of the others except the New Testament. The accuracy of the Iliad or any other manuscripts is not generally questioned. But, the superior reliability of the New Testament over the Iliad and other ancient manuscripts, despite any recent update of the numbers, is dramatically obvious. Over 24,000 copies to compare! The New Testament wins the bibliographical test hands down!

The External Test The Bible was not only written in history, but was also written about historical people, places, societies and events. Because of this, archaeology serves as an excellent rule for measuring the reliability of the Bible as an historical document. In fact, archaeology can tell us a lot about the Bible both internally and externally. Weʼll consider now external evidence that the Bible has reliably stood the test of time.

Archaeology A significant aspect of the external evidence for the reliability of the Bible is that uncovered in the field of archaeology. Ferrel Jenkins said,... “The purpose of archeology is not to prove the Bible true. It may corroborate, illustrate, illuminate, or supplement the Biblical record. Archeology has demonstrated the historical trustworthiness of the Bible.”12 Many archeologists, experts in fossil evidence, have reasoned correctly that such evidence supports the accuracy of the Bible. Several have even spoken out about it. Perhaps surprisingly, some who were atheists have converted and are now Bible supporters. Here are some of their statements: • “I know of no finding in archaeology thatʼs properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.”13

9 Ibid (Geisler/Turek) citing Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, pgs. 531-537, 547. 10 Ibid (Geisler/Turek) p. 226. 11 Ibid (McDowell), Josh, p. 43, citing Metzger, Bruce, Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963. 12 Jenkins, Ferrel, (1981) Introduction to Christian Evidences, A Guardian of Truth Foundation Publication, Fairmont, Indiana. p. 58 13 Archaeologist Speaks Out (Clifford Wilson), Creation Ministries International, Powder Springs, GA, citing Dr. Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, being interviewed on radio by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR radio transcript No. 0279–1004).

106 Evidence for Scripture

• “On the whole, [...], archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine.... Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown, in a number of instances, that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development. This is a real contribution and not to be minimized.”14 • “In every instance where the findings of archaeology pertain to the Biblical record, the archaeological evidence confirms, sometimes in detailed fashion, the historical accuracy of Scripture. In those instances where the archaeological findings seem to be at variance with the Bible, the discrepancy lies with the archaeological evidence, i.e., improper interpretation, lack of evidence, etc. -- not with the Bible.”15 • “Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts...... Yet archaeological discoveries have shown that these critical charges.....are wrong and that the Bible is trustworthy in the very statements which have been set aside as untrustworthy.....We do not know of any cases where the Bible has been proved wrong.”16 • “Through the wealth of data uncovered by historical and archaeological research, we are able to measure the Bibleʼs historical accuracy. In every case where its claims can thus be tested, the Bible proves to be accurate and reliable.”17 • “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries.”18 • “The reader may rest assured that nothing has been found [by archaeologists] to disturb a reasonable faith, and nothing has been discovered which can disprove a single theological doctrine. We no longer trouble ourselves with attempts to ʻharmonizeʼ religion and science, or to ʻproveʼ the Bible. The Bible can stand for itself.” 19

14 Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology at Yale University, What Mean These Stones?, Meridian Books, New York, NY, 1956, p. 1, cited by Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Arrowhead Springs, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972) p. 66. 15 Dr. Bryant C. Wood, archaeologist, in an interview entitled Archaeology and the Bible by AIIA Institute, Monson, Maine, http://aiiainstitute.org/archaeology-and-the-bible/ 16 Dr. Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History. Scripture Press, Wheaton, IL, 1969, pp. 1, 2, 134 cited by The Uniqueness of the Bible - Part 2, Devos From the Hill, Mars Hills Productions, http:// devosfromthehill.org/tag/archaeology/ 17 Dr. Jack Cottrell, The Authority of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 48-49, cited by Dr. Randall Price, Archaeology and the Legitimate Bible, International Messianic Jewish Alliance, Jacksonville, Florida, http://imja.org/archaeology-and-the-legitimate-bible/ 18 Dr. Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, (New York: Farrar, Strous and Cudahy, 1959) 136, posted on Biblical archaeology quotes, CreationWiki, Encyclopedia of Creation Science, http://creationwiki.org/ Biblical_archaeology_quotes (Accessed 5/6/2015) 19 Dr. William F. Albright (eminent archeologist who conﬁrmed the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls following their discovery) The Archeology of Palestine and the Bible (Revell, 1935), p. 127 cited by The Berean Call, Bend, OR, http://www.thebereancall.org/content/reliable-stuff

107 The Case for Divinity

• “It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to reestablish its authority and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest – that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge.”20 • “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition.”21 • “The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural.”22 • “One word of warning already referred to, must be emphasized in conclusion. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. ... • “It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”23 • “Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the books of the new Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands.”24 • “The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries.”25 In an interview 26 by the AIIA Institute, an organization committed to promoting all of the truth of Christianity, the interviewer asked Dr. Bryant Wood, an archaeologist of some renown:...

20 Sir Frederic Kenyon, a former director of the British Museum, The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1940), p. 279, cited by Biblical archaeology quotes, Encyclopedia of Creation Science, CreationWiki, NW Creation Network, http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_archaeology_quotes 21 Dr. William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religions of Israel, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1956, p. 176, cited by Historicity of the Old Testament, Theopedia, Christian Web Foundation, http://www.theopedia.com/Historicity_of_the_Old_Testament 22 Professor Millar Burrows (Professor of Archaeology at Yale University), What Mean These Stones?, Meridian Books, New York, NY, 1956, p. 176, cited by W. R. Miller, Archaeologists of the Christian Faith: Ancient Evidence for the Bible … in Spades, http://www.tektonics.org/archmony.htm 23 Saucy, Robert, Scripture (2001) Word Publishing, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, Tenn. citing Sir Frederic George Kenyon. Our Bible and Ancient Manuscripts, New York: Harper & Bros., 1941, p. 23. 24 Sir Frederic George Kenyon, Our Bible and Ancient Manuscripts, New York: Harper & Bros., 1941, p. 23, cited by W. R. Miller, Archaeologists of the Christian Faith: Ancient Evidence for the Bible … in Spades, http://www.tektonics.org/archmony.htm 25 Ibid. 26 Dr. Bryant C. Wood, archaeologist, in an interview entitled Archaeology and the Bible by AIIA Institute, Monson, Maine, http://aiiainstitute.org/archaeology-and-the-bible/

108 Evidence for Scripture

“What archaeological discovery has had the all-time greatest Biblical impact?” Dr. Wood answered,... “Probably the Dead Sea Scrolls have had the greatest Biblical impact. They have provided Old Testament manuscripts approximately 1,000 years older than our previous oldest manuscript. The Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that the Old Testament was accurately transmitted during this interval. In addition, they provide a wealth of information on the times leading up to, and during, the life of Christ.”19 The Dead Sea Scrolls Of the host of archeological discoveries that relate to the Bible in some way, perhaps the most signiﬁcant in conﬁrming the accuracy of Scripture is the uncovering sixty-seven years ago of what was named the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here is one description of them and their importance: “Probably the most sensational manuscript discovery of our times is the Dead Sea Scrolls. Found in 1948 in caves near the ruins of Qumran, a 1st Century B.C. Essene community located near the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, these 1100 ancient documents and 100,000 fragments, plus several intact full scrolls, represent portions or the entire text of every Old Testament book in Hebrew except the book of Esther. Somewhere around 230 of the total manuscripts are copies of Old Testament books. Prior to their discovery, the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible came from A.D. 920. Some copies of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament dated back to the 3rd Century B.C., but up to that point none of the Hebrew manuscripts went back that far. “Now we had Hebrew Scriptures that could be dated in the 1st and even the 2nd Century B.C. Most amazingly, these Dead Sea Scrolls showed that our Bible had been preserved with dramatic accuracy for what was by now over two millennia. One copy of Isaiah, our best example, showed that after a gap of 1000 years in textual copying tradition, for what stretches to over 100 pages in our English Bibles, only three words in the whole book of Isaiah showed any difference-and those differences were variations in spelling comparable to the difference in English and American spellings of ʻhonourʼ versus ʻhonor.ʼ”27 The Essenes28 who wrote the scrolls were a Jewish sect. Mostly they wrote in Hebrew, but many of the scrolls are in Aramaic, the common language of the Jews from two centuries before Christ to two centuries after. And, they wrote a few of them in Greek. The Essenes were a very ascetic group, which strictly observed the Jewish Torah (Godʼs revelation to Moses on Mt. Sinai) and focused on godliness to the extent they practiced daily immersion in water for spiritual purity. It seems appropriate that those who wrote the Scrolls were a devout group. Their work helps us understand both Judaism and Christianity providing information for New Testament scholars and those interested in Jesus and His life. Josephus, the noted Jewish historian of the 1st century, wrote about the Essenes comparing their doctrine with that of the Pharisees and Sadducees. He called us to admire them for their dedication to righteousness and virtue.

27 Archaeological evidences proving the accuracy of the Bible, http://www.israelite.net/ biblicalarchaeology.pdf, p. 112 28 Dead Sea Scrolls, 25 Fascinating Facts about the Discovery at Qumran, http://www.centuryone.com/ 25dssfacts.html

109 The Case for Divinity

My research has uncovered no question about the Essenesʼ integrity regarding the work they did copying the Scriptures. The scrolls were thought to have been written during a period of one hundred years or so beginning about 200 BC, which would explain why they make no reference to Jesus or His followers.

Other Archeological Findings Before closing this chapter, it seems appropriate to mention a few more archeological discoveries. Here are some findings of the last century or so: • The Sumerian civilization (2500 BC): Lists found of kings before and after the great flood confirming biblical life spans as well as a great flood... “Out of the many incredible artifacts that have been recovered from sites in Iraq where flourishing Sumerian cities once stood, few have been more intriguing than the Sumerian King List, an ancient manuscript originally recorded in the Sumerian language, listing kings of Sumer (ancient southern Iraq) from Sumerian and neighbouring dynasties, their supposed reign lengths, and the locations of ʻofficialʼ kingship. What makes this artifact so unique is the fact that the list blends apparently mythical pre-dynastic rulers with historical rulers who are known to have existed. “The list is of immense value because it reflects very old traditions while at the same time providing an important chronological framework relating to the different periods of kingship in Sumeria,... “Some scholars (e.g. Wood, 2003) have drawn attention to the fact that there are remarkable similarities between the Sumerian King List and accounts in Genesis. For example, Genesis tells the story of ʻthe great floodʼ and Noahʼs efforts to save all the species of animals on Earth from destruction. Likewise, in the Sumerian King List, there is discussion of a great deluge: ʻthe flood swept over the earth.ʼ The Sumerian King List provides a list of eight kings (some versions have 10) who reigned for long periods of time before the flood, ranging from 18,600 to 43,200 years. This is similar to Genesis 5, where the generations from Creation to the Flood are recorded. Interestingly, between Adam and Noah there are eight generations, just as there are eight kings between the beginning of kingship and the flood in the Sumerian King List. After the flood, the King List records kings who ruled for much shorter periods of time. Thus, the Sumerian King List not only documents a great flood early in manʼs history, but it also reflects the same pattern of decreasing longevity as found in the Bible - men had extremely long life spans before the flood and much shorter life spans following the flood (Wood, 2003). The Sumerian King List truly is a perplexing mystery. Why would the Sumerians combine mythical rulers with actual historical rulers in one document? Why are there so many similarities with Genesis? Why were ancient kings described as ruling for thousands of years? These are just some of the questions that still remain unanswered after more than a century of research.”29 • Record of a global flood has been found in many cultures.

29 Bryant G. Wood (2003) Great Discoveries in Biblical Archaeology: The Sumerian King List, cited by April Holloway in The Sumerian King List still puzzles historians after more than a century of research, Ancient Origins, Read more: http://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends-asia/sumerian-king-list-still-puzzles- historians-after-more-century-research-001287

110 Evidence for Scripture

• The Law Code of Hammurabi dated to 1750 BC contains many civil laws similar to those in the first five books of the Bible. “Some scholars once said that Moses couldnʼt have written the first five books of the Bible (as the Bible says) because writing was largely unknown in his day. Then, archaeology proved otherwise by the discovery of many other written codes of the period: the code of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 B.C.), the Lipit-Ishtar code (ca. 1860), and the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 B.C.).”30 • The Shishak Relief depicts Egyptʼs victory over King Rehoboam in 925 BC as mentioned in 1 Kings 14 and 2 Chronicles 12. “The name of David, Israelʼs second king, ca. 1010-970 BC, appears in two ninth century BC texts, the Tel Dan Inscription and the Moabite stone.31 Shishak was the first Egyptian king to be mentioned by name in the Bible and is the first foreign king in the Bible for whom we have extra-Biblical evidence. “Prior to the tenth century BC, it was customary for the kings of Egypt to be referred to simply as ʻPharaoh.ʼ After the tenth century, however, a proper name was included with the title (Bible and Spade, Autumn 1993, p. 98). This practice was followed in the Bible as well. The first pharaoh to be identified with a personal name is Shishak, who ruled during the time of Solomon and his son Rehoboam. We first meet Shishak in 1 Kings 11:40. Because of Solomonʼs idolatry, God decreed through the prophet Ahijah that He was going to take ten tribes from Solomon and give them to Jeroboam, an official in Solomonʼs court (1 Kings 11:26-39). As a result, Solomon sought to kill Jeroboam. Jeroboam fled to Egypt where Shishak gave him refuge (1 Kings 11:40). “After Solomonʼs death, Jeroboam returned and became leader of the breakaway Northern Kingdom, while Rehoboam ruled over the Southern kingdom of Judah (1 Kings 12:1-17). Shortly thereafter, Shishak came with his army and invaded Judah and Israel.”32 The Bibleʼs reference to this bit of history is found in 1 Kings 14:25-26: “It happened in the fifth year of King Rehoboam that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem. And he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the kingʼs house; he took away everything. He also took away all the gold shields which Solomon had made.” The Lord gave us additional information about this incident in 2 Chronicles 12:2-8: “And it happened in the fifth year of King Rehoboam that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, because they had transgressed against the Lord, with twelve hundred chariots, sixty thousand horsemen, and people without number who came with him out of Egypt—the Lubim and the Sukkiim and the Ethiopians. And he took the fortified cities of Judah and came to Jerusalem.

30 Perman, Matt, Historical Evidence for the Bible, Gospel Outreach Ministries Online, http:// www.gospeloutreach.net/bible3.html 31 These texts were discussed in the pages of Bible and Spade (Autmn 1993, pp. 119-121, and Summer, 1995, pp. 91-92). 32 Wood, Bryant G., What evidence has been found of the Egyptian king, Shishak? (1999) Associates for Biblical Research, Akron, PA, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a017.html

111 The Case for Divinity

“Then Shemaiah the prophet came to Rehoboam and the leaders of Judah, who were gathered together in Jerusalem because of Shishak, and said to them, ʻThus says the Lord: “You have forsaken Me, and therefore I also have left you in the hand of Shishak.”ʼ “So the leaders of Israel and the king humbled themselves; and they said, ʻThe Lord is righteous.ʼ “Now when the Lord saw that they humbled themselves, the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah, saying, ʻThey have humbled themselves; therefore I will not destroy them, but I will grant them some deliverance. My wrath shall not be poured out on Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak. Nevertheless they will be his servants, that they may distinguish My service from the service of the kingdoms of the nations.ʼ” • Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser (841 BC) found in the ancient palace of Nimrud describes victories of King Shalmaneser III; shows Israelʼs King Jehu kneeling before Assyrian king in tribute. (2 Kings 9-10) “One of the most fascinating archaeological finds relating to the Bible is the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. It is a four-sided column of black limestone inscribed with words (in the cuneiform alphabet) and pictures. The Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (who reigned 858-824 B.C.) had it made to record his achievements through the first 31 years of his reign. Austen Layard unearthed it in 1846 during his now-famous discovery of Nimrud (Calah), just south of the capital city of Nineveh. [...] The obelisk stands about six feet tall and is now kept in the British Museum. Copies can be seen in other museums, such as the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago. “What is so amazing about this ancient monument is that it both mentions and depicts a person from the Bible. [...], ...the person bowing down is none other than Jehu, king of Israel, and the person before whom Jehu is bowing is the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III. “There are two brief lessons to consider. The first is about the historical trustworthiness of the Bible. The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III proves that there really was a man named Jehu who was the king of Israel, just as the Bible says there was, and that he lived in the time period which the Bible reports. The name of Hazael, the king of Syria at that time — who is also mentioned in the Bible — also appears on the Assyrian kingʼs monument. The Bibleʼs stories are true, they really happened, and the biblical record is accurate.”33 • Empires and cities were named in the Bible long before archaeology proved them real: Hittite and Babylonian Empires; Ashkelon, Shechem, Dan, Beersheba, Gibeah, ancient Jerusalem and many more cities. “Critics used to say that the biblical description of the Hittite Empire was wrong because the Hittite Empire (they thought) didnʼt even exist! Then archaeologists discovered the Hittite capital in 1906 and discovered that the Hittiteʼs were actually a very vast and prominent civilization. Archaeological and linguistic evidence is increasingly pointing to a sixth-century B.C. date for the book of

33 McClister, David, The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, Truth Magazine Vol. XLV: 1 p10 January 4, 2001, http://truthmagazine.com/archives/volume45/V4501040106.htm

112 Evidence for Scripture

Daniel, in spite of the many critics who attempt to late-date Daniel and make it a prophecy after the detailed events it predicts.”34 Despite all of this evidence, some may esteem other books such as the Book of Mormon, which claims to be the inspired word of God. Some even say it is superior to the Bible, the Bible having been corrupted down through time. The Introduction in my copy of the Book of Mormon reads... “Concerning the record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: ʻI told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”35 The evidence clearly refutes that claim. There is no evidence supporting the claim the Book of Mormon is inspired. “The Mormon claim for inspiration of the Book of Mormon has been categorically condemned by the Smithsonian Institute because of the fallacies shown by archaeology; this is not so with the Bible.”36 The fact is, the Book of Mormon even contradicts the Bible on several points proving it cannot be from the same divine source as the Bible. Thereʼs lots more archaeological evidence proving the Bible record of history is true, but perhaps what has been presented here is sufﬁcient to establish the veracity of the Book that claims to be the very Word of God.

Chapter 11 Discussion Questions 1. Given the fact the Creator made man and breathed into him the breath of life, what is reasonable to expect that Creator to do next?

2. If someone asked you, “What authority can you cite for the reliability of the Scriptures?” what answer would you give?

34 Perman, Matt, Why the Bible is the Word of God, Historical Evidence for the Bible, http:// www.gospeloutreach.net/bible3.html. 35 The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ, Copyright 1981 by Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. 36 Reliability of Scripture, Archaeological Evidence, Bridges Church, Long Beach, Calif. http:// www.bridgeschurch.org/documents/ReliabilityofScripture.pdf

113 The Case for Divinity

3. What are the apocryphal books and why are they not included in the Bibles used by non- Catholics?

4. To what reliability tests are ancient manuscripts subjected?

5. What is the bibliographical test of an ancient manuscriptʼs reliability?

6. How does the Bible rate against other ancient documents when measured in the bibliographical test?

7. What ﬁeld of science has contributed a great deal of evidence in proving the Bible true?

114 Evidence for Scripture

8. What are the Dead Sea Scrolls and how have they substantiated the reliability of Scripture?

9. Of the archeologistsʼ statements quoted in this chapter, which one most impressed you as a summary of the worthiness of the biblical record?

10. Of the archeological discoveries mentioned in this chapter, which one most impressed you as clear, indisputable evidence that the Bible is historically correct?

115 Chapter 12 Evidence from Scripture

n the previous chapter, we noticed only some of the large amount of evidence underscoring Divine authorship of the Bible. It is not possible that one human, or many in collaboration, could have authored a work that would satisfy the scientific tests to which the Bible has been subjected. By every measure, the Bible not only defies human authorship, but it has supernaturally survived centuries without corruption of the content. Still, there is more than just bibliographical and external evidence. The third test to which the Bible as an ancient manuscript has been subjected is the internal test. There are three aspects: 1. Unique unity of Bible content 2. Unique power to change lives 3. Fulfilled prophecy Would it surprise you to learn that evidence for the Bible is strong in all three categories?

Unique Unity of Content1 There are many ways the Bible stands out as the “Book of books”, as a book different from all others before or since. It is unique. It is so unique, I believe I will not be able to identify all the ways, but here are a few...2 1. The Bible is unique in terms of the time span over which it was written. It took about 1,500 years, about forty generations. 2. It was written by forty different men from all walks of life. They were kings, statesmen, prophets, ﬁshermen, peasants, farmers, medical doctors, poets, scholars, lawyers, etc. 3. The Bible is surprisingly unique in the unity of its content. There are sixty-six books with but one theme. 4. It was written in a variety of places: in cities, in the wilderness, on the mountains, from dungeons, in palaces, on the battleﬁeld, etc.,... 5. It was written on three continents: Asia, Africa and Europe. 6. It was written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. 7. The Bible is unique in the diversity of subjects it covers. From geographical to philosophical, from medical to the mystical, from geological to meteorological, from moral to immoral, from biographical to governmental, from sinful to godly, and more.

1 Also see the discussion in Chapter 11: Evidence for Scripture. 2 McDowell, Josh, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Volume 1 (1990) Hereʼs Life Publishers, San Bernardino, California, ppg. 16-24

116 The Case for Divinity

8. The content from book to book is consistent, teaching a sound morality, which has worked to the benefit of mankind for centuries. 9. The Bible has been published in more languages and read by more people than any other book ever printed. 10. It is unique in its survival of detrimental circumstances. The Bible has been written on a variety of perishable materials, copied and recopied countless times and repeatedly attacked by disbelievers and criticized by atheists, yet it has survived and its message has not been corrupted. 11. It is unique in the number of its predictions and historical references which have proven true though the biblical record predates the actual date and/or manʼs knowledge of the event or person referenced. 12. The Bible is unique in its historical record of ancient people. “The ʻTable of Nationsʼ in Genesis 10 is an astonishingly accurate historical account. According to [Professor] Albright: ʻIt stands absolutely alone in ancient literature without a remote parallel even among the Greeks. . . . “The Table of Nations” remains an astonishingly accurate document. . . . (It) shows such remarkably “modern” understanding of the ethnic and linguistic situation in the modern world, in spite of all of its complexity, that scholars never fail to be impressed with the authorʼs knowledge of the subject.ʼ”3 13. It is the first book to describe the earthʼs source, i.e., “In the beginning God...” (Gen 1:1) 14. The Bible is unique in the number of individuals it refers to by name... “Elioenaiʼs name is in a long list of names in the book of Chronicles. In fact, it is significant that the Bible contains the proper names of more individuals than can be found in all the other books of antiquity put together—strong evidence of its historical authenticity. These were real names of real people, and each would, no doubt, have a fascinating story to tell if he could. The ancient Israelites were very conscious of their divine calling as Godʼs chosen people; family relationships and genealogical records were highly valued.”4 15. It is the one book that Voltaire said would be extinct by 1850. 16. It is the first book to have been taken into outer space. If for no other reason than its uniqueness, the Bible deserves to be read by every person. Unique Power to Change Lives One of the unique things about the Bible is its ability to change lives. Josh McDowell had this to say about it,...5

3 Ibid (McDowell), pg. 23 citing Albright, William F., Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1955. By courtesy of the publisher. pg. 70ff. 4 Morris, Henry, PhD., Elioenai, The Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, http://www.icr.org/article/ elioenai/ © 1994-2015 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. www.icr.org (Accessed 4/23/2015) 5 Ibid (McDowell), pg. 23.

117 Evidence from Scripture

“The Bible deals very frankly with the sins of its characters. Read the biographies today, and see how they try to cover up, overlook or ignore the shady side of people. Take the great literary geniuses; most are painted as saints. The Bible does not do it that way. It simply tells it like it is: “The sins of the people denounced - Deuteronomy 9:24 “Sins of the patriarchs - Genesis 12:11-13; 49:5-7 “Evangelists paint their own faults and the faults of the apostles - Matthew 8:10-26; 26:31-56; Mark 6:52; 8:18; Luke 8:24, 25; 9:40-45; John 10:6; 16:32 “Disorder of the churches - I Corinthians 1:11; 15:12; II Corinthians 2:4, etc. “Many will say, ʻWhy did they have to put in that chapter about David and Bathsheba?ʼ Well, the Bible has the habit of telling it like it is.”6 There is no question, Christianity has touched and changed a lot of lives. Christianity Today7 reports that Christianity ranks as the largest religion in the world, and they cited Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life as reporting the number of Christians in 2010 at 2.18 billion. These statistics, of course, do not measure the countless number of lives the Bible has changed down through roughly twenty centuries since the New Testament was written, and it doesnʼt speak to those of the Jewish faith who have been changed by the teaching of the Old Testament over even more centuries. What is this power of Scripture to change lives? While some atheists may not do so, it is not uncommon to hear someone call us to biblical values, or even say, “The Bible teaches...” The moral code of the Bible has been foundational in the formation of law systems throughout history. Constitutions have been written in keeping with biblical principles of behavior. Someone may argue, “Yes, but many Christians follow their own ethics rather than the behavioral standard of the Bible.” Thatʼs true, but lack of obedience among those professing to be Christians in no way alters the message of morality. Biblical values have remained the same down through twenty centuries, roughly 80 to 100 or more generations of people whose lives have been changed, more or less, by the standard it upholds.

Fulfilled Prophecy The Bible is chock full of detailed prophecies fulfilled in exact detail. There are over 300 fulfilled prophecies about Jesus Christ alone. The odds of only 48 coming true in one man is 1 in 10157. But, they did. All of them! And, there are other fulfilled prophecies. The totality of all fulfilled prophecy is truly beyond human comprehension. Dr. Hugh Ross8 of Reasons to Believe claims there are approximately 2500 prophecies in the Bible, some 2000 or so having already been fulfilled. Not only fulfilled, but fulfilled exactly with no errors at all. Dr. Ross further claims that the mathematical odds of all

6 Ibid (McDowell) p. 23. 7 Christianity Today, General Statistics and Facts of Christianity, About Religion, http:// christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/christiantoday.htm 8 Ross, Dr. Hugh, Fulﬁlled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible (2003) Reasons to Believe, Covina, California, http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulﬁlled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of- the-bible

118 The Case for Divinity these prophecies being fulfilled error free by chance is less than one in 102000. Those are very tough odds! These prophecies are about nations, cities, events and people. The following is a list of a few of those fulfilled, a list which I gleaned from Reasons to Believe, a website which not only mentions these fulfilled prophecies but provides further detail and comment on each. Please keep in mind, these prophecies were made by men who, for the most part, were unlearned in the subject of which they spoke, and they spoke of things in their distant future, things which they could not know and sometimes of things which were not discovered and known by anyone until centuries later. (The odds of chance fulfillment listed are those calculated by Reasons to Believe,) • The destruction of Babylon (Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10.9) (Isaiah 13:17-22; Jeremiah 51:26, 43) • The ascent of Cyrus to ruling power. (Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10.10) (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1; and 45:13) • Edom would become a wasteland. (Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10.11) (Jeremiah 49:15-20; Ezekiel 25:12-14) • Jericho would be rebuilt. (Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10.12) (Joshua 6:26; 1 Kings 16:33-34) • Elijah would depart from earth. (Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10.13) (2 Kings 2:3-11) • King Josiah would burn the bones of priests. (Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1013.14) (1 Kings 13:2; 2 Kings 23:15-18) • The people of Ammon, Moab and Mount Seir would be destroyed. (Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10.15) (2 Chronicles 20) There is more detailed explanation of each of the above listed prophecy fulfillments at the Reasons to Believe website: http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence- for-the-reliability-of-the-bible. Itʼs pretty interesting reading. If that is not enough to convince you the Bible is of divine origin, here are more fulfilled prophecies: • Danielʼs prediction of future empires.16 Danielʼs description of the rise to world power of four empires from Babylon to Medo-Persia, Medo-Persia to Greece, and Greece to Rome. He even described the dramatic exploits of Emperor Alexander the Great, as well as the subsequent division of his empire among his four surviving generals (Daniel 7:6, 8:5–8, 11:2–4).

9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 14 Hayden, Dan, Seven Compelling Evidences (2011) Answers Magazine, Answers in Genesis, Petersburg, KY, https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/4-fulﬁlled-prophecy/

119 Evidence from Scripture

There have been attempts to disarm the impact of this prophecy by devising schemes for dating the writings of Daniel after the birth of these empires. Careful research by textual scholars have verified that Daniel was indeed the author and that he wrote well before the events took place.17 Danielʼs predictions are clear evidence of diving authorship. • Ashkelon was destroyed and the Philistines were “cut off”.18 “But what is again amazing about the Bible is how accurately it prophecies about future events, even when at the time it would seem incredulous that the prediction could come true. Hereʼs a dominant civilization of warrior people, who held a monopoly on iron smithing (a critical skill that gave them great advantage against many enemies) and controlled Ashkelon, the largest seaport in Canaan, giving them great advantages for commerce and trade. It must have sounded ludicrous when Amos announced in approximately 780BC that the Philistines would be completely eliminated from history as a nation. “History records once again that the Bible gets it right. The Philistines were first conquered by King Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria by 732 BC. Then, after the Assyrians, the Philistine nation was conquered by King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon. The Philistines originally conquered Ashkelon about 1150BC, but it was the last of the Philistine cities to hold out against Nebuchadnezzar. He destroyed Ashkelon in 604BC, taking the inhabitants into exile and completely ending the Philistine era. “There are few references to the Philistines after this time. However, Ezekiel 25:16 and Zechariah 9:6 mention the Philistines, so they still existed as a people after the Babylonian invasion. But then they disappear from history as a distinct people group by the late fifth century BC, as the mixed people of the former Philistine cities having been converted to Judaism by the Hasmonians.” There are many, many more fulfilled prophecies, irrefutable evidence that the author of the Bible was not human. Even a “mystic” purporting to predict future events would not “guess it right” often enough to build a biblical grade of reliability as we see from these prophecies. There is only one author who could predict events centuries in the future with 100% accuracy. That is the omniscient God of the Bible.

Other Internal Evidence There is yet another area of internal proof that the Bible is divine. That is, biblical references to facts of science not known at the time of the Bibleʼs writing. Here are a few: • Did the writer of the book of Job know about springs of the sea or fountains of the deep? Did Moses and Solomon who also wrote about them? They were not known

17 McDowell, Josh, Daniel in the Criticsʼ Den (Orlando, Florida: Hereʼs Life Publishers, Campus Crusade for Christ, 1979) 18 Croteau, Ed, The Evidence Of Faithʼs Substance The Bible and Prophecy: The Destruction of Ashkelon and the Philistines (October 25, 2014) Leeʼs Summit Tribune, Leeʼs Summit, MO, http://lstribune.net/ opinion/the-evidence-of-faith-s-substance-the-bible-and-prophecy-the-destruction-of-ashkelon-and-the- philistines.htm

120 The Case for Divinity

except by the Bible account until recent times. Read more in Chapter 7: Evidence from Physical Science. • The biblical account of creation fits well with present knowledge of macro and microevolution, and several scientific discoveries in the past century or less verify the young earth framework. See Chapter 6: Evidence for a Young Earth. • There is considerable evidence for a global flood, which fits well with the biblical account of Noahʼs flood. For specifics see Chapter 6: Evidence for a Young Earth and Chapter 11: Evidence for Scripture. • Did the author of Psalm 135:7 have any scientific insight into ascending vapors? Of God he wrote, “ He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings the wind out of His treasures.” This verse is almost identical to what we find at Jeremiah 10:13 and 51:16 except they precede the Psalm 135 thought with “When He utters His voice, There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:”. Did Jeremiah know about vapors and heavenly waters? The following quote from an article by Dr. Henry Morris puts this in perspective: “...this thrice-mentioned mechanism beautifully summarized what we now call the hydrologic cycle, and it did so over 2,000 years before the cycle began to be understood by modern scientists. In order to provide rain to water the earth, there must be vapors ascending all over the earth (that is, evaporation from the worldʼs great oceans), winds then blowing from Godʼs unseen treasury (actually the global atmospheric circulation), and, finally, lightnings for (or “with”) the rain (electrical discharges associated with the condensation and coalescence of the particles of water vapor in the atmosphere).”19 The process described transports purified waters from the back into the atmosphere to later fall as either rain or snow, then runs off back into the oceans. Solomon spoke of this endless cycle in Ecclesiastes 1:7: “All the rivers run into the sea, Yet the sea is not full; To the place from which the rivers come, There they return again.” Is it remotely possible that uneducated man who wrote the Bible either from personal knowledge or by pure guesswork could have written of these matters long before the experts understood the processes themselves.

Chapter 12 Discussion Questions 1. Describe the purpose of the “internal test” of the Bible.

121 Evidence from Scripture

2. What types of evidence are considered in the internal test of the Bible?

3. Why is the Bible sometimes called “The Book of books”?

4. How does unity of its content show the Bible could not have been authored by the men whose names appear on each book?

5. List some ways the Bible is unique among all books ever written.

6. Name some ways the Bible changes lives.

7. To what extent has the Bible impacted the lives of people both globally and historically?

122 The Case for Divinity

8. What is prophecy?

9. What is the logical process by which biblical prophecy proclaims the existence of a Divine Being?

10. Please name some prophecies of Scripture which you ﬁnd most impressive.

123 Chapter 13 Evidence for Evil (Sin)

ne of the arguments C. S. Lewis advanced for creation by a Supreme Intelligent Being, which we looked at in Chapters 3 and 5, is a law he called the Law of Human Nature. Some have called it the Moral Law, a reference to a universal law of “right” versus “wrong”, of “good” over “evil”. He did not argue for a standard code, but rather that everyone had some code. What one person counts as evil or good may differ from anotherʼs view, but everyone knows there is a difference between the two, has drawn a moral line separating the two, and to one degree or another subscribes to that code of conduct. Experience dictates there are many different assessments of what is right and what is wrong. American societyʼs general line between the two has moved dramatically since the 1960s. Much more of what was once thought evil or bad conduct is now accepted by society as right or even good. We live in a society which defines immorality much more loosely than a few decades ago. For example, many today count abortion and homosexuality a personal choice not to be judged by others. Such was not the case just three or four decades ago. The increasingly popular New Age philosophy promotes the concept that whatever the individual deems true, is true. Every individual is his or her own judge. Each person is god. This is the very core of Humanism, a “religion” that is growing in popularity. So, in the midst of this prevailing mindset, what of the concept of sin? What is sin? Some might define sin as being that which is evil. Probably everything that society would call evil is actually sin, but certainly society would not call all sin evil. Many forms of immorality are winked at. So, what is sin? In Chapter 1 we learned there is absolute truth, then in Chapters 3 and 5 that we were created by a loving God. It logically follows that He must have created us for a purpose, and He wants us to fulfill His design for us, which includes adhering to His law, biblical truth (Chapters 11 and 12). So, how does God define sin? The apostle John penned the Lordʼs views in 1 John 3:4... “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.” The conclusion we must reach is that what society thinks is wrong is not necessarily sin. What our neighbor thinks is wrong is not necessarily sin. In fact, what you or I think is sin is not necessarily sin. The prophet, Jeremiah, declared,... “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.” (Jeremiah 10:23) Sin is not defined by man; it is defined by Godʼs law. Whatever is unlawful before God is sin. Clearly, abiding by His law is the answer to sin. And, the Bible contains that law. According to the inspired apostle Paul... “...the wages of sin is death,...” (Romans 6:23)

124 The Case for Divinity

Paul also stated in Romans 3:23... “...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,...” What a frightening state to be in! All have sinned! And, the wages due all who have sinned is death, eternal death! But, it gets worse. There is a dilemma we all face, a conflict described by Paulʼs own experience... “I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Romans 7:22-24) We each have within a force pulling us toward sinfulness. A human, worldly force — perhaps we could call it ego — an internal, strong desire to do what pleases the inward person. The inspired apostle John warns us of it in 1 John 2:16... “For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life —is not of the Father but is of the world.” But, Paul doesnʼt leave us hanging. Having said... “...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,...” he added “...being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 3:23, 24) He also wrote... “...the wages of sin is death,...” he added “...but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23) Jesus is the answer! He paid the price for my sins... and yours! The next chapter is devoted to Evidence for Jesus Christ, our Savior from sin and folly.

Chapter 13 Discussion Questions 1. What is absolute truth?

2. Describe what C. S. Lewis called the Law of Human Nature?

125 Evidence for Evil (Sin)

3. In what sense is there universal agreement with this law?

4. How does the Law of Human Nature compare with the absolute truth.

5. Describe sin and its reward.

6. What has God provided for us to avoid sin and its consequences?

7. Is it possible for anyone to live Godʼs law blamelessly? If not, why not?

8. What is the answer to the dilemma of sin?

126 Chapter 14 Evidence for Jesus Christ

here are a number of ways in which a person might live so that history records him or her as a great man or woman. One website, under the heading Greatest People of All Time1, lists Nirmala Srivastava, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Mahatma Gandhi, Buddha, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Abraham Lincoln, and Mother Teresa as the ten greatest. Visitors to the site are asked to vote on their order of who is most important, and the order in which I listed them above was the order of names on that site when I accessed it. I do not know some of those on the list. While I recognize some (Mother Teresa and Mahatma Gandhi) for their contribution to people in their time, and some (Albert Einstein and Leonardo da Vinci) for lasting contribution to history, and some (Mohammed, Buddha and Abraham Lincoln) for their unusual leadership, I find it difficult to include Jesus Christ in the same list. Of course there are many other notable names of history: Adolph Hitler, Louis Pasteur, George Washington, Julius Caesar, Abraham Lincoln, Socrates, Winston Churchill, Aristotle, Stalin, Barack Obama, and many more. Some of these were notably good and some notably bad. If Jesus were no more than a great moral teacher, He could be listed with other human beings and compared with them for the title “Greatest of All”. But, is that the way He should be judged? Was He a great man? Maybe even the greatest? Was He a man in the sense of other men? If not, what evidence is there that Jesus of Nazareth was more than a man, that He was what He claimed to be, divinity in human flesh. To investigate His claim, we will consider messianic prophecy, Jesusʼ miracles, His claims for Himself, His resurrection, and the testimony of others later in history.

Messianic Prophecy “Messianic” prophecy is the foretelling of events and characteristics of the “messiah”, a king to be sent by God to save the Jews. Jesus of Nazareth is the one person in history who fit all of the messianic prophecies. No others have. The number of those prophecies recorded in the Old Testament is staggering. Especially when remembered that they came from men of different times, locations, education and social stations. Ferrell Jenkins observes in his Introduction to Christian Evidences,... “Henry Lidden is credited with the statement that there are 332 prophecies fulfilled in Christ. The mathematical probability that all of these could be fulfilled in one person by sheer chance alone has been calculated at one over 84 (followed by 123 zeros). That would be 84 x 10123.”2

1 Greatest People of All Time, The Top Tens, http://www.thetoptens.com/greatest-people/ (Accessed 12/22/04) 2 Jenkins, Ferrell, Introduction to Christian Evidences (1981) A Guardian of Truth Publication, Guardian of Truth Foundation, Bowling Green, Kentucky, p. 106

127 The Case for Divinity

Another calculation of the odds, which I have seen, starts with the question, “What is the total probability, without God, of one man fulfilling just seven prophecies?” The mathematical odds have been calculated at 1038 or… 1 in 100 billion, billion, billion, billion!! Thatʼs the odds of only seven prophecies coming true by chance in one person. What are the odds of only 48 coming true in one man? One in 10157! But, there are not 48. There are 332!! In this chapter, we will look at just a few of these... • Ten prophecies about the birth of Christ...3 1. “Jesus will come from the line of Abraham. Prophecy: Genesis 12:3. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:1. 2. “Jesusʼ mother will be a virgin. Prophecy: Isaiah 7:14. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:18– 23. 3. “Jesus will be a descendent of Isaac and Jacob. Prophecy: Genesis 17:19 and Numbers 24:17. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:2. 4. “Jesus will be born in the town of Bethlehem. Prophecy: Micah 5:2. Fulfilled: Luke 2:1–7. 5. “Jesus will be called out of Egypt. Prophecy: Hosea 11:1. Fulfilled: Matthew 2:13–15. 6. “Jesus will be a member of the tribe of Judah. Prophecy: Genesis 49:10. Fulfilled: Luke 3:33. 7. “Jesus will enter the temple. This is important because the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and was never rebuilt. Prophecy: Malachi 3:1. Fulfilled: Luke 2:25–27. 8. “Jesus will be from the lineage of King David. Prophecy: Jeremiah 23:5. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:6. 9. “Jesusʼ birth will be accompanied with great suffering and sorrow. Prophecy: Jeremiah 31:15. Fulfilled: Matthew 2:16. 10. “Jesus will live a perfect life, die by crucifixion, resurrect from death, ascend into heaven, and sit at the right hand of God. Prophecies: Psalm 22:16; Psalm 16:10; Isaiah 53:10–11; Psalm 68:18; Psalm 110:1. Fulfilled: 1 Peter 2:21–22; Luke 23:33; Acts 2:25–32; Acts 1:9; Hebrews 1:3.” • Jesus would cleanse the temple...4 “Prophecy - ʻThen suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come, says the Lord.ʼ (NIV) Mal. 3:1 (433-424 B.C.)

3 Driscoll, Mark, 10 Prophecies About Jesusʼ Birth, Resurgence, Mars Hills Church, Seattle, Washington, http://theresurgence.com/2012/12/24/10-prophecies-about-jesus-birth 4 Prophecies About Jesusʼ Ministry, Never Thirsty, http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/prophecy-about-jesus/ ministry-of-jesus/main.html

128 Evidence for Jesus Christ

“Fulfillment - In the temple courts [Jesus] found men selling cattle, sheep and doves... So he made a whip out of cords and drove all from the temple . . . He said, ʻGet these out of here! How dare you turn my Fatherʼs house into a market!ʼ (NIV) John 2:14-16 “Comment - Shortly after Jesus started His ministry, He entered the temple in order to rebuke those who were using it as a business. This was predicted by Malachi. He also did it once more at the end of His ministry. The religious leaders did not honor the temple as a place of worship, and they did not care that they were displeasing God.” • Christ would present Himself as King 173,880 days from Artaxerxesʼ decree to rebuild Jerusalem. Note the following quotation...5 “Daniel 9:25: ʻKnow therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times.ʼ “In the fifth century B.C. a Hebrew named Nehemiah, then cup bearer to the Medo-Persian king Artaxerxes, wrote of the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem: “ʻAnd it came to pass in the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes, when wine was before him, I took wine and gave it to the king. Now I had never been sad in his presence before. Therefore, the king said to me ʻwhy is your face sad, since you are not sick.ʼ Nehemiah 2:1-2 (NKJ) “Nehemiah went on to explain that he was sad because he had heard reports that the city of his people, Jerusalem, was still desolate. Nehemiah, requested that he be allowed to go back to Jerusalem and rebuild the city. King Artaxerxes granted his wish on the spot and gave him official ʻlettersʼ or documents for easy passage. This occurred, we are told in the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanusʼ reign. “Artaxerxes Longimanus ascended to the throne of the Medo-Persian empire in July 465 B.C. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990 ed.). The twentieth year of his reign would have begun in July 446 B.C. The decree occurred approximately nine months later in the month of Nisan (March/April on our calendar). By Hebrew tradition when the day of the month is not specifically stated (as in Artaxerxes decree), it is given to be the first day of that month. Consequently, the very day of Artaxerxesʼ decree was the first day of the Hebrew month Nisan in 445 B.C. The first day of Nisan in 445 B.C. corresponds to the 14th day of March. These dates were confirmed through astronomical calculations at the British Royal Observatory and reported by Sir Robert Anderson (Robert Anderson, ʻThe Coming Princeʼ, Kregel. Reprinted in 1984.). “The prophecy states that 69 weeks of years (173,880 days using the 360 day prophetic year) after the command goes forth to restore and rebuild the city of Jerusalem the Messiah will come. If we count forward 173,880 days from March 14th 445 B.C. we arrive at April 6th 32 A.D.

129 The Case for Divinity

“How could Daniel, writing in 537 B.C., have known this in advance ? How could anyone have contrived to have this prediction documented over five centuries in advance?” • He was to come preaching good news...6 “Prophecy - ʻThe Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor . . . to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORDʼs favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve in Zion . . .ʼ (NIV) Isa. 61:1-3 “Fulfillment - ʻThe Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lordʼs favor.ʼ (NIV) Luke 4:18-19 “Comment - The prophet Isaiah 740 - 680 B.C. predicted that the Messiah would come preaching good news, and He did. He announced that He came to proclaim the kingdom was near (Luke 4:43) if they would respond (Luke 7:30). He also came to tell us that He had come to die for our sins (John 12:27). This is remarkable since the Israelites were looking for a military conqueror and not a teacher and preacher.” • Jesus would speak in parables...7 “Prophecy - ʻI will open my mouth in parables, I will utter hidden things from of old.ʼ (NIV) Psalms 78:2 (1410-450 B.C.) “Fulfillment - ʻJesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”ʼ (NIV) Matt. 13:34-35 “Comment - The prophecy in Psalm 78:2 predicted that the Messiah would speak in parables. That is exactly what Jesus did according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. • Jesus would come as a King riding on a donkey...8 “In Zechariah 9:9, the prophet speaks of a future king presenting himself to Jerusalem while riding on a humble donkey. This foreshadowed something that happened about 500 years later. As explained in Luke 19:35-37, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and presented himself as the Messiah, the King.” • The people would reject Him...9 “Prophecy - ʻHe was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering . . .ʼ (NIV). Isa. 53:3 (700-681 B.C.)

6 Prophecies About Jesusʼ Ministry, Never Thirsty, http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/prophecy-about-jesus/ ministry-of-jesus/main.html 7 Ibid. 8 The Messiah would enter Jerusalem while riding on a donkey, http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/ zechariah_9_9.htm 9 Prophecies About Jesusʼ Ministry, Never Thirsty, http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/prophecy-about-jesus/ ministry-of-jesus/main.html

130 Evidence for Jesus Christ

“Fulfillment - ʻTherefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” . . . He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. So from that day on they plotted to take his life.ʼ (NIV) John 11:47-53 “ʻHe came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God . . .ʼ (NIV) John 1:11-12 “Comment - The national leaders plotted Jesusʼ death a) because they did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah and b) because they were jealous of His popularity. The ancient prophecy of Isaiah even predicted that this would occur.” • He would be betrayed by a friend...10 “Prophecy - ʻEven my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up His heel against meʼ (NKJV). Ps. 41:9 “Fulfillment - ʻJudas Iscariot . . . betrayed Him.ʼ (NKJV) Matt. 10:4 “ʻThen Judas, who was betraying Him, answered and said, “Rabbi is it I?” He said to him, “You have said it .”ʼ (NASB) Matt. 26:25 “Comment - In 1020 - 970 B.C., King David predicted that the Messiah would be betrayed by a friend. Judas is well known as the one who agreed to help the Jewish religious leaders capture Jesus at a cost of thirty pieces of silver. Judas was later filled with grief and consequently hung himself (Matt. 27:3-8).” • They would divide His garments among themselves...11 “Prophecy - ʻThey divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots (NKJV).ʼ Ps. 22:18 “Fulfillment - ʻThen they crucified Him, and divided His garments, casting lots, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: “They divided My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots (NKJV).”ʼ Matt. 27:35 “Comment - After the soldiers crucified Jesus (nailed Him to the cross), they gambled for Jesusʼ clothes. Little did they know that they were fulfilling a 1000 years old prophecy. God through King David provided the prediction.” • He would be nailed to a cross, crucified...12 “Prophecy - ʻThey pierced my hands and feet; I can count all my bones (NKJV).ʼ Ps. 22:16-17

10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.

131 The Case for Divinity

“Fulﬁllment - ʻAnd when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they cruciﬁed Him (NKJV).ʼ Luke 23:33 “Comment - This prophecy was written about 900 B.C. and then in A.D. 33, the soldiers pierced His hands and feet with nails as they pounded the nails into the wood post of the cross. The apostle Thomas doubted the rumors that Jesus had returned to life. So he relied on the fact that Jesus would have nail holes in His hands and feet and a hole in His side as the proof that He was his master.”

Jesusʼ Miracles In His three year ministry, Jesus performed many miracles as recorded in the four gospel records. Among them, Jesus was born to a virgin, changed water into wine, healed a variety of people of various diseases and physical deformities, caught a record number of fish, raised the dead, calmed storms, fed thousands of men and their families with a few fish and loaves of bread, walked on water, survived death on a cross, raised Himself from the grave, and ascended into heaven. Like other aspects of the Lordʼs life, His miracles were foretold in Old Testament Scripture. • Jesus would heal the blind...13 “Prophecy - ʻSurely He took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.ʼ (NIV) Is. 53:4 (700-681 B.C.) “Fulfillment - When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to Him, and He drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: ʻHe took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.ʼ (NIV) Matt. 8:16-17 “Comment - Jesus was more than a teacher. He was also a healer. Ancient historians tell us that a report about Jesus Christ was written by Pontius Pilate and stored in the archives in Rome. The report confirms that Jesus did miracles.” • The Christ would perform various miracles...14 “Prophecy - ʻThen will the eyes of the blind be opened and ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy (NIV).ʼ Isa. 35:5-6 (700-681 B.C.) “Fulfillment - ʻ. . . a great number of people . . had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases. Those troubled by evil spirits were cured, and the people all tried to touch him, because power was coming from him and healing them all (NIV).ʼ Luke 6:17-19. “Comment - This is another picture of the Messiah that is given by Isaiah but was not understood by the Jews. They were so eagerly looking forward to a military Messiah that they missed the message of the prophecy. One with powers for healing the blind, lame, deaf and mute would come. There is no doubt that Jesus did this.” Jesusʼ Claims for Himself It may be surprising to you that in none of the four gospels did Jesus Christ claim in clear terms that He is God. He did, however, make claims that clearly imply He is Deity.

13 Ibid. 14 Ibid.

132 Evidence for Jesus Christ

The following list of claims has been grouped under headings, each heading implying some Divine deed, ability or attribute to which Jesus laid claim. The implication of His Deity was so strong that those who heard Him understood Him to be claiming to be God. Jesus claimed the sinless purity and perfection of God... • “Then Jesus said to them, ʻWhen you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.ʼ” (John 8:28-29) • “Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears Godʼs words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.” (John 8:46-47) Jesus claimed to be the only way to God... • “Jesus said to him, ʻI am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.ʼʼ” (John 14:6) • “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” (Matthew 11:27) Jesus claimed to have shared Godʼs heavenly glory... • “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” (John 17:5) Jesus claimed He could forgive sins... • “When He saw their faith, He said to him, ʻMan, your sins are forgiven you.ʼ And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, ʻWho is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?ʼ” (Luke 5:20-21) • “Then He said to her, ʻYour sins are forgiven.ʼ And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, ʻWho is this who even forgives sins?ʼ” (Luke 7:48-49) Jesus claimed to be king of the Jews... • “Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, ʻAre You the King of the Jews?ʼ Jesus said to him, ʻIt is as you say.ʼ” (Matthew 27:11) • “Then Pilate asked Him, ʻAre You the King of the Jews?ʼ He answered and said to him, ʻIt is as you say.ʼ” (Mark 15:2) • “Then the whole multitude of them arose and led Him to Pilate. And they began to accuse Him, saying, ʻWe found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.ʼ Then Pilate asked Him, saying, ʻAre You the King of the Jews?ʼ He answered him and said, ʻIt is as you say.ʼ” (Luke 23:1-3) Jesus claimed to be a Heavenly king... • “Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God.” (Luke 22:69) • “Jesus answered, ʻMy kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would ﬁght, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom

133 The Case for Divinity

is not from here.ʼ Pilate therefore said to Him, ʻAre You a king then?ʼ Jesus answered, ʻYou say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.ʼ” (John 18:36-37) Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the Christ... • “The woman said to Him, ʻI know that Messiah is comingʼ (Who is called Christ) ʻWhen He comes, He will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, ʻI who speak to you am He.ʼ” (John 4:25, 26) Jesus claimed to be eternal... • “Jesus said to them, ʻMost assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.ʼ” (John 8:58) Jesus claimed He could give everlasting life... • “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:40) • “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.” (John 6:47) • “And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Fatherʼs hand. I and My Father are one.” (John 10:28-30) • “Jesus said to her, ʻI am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.ʼ” (John 11:25) Jesus claimed He would return to life after death... • “...My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.” (John 10:17) • “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” This He said, signifying by what death He would die.” (John 12:32-33) • “A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me, because I go to the Father.” (John 16:16) • “Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, ʻBehold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.ʼ” (Luke 18:31-33) Jesus claimed that He would return again to judge the world... • “For as the lightning comes from the east and ﬂashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together. Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:27-30)

134 Evidence for Jesus Christ

• “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.” (Matthew 25:31-32) • “But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, ʻAre You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?ʼ Jesus said, ʻI am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.ʼ” (Mark 14:61-62)

Are Jesusʼ Claims Believable? Someone might ask, “Should we believe all the claims Jesus made for Himself? There is no doubt He was a great moral teacher, but God...?” Here is C. S. Lewisʼ oft quoted answer, but as you read, please keep in mind that Lewis was once a staunch atheist: “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: Iʼm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I donʼt accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a ﬁend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.”15 Lewisʼ appeal to logic is “spot on” as the Brits would say. It is an interesting exercise to locate yourself in Lewisʼ comments. Do you believe Jesus was a “lunatic” — “on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg” — or “the Devil of Hell”? I hope neither. Fair treatment of the vast amount of indisputable evidence demands belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God, God Himself. What are the reasons anyone would make the claims Jesus made? C. S. Lewis was the ﬁrst to popularize this answer in his now famous Trilemma argument. As Lewis claimed, there are only four possible reasons Jesus could have made the claims He made. He was either a legend (that is, not a real person), or a liar, a lunatic or the Lord whom He claimed to be, as the chart on the right depicts...

15 Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity, London: Collins, 1952, pp. 54 – 56. (In all editions, this is Bk. II, Ch. 3, The Shocking Alternative.)

135 The Case for Divinity

Christʼs Resurrection All four gospels tell of a few women visiting the tomb and finding it empty. Matthew wrote that as they were leaving Jesus met them. They fell down in worship, and He told them to go tell the men of His resurrection from the dead. Peter and John verified the tomb was empty. Mark and Luke tell that shortly after His resurrection, Jesus talked with two disciples as they walked on the road to Emmaus. Luke and John report that Jesus appeared to His disciples and invited them to handle His wounds that they might know “...a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have”. (Luke 24:39) John also tells us about Jesus meeting His apostles at the seashore and having breakfast with them. All of this after He had been put to death on the cross. Later Paul reported Jesus “...was seen by over five hundred brethren at once”. (1 Corinthians 15:6) Of course, these are all Scriptural references to those who saw Jesus after His burial. But, there is more. About His momentous return from the dead Josephus, an unconverted Jew, reported... “Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for He was a doer of wonderful works, - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross (A.D. 33, April 3), those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for He appeared to them alive again the third day (April 5), as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”16 There have been many attempts by non-believers to explain away Christʼs resurrection. One popular theory is the swoon theory, i.e., Jesus did not really die on the cross, but only fainted, survived the burial, awoke and walked out of the tomb. Really? Consider His wounds beginning hours before His crucifixion, then the time on the cross, and three days in the tomb without medical attention. And, if the coolness of the tomb did revive Him as theyʼve claimed, who moved the heavy stone from before the tomb, and why did the guards not take Him when He stepped out of the tomb? Itʼs too much of a stretch to believe. Another hypothesis, which has been advanced, is that the disciples stole the body away. It is true that the disciples would seem to have the strongest motive to steal the body, but anyone believing they did must also believe that all of them were willing to suffer great persecution and even cruel deaths without telling the truth about the theft. And, there were hundreds who reportedly saw Him after His resurrection. It is very hard to believe all of them would be martyred for their faith without admitting the truth, that they really did not see Him. F. F. Bruce had this to say about eyewitness testimony... “The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of … first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and again. ʻWe are witnesses of these things,ʼ was their constant and confident assertion. And it could have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened. “And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry

16 Josephus, Josephus Complete Works (1960) p. 379, Antiquities of the Jews, xviii, iii, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

136 Evidence for Jesus Christ

and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ʻWe are witnesses of these things,ʼ but also, ʻAs you yourselves also knowʼ (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective.”17 The biblical record of numerous eyewitness accounts has not been successfully refuted, in biblical times nor in later history. The evidence for the resurrection is too strong. Later Testimony Though atheists still exist today refusing to consider the evidence for Christ or refusing to believe when they see it, many atheists down through history have considered the evidence and been converted. One of those is Frank Morrison. Morrison set out to write a book about Christʼs last days to prove He was not who He claimed to be. Research for writing his book caused him to convert. In the first chapter of Who Moved the Stone?18, in a chapter entitled The Book That Refused To Be Written, Morrison confessed,... “It seemed to me that if I could come at the truth why this man died a cruel death at the hands of the Roman power, how He Himself regarded the matter, and especially how He behaved under the test, I should be very near to the true solution of the problem. “Such, briefly, was the purpose of the book I had planned. I wanted to take this last phase of the life of Jesus, with all its quick and pulsating drama, its sharp, clear-cut background of antiquity, and its tremendous psychological and human interest -- to strip it of its overgrowth of primitive beliefs and dogmatic suppositions, and to see this supremely great Person as He really was. “I need not stay to describe here how, fully ten years later, opportunity came to study the life of Christ as I had long wanted to study it, to investigate the origins of its literature, to some of the evidence at first hand, and to form my own judgment on the problem it presents. I will only say that it effected a revolution in my thought. Things emerged from old-world story that previously I should have thought impossible. Slowly but very definitely the conviction grew the drama of those unforgettable weeks of human history stranger and deeper than it seemed. It was the strangeness of many notable things in the story that first arrested and held my interest. It was only later that the irresistible logic of their meaning came into view.” Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853), an agnostic and one of the founders of Harvard Law School, is noted for developing a school of thought known as judicial or legal apologetics, which he and other legal minds have used to determine the truthfulness of the resurrection story in the four gospels. Greenleaf wrote the authoritative 3-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842 ). His work and his book, Testimony of the Evangelists, inspired Lee Strobel, an atheist and Legal Editor of the Tribune. Strobel, an expert in courtroom analysis, examined the evidence and wrote

17 F. F. Bruce. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Downers Grove, IL 60515, Inter-Varsity Press, 1964. pp. 33, 44-46, cited by W. R. Miller, Archaeologists of the Christian Faith: Ancient Evidence for the Bible … in Spades, http://www.tektonics.org/archmony.htm 18 Morrison, Frank, Who Moved the Stone (1958) Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 11, 12

137 The Case for Divinity

The Case for Christ. I mention the books by Greenleaf and Strobel as excellent material for further analysis of the evidence for the Divinity of Jesus Christ. One more atheistic attorney turned believer is worthy of mention. One of the greatest lawyers in British history, Sir Lionel Luckhoo, is in the Guinness Book of World Records as the “Worldʼs Most Successful Advocate”. An attorney with 245 consecutive murder acquittals to his record, Luckhoo was an atheist. But, after evaluating the evidence for Christ, he came out strongly in support of the truthfulness of Christʼs resurrection. He wrote... “ʻ…I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.ʼ”19

Where is Jesus now? After Jesus was resurrected from the dead, He appeared to many who serve as witnesses to His resurrection. What happened next? Where is Jesus now? His last appearance as recorded by John was to the apostles at the Sea of Galilee where they had been fishing. They ate breakfast with Him. (John 21:12-15) Luke picks up the story in Acts 1. There we read... “The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” (Acts 1:1-3) Then came that inevitable day when He must conclude his mission on earth and return to the Father in heaven. The apostles were there to witness His departure. It was during this time that He gave them the great commission to go into all the world and preach the good news about salvation which He died to provide. Luke continues... “Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, ʻMen of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.ʼ” (Acts 1:9-11) Jesus parted this earth with a promise on His lips that He would return in like manner. Later, the inspired Paul added to the picture of where Jesus went and what He is doing until He comes again... “But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 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. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christʼs at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to

19 Why should I believe in Christʼs resurrection? Got Questions Ministries [Accessed 29 Nov. 2014] http:// www.gotquestions.org/why-believe-resurrection.html.

138 Evidence for Jesus Christ

all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For ʻHe has put all things under His feet.ʼ But when He says ʻall things are put under Him,ʼ it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:20-28) In Romans 8, Paul tells of Christʼs present work of loving us and making intercession with the Father on our behalf: “It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written: “ʻFor Your sake we are killed all day long; “We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.ʼ “Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:34b-39)

Chapter 14 Discussion Questions 1. How strong is the prophetic evidence we have in Scripture?

2. How strong is the eyewitness testimony for Christʼs resurrection?

3. Did Jesus claim to be God in ﬂesh? If not, what did He claim?

139 The Case for Divinity

4. Which of His claims do you believe comes closest to afﬁrming His divinity? Why?

5. Some say Jesus was not God, only a gifted, moral teacher. How would you answer such a statement?

6. What is the signiﬁcance of a skilled attorney turning from a life of atheism to being an outspoken believer in the resurrection? Is it more signiﬁcant than any other person making the same change in belief? If so, why?

7. What kinds of evidence do we have that Jesus raised from the dead and lives again?

8. Is it important to you that Christ arose from the grave? Why?

140 Chapter 15 A Response is Required

egardless of the perspective used, there is an abundant amount of evidence for the case of Divinity. We have considered: • Evidence for Truth, • Evidence for a First Cause, • Evidence for God, • Evidence for Theistic Evolution?, (Is there any?) • Evidence for Creation, • Evidence for a Young Earth, Just evidence for the foregoing should be enough to convince the skeptic that God is real and creation is the word that best describes how the universe got here. But, the evidence doesnʼt stop there. Many fields of science offer concrete evidence of God and His creation, and I believe I can say without successful contradiction, that no field of science has uncovered any point of truth that is in conflict with the existence of a creative Deity. These statements were verified by our look at... • Evidence from Physical Science, • Evidence from Paleontology, • Evidence from Life Sciences, and • Evidence from Formal Science. If evolution has not been proven true, then creation must be true. This states1 it well... “Outside these two alternatives, there is no third claim or hypothesis today regarding how life emerged. According to the rules of logic, if one answer to a question with two alternative possible answers is proved to be false, then the other must be true. This rule, one of the most fundamental in logic, is called disjunctive inference (modus tollendo ponens). “In other words, if it is demonstrated that living species on Earth did not evolve by chance, as the theory of evolution claims, then that is clear proof that they were formed by a Creator. Scientists who support the theory of evolution agree that there is no third alternative. One of these, Douglas Futuyma, makes the following statement: “ʻOrganisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of

1 Oktar, Adnan, The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution in Twenty Questions, 2. How Does the Collapse of the Theory of Evolution Demonstrate the Truth of Creation?, Darwinism Refuted.com, http:// www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions02.html (Accessed 5/2/2015)

141 The Case for Divinity

modiﬁcation. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.2” As the Psalmist David proclaimed in his 19th Psalm, when one contemplates the vastness and intelligence of the universe, the logical conclusion is that the Divine Intelligence behind it all communicated to us how we, His creatures, should conduct ourselves. David declared, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;...”, and continued extolling the word and its effect on the learner. As we saw, the Bible constitutes an evidence for Divinity as well in both... • Evidence for Scripture, and • Evidence from Scripture. There should be no doubt in our minds, having considered the evidence for and from Scripture, that the Bible is a Divine message to you and to me. David said Godʼs law is perfect, and so it is. Absolute truth. The problem is we sometimes fail to live up to its teaching. We sin. Not just a social “faux pas”, but sin, i.e., transgression of Godʼs law as we saw in... • Evidence for Evil (Sin). The state of sin is bleak. So, what can be done about sin? God didnʼt leave His creatures to fend for themselves in the dark, guilt-ridden, condemning pit of our sin. No! He sent His only Son, God Himself, Who participated in our creation, our own Creator to sacriﬁce His sinless Self to pay for my sins and yours. And, He assured there was an abundance of evidence to demonstrate the divinity of the One sent, Jesus of Nazareth. We considered some of it in our study of... • Evidence for Jesus Christ. How should I respond to all of this? How should you? While we have looked at a lot of evidence, there is even more... much, much more. Enough to convince even the most reluctant, but honest heart, that God exists, that He created all in the universe, that He made man in His own image and endowed him with intelligence and free will. It should be clear that God did that for a purpose, His purpose. And, that He expects and would be pleased by an obedient response from each one of us. Someone groans, “Do I have to obey Him?” No, God does not force obedience. If He did, He would be overriding the free will He gave us. No, He wants a voluntary commitment from each one to recognize Him for who He is, and to serve Him because of who He is. Surely, thatʼs why He gave us so much evidence. Someone else says, “Iʼll not respond now. Maybe later.” Of course, free will means you donʼt have to agree to obey Him, but a failure to give a positive response is automatically a negative one. You canʼt say, “Iʼll not respond.” Each person of accountable age responds either for or against God. The intelligent individual honestly weighs the evidence and decides that learning and obeying Godʼs will is the wisest course. Are you responding to His evidence in a positive or a negative way?

What Does It All Mean? There are many reasons to believe in a Divine Savior by the name of Jesus Christ. Nobody else in the annals of history has the verifying evidence that Jesus has. In his book, The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel offers this...

2 Ibid (Oktar) citing Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, Pantheon Books, New York, 1983, p. 197.

142 A Response is Required

...”The fact is that we have better historical documentation for Jesus than for the founder of any other ancient religion. For example, although the Gathas of Zoroaster, about 1000 B.C., are believed to be authentic, most of the Zoroastrian scriptures were not put into writing until after the third century A.D. The most popular Parsi biography of Zoroaster was written in A.D. 1278. The scriptures of Buddha, who lived in the sixth century B.C., were not put into writing until after the Christian era, and the ﬁrst biography of Buddha was written in the ﬁrst century A.D. Although we have the sayings of Muhammad, who lived from A.D. 570 to 632, in the Koran, his biography was not written until 767—more than a full century after his death.3 Any honest person of reasonable intelligence who is seeking to know the truth about lifeʼs important matters (How did we get here? What is the purpose of life? What happens, if anything, after death?) has only to consider the evidence. The case for Divinity is overwhelming. One need not “take it on faith”, as some might say, but rather simply consider the evidence and draw the necessary, logical conclusions. Then, based upon true faith, a faith borne by reasoned convictions, act in obedience to His loving will. The only proper result must be submission to the will of an all-wise, benevolent Father in Heaven.... Preferably before the last day, the day of judgment.

How Do I Respond Positively? Perhaps you have previously believed the evidence for Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, and His sacriﬁce for the sins of mankind. And, perhaps you have previously committed your life to obeying Christʼs teachings. If so, hopefully our analysis of the vast amount of evidence there is has strengthened your commitment, and you can say with Lee Strobel,... “For me, the historical evidence has reinforced my commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God who loves us and died for us and was raised from the dead. Itʼs that simple.”4 If thatʼs the case, I believe all who are committed would do well to heed the advice the apostle Paul gave to the Corinthian brethren in 1 Corinthians 4:2: “...it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.” Or, perhaps you have never committed your life to Christ, your Creator and the One you will answer to regarding how you have spent the years on earth He has given you. In view of the evidence we have seen, the only reasonable course is to worship God in Jesus Christ and obey the instructions He has given in the Bible. God is. He created the universe including you and me, He gave His only Son on the cross as a sacriﬁce for our sins, because everyone of us has sinned and cannot pay the debt of sin we owe. Jesus went to the cross and paid our debt, then arose from the grave promising a similar resurrection from eternal death to all who commit themselves to obeying Him. Before departing the earth and returning to heaven, Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16) Belief in Jesus as the Son of God who gave His blood on the cross to save us from our sins is fundamental. That belief, if sincere, will motivate one to obey the commands of Jesus and the inspired men who penned the New Testament will of Christ. Actually, when we search the New

3 Strobel, Lee, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), quoting Edwin Yamauchi, pp. 86-87. 4 Ibid (Strobel) quoting Edwin Yamauchi, p. 90.

143 The Case for Divinity

Testament for all the things a person is told to do to enter a saving relationship with the Christ, we find these: • Hear the word of God - “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17) • Believe the message heard - “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” (Hebrews 11:6) • Repent of past sins - “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30) • Confess your believe in Him - “...if your confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Rom. 10:9) • Be baptized, i.e., immersed in water - “...do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin.” (Romans 6:3-7) • Be faithful; walk in the Light - “If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:6, 7) Many in denominational Christianity have claimed one need only believe, and he or she will be saved. They need to be reminded that “even the demons believe—and tremble!” (James 2:19) God is not satisfied with belief in Him unless it moves the believer to obey His will. From a pragmatic standpoint, what good is belief in anything unless it moves us to act or react in some way? While Scripture speaks of more being done to be saved than simply being baptized, baptism is spoken of as the step that puts one into Christ where salvation is. Galatians 3:27 reads,...“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” And when the apostle Peter explained about how Noah and his family “were saved through water”, he went on to say in 1 Peter 3:21,...“There is also an antitype which now saves us— baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,...” The apostle Paulʼs conversion was accomplished in baptism as we are told in Acts 22:16: “And now why are you waiting? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Baptism is key to our salvation, the point at which oneʼs sins are “washed away”. To “receive God” by belief only, without being baptized into His Son is a sure path to condemnation. Some in recent times have practiced and taught baptism by sprinkling or pouring rather than immersion. It was not so in the first century when Christ commanded baptism. He used the

144 A Response is Required

Greek word “baptizo”5 meaning immersion in water. Since God is the One who offers salvation and puts us into Jesus Christ where salvation is, it behooves us to do things His way. He said, “baptizo”, so immersion it must be. There is nothing more urgent or important than a positive response to the Saviorʼs call.

Chapter 15 Discussion Questions 1. What are the necessary steps one must take before being baptized to make baptism mean more than simply immersion in water? In other words, what must precede baptism to put one into Christ?

2. What is necessary after salvation in order to assure salvation?

3. What is your present relationship to Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world?

4. Have you put on Jesus Christ as your personal Savior by being baptized into His name?

5 Vine, W. E.; Unger, Merrill F.; Whie, William, Jr., Vineʼs Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, “Baptism, Baptist, Baptize, B. Verb”, p. 50 (1985) Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tenn.

145 General Index

Alphabetical by Subject 1st Law of Thermodynamics appearance, Christʼs 138 B 8, 47, 60, 64 appendix 75, 76 babies 44-46, 49 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Ar 67 baby morality 44, 46, 49 9, 10, 12, 47, 60, 64 Ar-Ar 67 Babylon 119, 120 Aramaic 109, 116 Babylonian Invasion 120 A archaeological discoveries Babylonians 43 235U 67, 68 107, 109, 112, 113 bacteria 61, 81, 86, 89 238U 67, 68 archaeologists 107, 108, bacterial ﬂagellum 86 40Ar* 67 112, 137 bad design 17, 18 40K 67 archaeology 106-108, Bambiraptor 38 A Response is Required, 110-113 baptism 144, 145 Chapter 15: 141 argon (Ar) 54, 65-67 baptizo 145 abiogenesis theory 40, 79 Aristotelian language 4 Barack Obama 127 Abraham 33, 128, 134 Aristotle 1, 104, 127 Bathsheba 118 Archaeorapter 38 Artaxerxes 129 bats 40 Archaeopteryx 38 Arctic Circle 51 beak morphology 38, 40 Adam 25, 27, 32, 110, 138 Arizona State University 68 beasts 30, 73 adaptation 30, 38, 81, 97 Ashkelon 112, 120 Beersheba 112 agnostic 5, 137 Assyria 120 behemoth 73 Alexander the Great 119 Assyrian king Shalmaneser III believer 5, 45, 138, 140, 144 alive 70, 88, 136, 138 112 Bethlehem 128 American 17, 109, 124 Assyrians 112, 120 Bible xi, xiii, xiv, 2, 5, 7, 10-13, American Meteorological asteroid impacts 32 15, 16, 25, 26, 28-32, 34, Society 62 astrobiology 79 35, 43, 50, 52, 54, 61, 62, American Museum 69 astronomers 24 73, 102-104, 106-122, amino acids 40, 79, 81 astronomical clocks 51 124, 137, 142, 143 Ammon 119 astronomy 24, 51, 59, 62, Bibliographical test 103-104, ammonia 40, 80 93,129 114, 116 Amos 120 AstroPhysicist 42 Big Bang Theory 8-13, 22, amphibians 22, 87 Ataturk, Mustafa Kemal 127 26, 30, 31, 57, 60, 70 Andes 51 atheism 4, 5, 42, 140 biochemical systems 84 angels 25-27, 135, 139 atheists 3, 5, 23, 46, 106, biochemistry 81, 84, 86, 87, angels, Satanʼs 25-27 117, 118, 137 89 animals 16, 24, 32, 33, 44, atmosphere 24, 52, 61-63, biographies 118, 143 38, 47, 65, 69, 70-72, 75, 65, 67, 79, 80, 121 Buddha, of 143 79, 84, 87, 98, 110 atoms 41, 53, 93, 96, 97 Mohammad, of 143 anthropology 46, 79, 93 Austen Layard 112 Zoroaster, of 143 antibiotic 81 Australia 3, 79 biologists 38, 41, 68, 89 antitype 144 authority 102, 107, 108, 113, biology 38, 41, 59, 60, 65, Apocrypha 102 139 70, 79, 80, 89, 90 apostles 118, 136, 138

146 General Index birds 16, 22, 30, 33, 34, 38, cattle 34, 129 cities 72,74 cause (see ﬁrst cause) Babylon 119, 120 Black Obelisk of cavemen 27 Jerusalem 111, 112, 129, Shalmaneser III 112 cavewomen 27 130, 134 blasphemies 133 cedar 73 of Judah 111 blind 81, 82, 84, 97, 98, 100, cell 17, 41, 52, 76, 79, 82, Nineveh 112 130, 132 85, 90 Nazareth 127, 135, 142 blood clotting 86 chance 8, 13, 23, 37, 39, 41, Philistine 120 bones 38, 71, 73, 74, 86, 98, 42, 44, 49, 56, 62, 63, 81, Rome 119, 132 119, 131, 136 82, 84, 94, 95, 98-100, Sumerian 110 botany 79 119, 127, 128, 141 clams 66 bread 131, 132 chaos 24, 26, 27, 39, 82 climate 50-52, 62 breakfast 136, 138 Chapter Discussion Questions climate control 62 brethren 103, 113, 136, 143 Chapter 1 6, 7 clouds 11, 62, 134, 135 Britannica, Encyclopedia 65, Chapter 2 13, 14 coal 51, 66 80, 82, 129 Chapter 3 20, 21 codes 82, 83, 111 British 42, 53, 79, 98, 138 Chapter 4 35, 36 comets 52, 55, 56, 63, 79 Museum of Natural Chapter 5 47-49 commandments 101, 138 History 69, 108, 112 Chapter 6 56-58 commission, great 138 Royal Observatory 129 Chapter 7 63, 64 commitment 142, 143 Buddha 127, 143 Chapter 8 76-78 complexity 22, 39-41, 47, 60, Buddhism 5, 19 Chapter 9 90-92 66, 82-87, 90-92, 94, 95, burial 136 Chapter 10 99, 100 117 Chapter 11 113-115 complexity, irreducible 39, C Chapter 12 121-123 84-87, 91, 92 C. S. Lewis 18, 42-44, 49, Chapter 13 125, 126 condemnation 144 96, 97, 100, 124, 125, 135 Chapter 14 139, 140 Confucianism 19 Caesar 104, 127, 133 Chapter 15 145 conquerors 139 Caesarʼs Gallic Wars 104 Charles Darwin (See Darwin, Conservation of Energy Law Calah 112 Charles) 8 Caltech (Calif. Institute of chemistry 43, 60, 79, 80 Constitutions 118 Technology) 68 Chicago, University of 40, 112 conversion 42, 90, 144 California 61, 62, 69, 116, China 38 conviction 5, 137, 143 118 Chinese 43 Correspondence Theory 4 Cambrian Explosion 69-71, Christ, Jesus 5, 13, 19, 27, cosmic evolution 25 77 30, 35, 107, 109, 110, Cosmological Argument 16, Cambrian period 51, 69 113, 118, 120, 125, 20 Cambrian strata 51 127-140, 142-145 cosmologist xi, 42 Cambridge University 79, 80, Christianity 1-3, 5, 18, 20-23, cosmogony 26, 33 88 42-44, 108, 109, 118, 135, cosmology 11, 12 Campus Crusade for Christ 144 cosmos 26, 29 107, 120 Christian 2, 10, 11, 34, 42, councils 103 Canaan 120 105, 106, 108, 127, 137, courtroom analysis 137 Canada 51 143 covenant 128 canon 102 churches 102, 118 creation xi, xii, xiv, 5,10,12,13, carbon-14 dating 52, 65, 66 Churchill, Winston 127 15-52, 55-64, 66, 69-72, carbon dioxide 61, 65 Cicero 108 79, 81, 83, 90, 93, 95, 99, Cardiff University 79 cilia 86, 87 cataclysm, global 25, 27

147 The Case for Divinity

101, 110, 121, 124, 130, Darwinists 77, 79, 81, 89, 93, Chapter 12 121-123 141, 142 97 Chapter 13 125, 126 Creation Kingdoms 33 David, psalmist and king 16, Chapter 14 139, 140 Creation, Evidence for 37-49 34, 101, 111, 118, 128, Chapter 15 145 Creation Science, 131, 142 disease 32, 93 Encyclopedia of 107, 108 day 3, 12, 15, 17, 23-25, 27, dispensationalism 26 Creation Week 25, 32, 52 29, 30-34, 52, 61, 72, distress 139 Creationism 22, 31, 37, 46, 136, 138, 139101, 111, Divine 3, 12, 16, 21, 25, 26, 50 129-131, 134, 143 35, 42, 45-47, 59-61, 75, Creationism, Progressive 22, Day-Age Theory 22-24, 35 102, 113, 116, 117, 119, 23, 25, 30-32, Dead Sea Scrolls 106-110, 120, 123, 133, 136, 142 creationist 18, 50, 63, 66, 70, 115 Divine Intelligence 47, 75, 95 deaf 132 142 creation theory 70 death 1, 27, 30, 32, 46, 65, Divinity xiii, xiv, 4, 19, 45, 102, Creator xi, xiii, 3, 8, 13, 16- 66, 86, 111, 124, 125, 127, 138, 140, 142, 143 18, 21, 42, 44, 47, 50, 51, 128, 131, 132, 134, Divinity of Jesus Christ 19, 75, 83, 94, 96, 101, 102, 136-139, 143, 144 102, 127, 140, 142 113, 129, 141-143 deep, the 2, 29, 34, 61, 62, DNA 42, 74, 76, 79-83, 91 Creator King 33 120 DNA Genome Code 42 Creature Kings 33 deer 132 DNA, junk 76, 83, 91 creatures 33, 44, 70, 72-74, Deity 16, 19, 132, 133, 141 documentation 143 80, 81, 87, 88, 96, 142 demon-possessed 132 dolphin rib 69 cross 26, 27, 30, 131, 132, demons 32, 35, 144 donkey 130 136, 143 Demosthenes 104 dragon 73 crucified 131, 132, 144 denominationalists 34 dust cloud theory 11 crucifixion 128, 136 depth 67, 98, 139 dynamo theory 52 cyclical change 39 Designer 3, 8, 17, 31, 42, 74, E Cyrus 119 82 ears 132 Devil of Hell 135 D earth 10-12, 15, 22-34, 41, diamonds 66 da Vinci, Leonardo 127 50-59, 61, 62, 64-67, 70, dinosaurs 25, 38, 71-73, 77 Dan 111, 112, 119 71, 76, 79, 80, 82, 93, 99, bird-like 38 Daniel 113, 119, 120, 129, 110, 113, 117, 119, 121, digits of 72 130 134, 138, 141, 143 non-avian feathered 38 darkness 25, 29, 130, 144 earth, age of 22-36, 50-58, terrestrial 71 Darwin 15, 17, 18, 22, 23, 64-67, 71, 93, 99, 121 disciples 136, 137 35, 37-41, 47-48, 56-57, earth-moon relationship Discussion Questions 59, 68, 69, 71, 74, 75, 77, earthʼs magnetic field 52, 54, Chapter 1 6, 7 79, 81, 84, 85, 87, 89, 95, 55 Chapter 2 13, 14 97, 98, 100 earthʼs materials 23, 29, 41, Chapter 3 20, 21 Darwinʼs finches 37-38, 65, 66, 117 Chapter 4 35, 36 47-48, 81 East Pacific Rise 62 Chapter 5 47-49 Darwinʼs evolutionary tree ecology 60, 79, 88 Chapter 6 56-58 22 Edom 119 Chapter 7 63, 64 Darwinʼs theory of evolution Egypt 111, 128 Chapter 8 76-78 xi, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23, 35, Egyptians 43 Chapter 9 90-92 37-41, 56, 59, 68, 69, 71, Einstein, Albert 13, 94, 127 Chapter 10 99, 100 74, 75, 77, 84, 85, 97, 98, elephant 73 Chapter 11 113-115 100, 141 Elijah 119

148 General Index

Ellesmere Island 51 evolution, natural xi, xii, xiii, 3, Formal Science, Evidence Emmaus 136 4, 9, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21-23, from 93-100 Emotivist Theory 3, 4 25, 27, 30, 31, 33-35, “formless and void” 27 Empiricist Theory 2 37-42, 44-48, 50, 51, 54, fossils 25, 27, 31, 38-40, 51, Enceladus 63 56, 57, 59, 60, 62-64, 68, 56, 67-72, 75 Encyclopedia, Baker 106 69-72, 74, 75, 77, 78, beds 69, 72, 77, 79, Encyclopedia, Britannica 65, 80-93, 96-100, 141 87-89, 100, 106 80, 82, 129 evolution, theistic 15, 22-36 graveyard 25 Encyclopedia, Grolier 75 evolutionary tree 22 life forms 39-41, 79 Encyclopedia of Creation evolutionists xiii, 3, 9, 10, 12, polystrate 51 Science 107, 108 17, 18, 23, 38-40, 47, 48, record 38, 39 enemies 120, 139 54, 56, 59, 60, 66, 71, 74, Framework Hypothesis 33-34 energy 12, 13, 23, 47, 52, 75, 78, 80, 83, 84, 86-91, Framework Theory 33-34 54, 55, 60, 80 93, 95, 97 free will 142 English 41, 109 external test 103, 106-113 fulfilled prophecy 116, 118, entropy, law of 9, 47, 60, 61 eyes 9, 45, 73, 86, 101, 125, 119 environment xii, 27, 76, 132 G 79-81, 86 eyewitness 136, 137, 139 Galapagos finches 37, 38 erosion 54 F Galapagos Islands 38, 47 eschatology 26 faith xii, 3, 10, 16, 18, 19, 31, Galapagos Rift 61 Essenes 109, 110 35, 39, 46, 81, 105, 107, galaxies 25, 55 eternal 8-10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 108, 118, 120, 133, 136, Galilee 138 29, 98, 125, 134, 143 137, 143, 144 Gandhi, Mahatma 127 eternal life 125, 134 famine 139 Gap theories... evangelists 118, 137 FAMOUS Project 61 Day Age 22-24, 35 Eve 25, 27 Father 5, 13, 30, 35, 125, Framework Theory 23, evening 27, 30, 34, 132 129, 133, 134, 138, 139, 32, 36 everlasting life 134 143, 144 gaps in the Genesis Evidence faux pas 142 record 24 for Creation 37-49 fellowship 144 God of the gaps 22, 25, for Evil (Sin) 124-126 female 30, 86 30 for a First Cause 8-14 fiend 135 late gap 25 for God 15-21 figurative 22, 32-34 Modified Gap 22, 24, 25, for Jesus Christ 127-140 First Cause, Evidence for a 27, 29, 30, 35 for Scripture 101-115 8-14 pre-time gap 24 for Theistic Evolution? firstfruits 138 Progressive Creationism 22-36 fish 22, 30,33, 34, 40, 79, 22, 23, 25, 30-32 for Truth 1-7 86-88, 132 soft gap 25 for a Young Earth 50-58 anableps 86 garments 131 from Formal Science angler 86 gases 13, 61 93-100 archer 86 Gathas of Zoroaster 143 from Life Science 79-92 fishing 138 genetic limits 39 from Paleontology 65-78 flagellum, bacterial 86 Gentiles 134, 136 from Physical Science flesh 30, 103, 125, 127, 136, Georgia, University of 79 59-64 139, 144 Georgia State University 65 from Scripture 116-123 Flood 27, 30-32, 50-52, 70, geologic ages 25 Evil (Sin), Evidence for 72, 73, 110, 121 geologists 24, 26, 52-54, 67 124-126 Flood-Ice Age model 51

149 The Case for Divinity geology 23, 24, 52, 59, 60, heaven(s) 13, 15, 16, 24, 25, Institute for Creation 65-68 27, 30, 31, 34, 42, 101, Research, The 12, 13, Geophysics 54 121, 128, 132-135, 138, 23, 25, 26, 38, 40, 44, 45, geysers 63 143 52-56, 61-63, 66-68, 70, Gibeah 112 Hebrew 28, 32, 34, 73, 102, 72, 74, 79, 87-90, 94, glaciers 51, 52 109 116, 129 106, 117 Glasgow, University of 98 height 13,139 intelligence 16, 39, 41, 42, Glen Rose, Texas 71 hermeneutic principles 32 81, 85, 142, 143 global ﬂood 27, 30-32, 50-52, Herodotusʼ History 104 Intelligent Being 8-10, 13, 37, 70, 73, 110, 121 high priest 131, 135 46, 49, 56, 124 glory 15, 16, 83, 101, 103, Himalayas 51 intelligent design xi, 9, 17, 37, 125, 133-135, 144 Hindus 43 42. 46-48, 81-85, 87, 90, goats 135 Hinduism 5, 9 94, 96 God, Evidence for 15-21 hippopotamus 73 Intelligent Designer 8, 31, 82 God xi, xii, xiv, 2-5, 8, 10- 35, historians 109, 110, 132 intercession 139 39-43, 45-47, 50, 52, 55, historicity 108 internal test 103, 104, 60, 61, 63, 69, 72, 73, historiography 103 116-123 82-84, 86, 90, 97-99, Hittite Empire 112 invertebrate 24 101-103, 108, 109, 111, Hitler, Adolph 127 Iraq 110 113, 117, 120, 121, Holy Spirit 13, 29, 10, 130, irreducible complexity 39, 124-133, 135, 138-145 138 84-87, 91, 92 of the Gaps 22, 25, 30 Homer 104, 106 Isaac 128 law of 125 homosexuality 124 Isaiah 109, 131, 132 good conscience 144 hominid 69 Islam 5, 19 good news 130, 138 homologous 74, 75 Israel 26, 31, 108, 111, 112 gospels 132, 136, 137 homology 74, 75, 78 Israelites 117, 130 Graham, Billy 42 Hopkins University 108 Italian Alps 52 Graham Perdue University 79 Humanism 19, 98, 124 J grass 5, 34, 73, 103 humanists 5 jackal 73 grave 132, 140, 143 humanity 9, 11, 13, 42, 46, Jacob 128 graveyard 25 49, 62, 63, 72, 92, 93, 95 Jehovah 12 gravitation 43 hummingbirds 85, 86 Jehu 112 Greece 911 hurricanes 32 Jeremiah 121, 124 Greeks 43, 117 hydrogen 11, 40, 55, 80 Jericho 119 Grolier Encyclopedia 75 I Jeroboam 111 guards 136 Ice Age 50-52 Jerusalem 111, 112, 129, Guinness Book of World ichthyology 79 130, 134 Records 138 Iliad 104-106 Jesus 5, 13, 19, 27, 30, 35, Gulf of California 62 illusionary 8 107, 109, 110, 113, 118, H images 16, 82, 85, 142 120, 125, 127-140, Hammurabi code 111 impacts, asteroid 32 142-145 Harvard Law School 137 “in the beginning” 10-12, 15, birth of 128 Harvard University 95 26, 32, 68, 117 Christ, the 5, 13, 19, 27, Hawaii, University of 10, 61 index fossils 70 30, 35, 107, 109, 110, hayah (Hebrew for “was”1) 28 infallible proofs 138 113, 118, 120, 125, Hazael , King 112 inﬁrmities 132 127-140, 142-145

2!Vtvbmmz!usbntmbufe!“xbt”-!cvu!uifsf!bsf!tfwfsbm!ouifs!qottjcmf!usbntmbujont!.!tff!qbhft!yyy

150 General Index

claims for Himself Jehu 112 members, in my 125 132-135 Jeroboam 111 mathematical code 98 died for our sins 132, 134, Jews, of the 111, 112, moral 18, 19, 43, 124 136-138, 144 133 nature, of 43, 44, 49, 94 Divinity of 19, 127, 138, Josiah 119 natural 18, 22, 43 140, 142 Medo-Persia, of 119 Noncontradiction, of 19 King 127, 130, 133, 134 Nebuchadnezzar II 120 perfect 103, 142 miracles performed by Rehoboam 111, 112 physics, of 8, 54, 86, 94 132 Shalmaneser III 112 Right and Wrong, of 43, ministry of 128-130, 132, Shishak 111, 112 124 136 Sumer, of 110 science, of 8, 22, 47, 59, Nazareth, of 127, 135, Syria, of 112 60, 94 142 Tiglath-Pileser III 120 sin, of 125 parables, spoke in 130 kingdoms 33, 111, 112, 130, systems 118 prophecies of 118, 133, 138 Thermodynamics, of 121-132 kingdom of God 138 8-10, 12, 16, 47, 60, voice of 121, 134 Koran 143 63, 64 resurrection of 35, 127, universal 124 L 134, 136-140, 143, 144 unwritten 43, lame 132 Jesus Christ, Evidence for lawyers 116, 138 land 18, 24, 26, 33, 70, 72, 127-140 legal apologetics 137 73, 87, 88 Jewish 107, 109, 118, 131 legend 135 language xiii, 1, 4, 8, 15, 28, Jews 29, 109, 127, 132, 133, Lehigh, University of 86, 87 32-34, 94-96, 98-100, 136 leviathan 73 109, 110 John 124, 125, 130, 136, 138 Lewis, C. S. 18, 42-44, 49, language patterns 34 Jordan 73 96, 97, 100, 124, 125, 135 late gap theory 25 Josephus 109, 136 liar 135 lawlessness 124 Josiah, King 119 life 3-5, 10, 16, 17, 22, Laws Judah 111, 112, 128 25-27, 30, 31, 37-45, 48, biological 43 Judaism 5, 19, 109, 120 53, 56, 59, 61, 65, 69, 70, chemistry, of 43 Judas Iscariot 131 79-85, 87, 89-93, 95, 97, civil 111 judge 124, 134 98, 102, 104, 109, 110, Code of Hammurabi 111 judgments 101 113, 116, 118, 120, 125, DNA Genome Code 42 Julius Caesar 104, 127, 133 128, 131-134, 137, Entropy, of 8, 9, 47, 60 junk DNA 76, 83, 91 139-141, 143, 144 Eshnunna 111 Life Science, Evidence from K Evidence, of 137 79-92 K 67 Giver, of the 18 life, everlasting 134 K–Ar dating 67 Godʼs 124, 125 life of Christ 109, 137 kill 111, 134, 135 gravitation, of 43 light 18, 24, 26, 30, 33, 37, 59, kinetic energy 13 Hammurabi, Code of 72, 85, 86, 98, 134, 144 King List, Sumerian 110 Harvard School of 137 lightning 121, 134 kings Human Nature, of 19, 43, Lincoln, Abraham 127 Artaxerxes 129 44, 124-126 linguistics 33, 34, 93-95, 98, Assyria, of 120 linguistic 98 112, 117 David 16, 34, 101, 111, Lipit-Ishtar code 111 linguistic phenomena 34 118, 128, 131, 142 Lord, of the 101, 124, linker bridges 87 Hazael 112 125, 142 Lipit-Ishtar code 111 Israel, of 111, 112 mind, of my 125

151 The Case for Divinity literal 25-27, 32-34, 50 Medo-Persia 119, 129 morality 4, 43-46, 49, 95, 96, literary framework 32 Medo-Persian empire 912 98, 100, 117, 118 literary structure 94 Mere Christianity 18, 43, 44, Mormonism 19 literature 105, 106, 117, 137 135 morning 27, 30, 34 liturgy 34 Merriam-Webster Dictionary Moses 34, 61, 109, 111, 120 Livyʼs Roman History 104 74, 97 Mount Seir 119 logic 3, 8, 9, 12, 17-19, 37, 42, Messiah 28, 127, 129-132, museums 71, 112 59, 84, 93, 98, 135, 137, 141 134 mutation 18, 81, 87, 89 long gap 25 Messiah, the Christ 134 mute 132 Lord 30-34, 53, 54, 101, 103, Messiah, a King 127, 130 mystic 120 111, 112, 124, 125, 128, Messiah, the Prince 129 mythical 34, 110 130, 132, 135, 139, 142, messianic prophecy 127 N 144 metaphor 32, 33 National Geographic 38, 51, Louis Pasteur 127 meteorites 68, 79 62, 88 love of God 139 meteorology 60, 62 nations 112, 117, 119, 135 luminaries 33, 52 methane 40, 61, 63 Nations, Table of 117 lunatic 135 methane enigma 61 natural laws 22, 43, 44, 49, lust 125 microevolution 38, 50, 81, 94 121 M natural sciences 79, 94 microtubules 87 macroevolution 23, 31, natural selection 17, 44, 71, Mid-Atlantic Ridge 61 37-39, 48, 50, 81, 89 80, 81, 91, 96-98 Midsummer Nightʼs Dream magnetic ﬁeld 52, 54, 55, 63 Nazareth 127, 135, 142 83 Malachi 129 Nebuchadnezzar, King 120 ministry 128-130, 132, 136 male 30, 86 nebular theory 11 miracles 22, 35, 94, 96, 127, mammals 22, 74, 80 Nehemiah 129 132 man 3, 15-18, 23, 24, 30, 32- Nelson Study Bible 26 Moab 119 34, 41, 43, 44, 52, 56, 61, New Age 2, 3, 5, 7, 19, 124 Moabite stone 111 71, 72, 74, 84, 85, 89, 93, New Testament 3, 104-106, Modiﬁed Gap Theory 22, 94, 97, 98, 100-103, 110, 108, 109, 118, 137, 143, 145 24-30, 35, 38 112, 113, 117, 118, 121, night 15, 32, 34, 83, 86 Mohammed 127 124, 125, 127, 128, 130, Nimrud 112 molecular 131, 133-138, 142, 144 Nineveh 112 biology 41, 83, 90 manuscript 102, 104-106, Nirmala Srivastava 127 clock 70, 109, 110, 114, 116 Nisan, month of 129 hydrogen 11 martyred 136 nitrogen 61, 65, 80 isolation 39 Massachusetts Institute of Noah 27, 32, 50, 73, 110, machinery 41, 81, 82, 84, Technology 154 121, 144 90 material 11, 16, 22, 31, 52, non-avian feathered dinosaur structure 80 53, 79, 97, 98, 100, 137, 38 molecules-to-man 23, 89 138 non-believers 136 monsters 73 mathematical non-literal 32, 34 moon 26, 30, 54, 55, 57, 58, code 98 62, 63, 93, 134 O language 94 moonʼs recession 54, 55 Obama, Barack 127 precision 94 moon rocks 62 obedience 29, 118, 142, 143 structure 94 Moral Argument 18, 20 obelisk 112 probability 118, 127, 128 Moral Law 18, 19, 43, 124 ocean 56, 61, 62 matter 8, 10-13, 16, 19, 22, oceanographer 61 23, 25, 34, 47, 54, 60, 101

152 General Index oceanography 61 Pew Forum on Religion and Progressive Creationism Old Earth (OE) theory 22, Public Life 118 Theory 30-32 27, 50, 51, 56, 57 Pharaoh 111 progressive creations 30-32 Old Testament 33, 34, 50, Pharisees 109, 131, 133 proof 37, 38, 42, 75, 81, 87, 108, 109, 118, 127, 132 Philistines 120 89, 94, 120, 132, 138, 141 omnipotent 74, 101, 142 philosophers 1, 8, 9 prophecies 113, 116, 118- omnipresent 12, 13, 101 philosophy 1, 2, 17 120, 123, 127-132 omniscient 101, 120 photoreceptor cells 85 messianic prophecies 107, Oregon, University of 89 Physical Science, Evidence 127-131 organisms 43, 50, 59, 60, 62, from 59-64 proving Scripture 113, 114 65, 66, 68, 69-71, 74, 79, phyla 70, 71, 89, 94, 97, prophets 116, 134, 136 81, 84, 87, 141 124 prose 33, 34, 97 organs 17, 75, 76, 78, 84, 85 physics 8, 10, 11, 54, 60, 69, proteins 52, 81, 82, 87, 89 85, 86, 94 Protestants 102 aborted 75 Pic comets 52 psychologists 44 atrophied 75 Pilate 1, 132-34, 36 purity 109, 133 complex 84 Piltdown man 38 Q primary 86 planetesimal theory 11 Qumran 109 rudimentary 75 planets 11, 24, 53, 54, 61, 63 sense 85 plants 30, 47, 51, 65, 79, 80, R usefulness 75, 76 87 Rabbi 131 vestigial 75, 78 plates 18, 50 radioactive dating 54, 65, 66 Origin of Species, The 40, Platoʼs Tetralogies 104 radioactive isotopes 53, 67, 41, 56, 57, 68, 71, 84 Platonic 29 68 Oriental Institute at the Pliny the Youngerʼs History radiocarbon dating 54, 65, 66 University of Chicago 112 104 radioisotopes 52, 54, 66 origins xii, 13, 41, 46, 47, 62, plumage 38 radiometric dating 53, 54 81, 84, 97, 110, 137 poached egg 135 RATE (Radioisotopes and Age ox 73 poems 34, 106 of Earth) project 66 Oxford, University of 45-47 polystrate fossils 51 rebellion, Satanʼs 25 oxygen 61, 80, 86 Pontius Pilate 2, 132-134, Reformed Church of the 136 United States 34 P potassium (K) 67 Rehoboam, King 111, 112 Paciﬁc Ocean 61 potassium-argon 54, 65-67 reign 110, 112, 129, 139 paleontology 65-78 Pragmatic Theory 1 religion 2, 69, 107, 113, 118, Palestine 107 pre-time gap theory 24 124, 143 Paluxy River 71, 72 preach 50, 130, 138 religious xii, xiv, 2, 4, 5, 19, parables 34, 130 preachers 7, 130, 136 46, 47, 129, 131 Parsi biography of Zoroaster precreation chaos gap 24 reptiles 22, 71, 74 143 Precreation Gap Theory 24 respiratory tree 87 Pasteur, Louis 127 Preface xi-xiv response 27, 141-145 peat deposits 66 priest, high 131, 135 Resurrection of Christ 35, Pentateuch 34 Princeton University 1 127, 136-139, 144 perfect 4, 38, 86, 94, 101, principalities 139 retina 18, 85 103, 128, 142 probability 38, 84, 119, 127, revelations, Godʼs 16, 29, 35, perfection 17, 86, 133 128 109 peril 139 Process Creation Theory revolution 98, 100, 137 persecution 136, 139 rib, dolphin 69 Peter 103, 106, 136, 144

153 The Case for Divinity ribosomes 81, 82, 91 Scripture 5, 15, 16, 23, 29, height 13, 139 Ridge, Mid-Atlantic 61 33, 62, 101-123, 132, length 13, 23, 25, 29, 72 right and wrong 4, 18, 43-45 139, 142, 144 width 13 Rise, East-Pacific 62 Scripture, Evidence for species 17, 23, 26, 30, 37- RNA 80, 81 101-115 41, 56, 57, 68, 69, 71, 73- rocks 52-54, 56, 62, 65-67, 70 Scripture, Evidence from 75, 84, 86-88, 91, 95, 97, Roman 104, 108, 137 116-123 110, 141 Roman Catholic 97, 102 scriptures of Buddha 143 spheres 32 Roman History, Livyʼs 104 seas 24, 34, 55 spin rate, earthʼs 54 Rome 119, 132 sea floor mud 55 spirits 15, 132, 136 Romeo and Juliet 83 seals 40 Spirit, Holy 13, 16, 29, 103, rubidium-strontium 66 Sea of Galilee 138 130, 138 ruin-reconstruction gap theory sea-monster 73 spirits, evil 132 24 sea-serpent 73 springs of the sea 61, 120 seashore 136 Srivastava, Nirmala 127 S sea sodium 55 Stalin 127 Sabbath Day 30, 31, 33 sea springs 61 starlight problem 25 sacrifice 27, 30, 142, 143 sedimentary deposits 53 stars 10, 12, 25, 30, 34, 134 Sadducees 109 Septuagint, Greek 109 sting of death 30 salvation 138, 144, 145 serpent 73 stolen body 136 Satan xii, 25, 27, 28, 30 Shechem 112 stone 56, 111, 136, 137 Satanʼs fall 27 sheep 129, 135, 139 storms 132 Saturn 63 shepherd 135 story 32, 34, 70, 88, 90, 110, Savior 125, 142, 145 Shishak, King 111, 112 117, 137, 138 scholars 1, 105, 106, 108- Shishak Relief, The 111 Strongʼs Concordance 73 111, 116, 117, 120 sick 129, 132 structures, homologous 74, science xi-xiv, 8, 10, 12, 16, simile 34 75 17, 23, 24, 26, 31, 37, 38, sin 30, 32, 101, 124-126, suffering 128, 130, 138 40, 43, 47, 52-55, 59-100, 133, 142 Sumer 110 107, 108, 114, 120, 121, skeptic 11, 87, 141 Sumerian 110 141, 142 Socrates 127 Sumerian King List 110 scientific xiii, xiv, 3, 8, 9, 13, sodium in the sea 55 sun 10-12, 15, 24, 26, 30, 16, 18, 22, 25, 31, 32, 34, soft gap 25 34, 54, 55, 85, 101, 134 37, 38, 40, 42, 46, 47, 49, solar days 32 supermolecule 82 50, 51, 53-56, 59, 60, 69, solar emission 55 supernatural 37, 45, 47, 96, 70, 71, 79, 84, 87, 93-95, solar system 25, 51-55, 63, 108 116, 121 68 supernatural intervention 37 Scientific American 70 Solomon 61, 111, 120, 121 supernovas 32 scientists xii, xiii, 8-12, 31, 38, Son of suppositions 40, 50, 53, 54, 56, 59, 61, Blessed, the 135 swoon theory 137 63, 66, 69-72, 75, 77, God 135, 143 sword 73, 139 79-81, 87, 91, 121, 141 Man 133-135 symbolic 34 Scofield Reference Bible 26 song 34, 38 syntax 34 Scofield Reference Notes 26 Sophocles 104, 108 Scofield Study Bible 26 T sorrow 128, 130, 132 Scopes Monkey Trial 75 Table of Nations 117 South Pole 51, 63 scourge 134 Tacitusʼ Annals 104 space 11-13, 16, 23, 33, 54, scribes 133 tailbone 75 59, 62, 79, 80, 96, 117, 129 Taoism 19

154 General Index teacher 2, 72, 127, 130, 132, pre-time gap tree rings 51 135, 136, 140 Precreation Chaos Gap Tri-Universe 12-14 tears 86 Process Creation triads 33 tectonic plate movement 50 Progressive Creationism Triassic Period 71 Tel Dan Inscription 111 22, 23, 25, 27, 30-32, tribulation 134, 139 Teleological Argument 17, 20 37, 46, 50, 51, 55, 94, trilobites 25 temperature 11, 55, 60, 62 95 truth 1-8, 10, 16, 19, 50, 51, 59, temple 128, 129 ruin-reconstruction gap 24 64, 66, 68, 72, 103, 106, Teresa, Mother 127 soft gap 25 108, 112, 124-127, 133, terrestrial theropod dinosaur swoon 136 134, 136, 137, 141-144 71 theistic evolution 15, Truth, Evidence for 1-7 Tertullian 3 22-36, 141 U testimony 5, 9, 101, 106, Truth, Evidence for 1-7 undersea volcanos 61 127, 136, 137, 139 Correspondence 4 unique power of Bible to Texas, University of 18 Emotivist 3 change lives 117, 118 theft 136 Empiricist 2, 3 unique unity of Bible content theism 4, 5, 22, 42, 98 Pragmatic 1, 2 116, 117 theist xi, 5, 82 thermal energy 11, 13 universal logic 17 theistic evolution 15, 22-36, Theistic Evolution, Evidence universe xi-xiii, 4, 5, 8-16, 141 for 22-36 23-25, 29, 37, 39, 40, 42, Theistic Evolution, Evidence Thermodynamics 44, 47, 50, 51, 57-60, 64, for(?) 22-36 1st Law of 8, 47, 60, 64 90, 93, 94, 101, 141-143 theologians 1, 108 2nd Law of 9, 10, 12, 47, University theological argument 18 60, 64 Arizona State 68 Theophilus 138 third day 24, 134, 136 Caltech (Calif. Institute of theories... throne 129, 135 Technology) 68 abiogenesis 40, 79 Thucydides 108 Cambridge 79, 80, 88 Big Bang 8-13, 22, 26, 30, Thucydidesʼ History 104, 105 Cardiff 79 31, 57,60, 70 tidal bulge 54, 93 Chicago, of 40, 112 Darwinʼs x, 15, 68, 84, 97 tidal friction 54 Georgia, of 79 (see Darwin, Charles) tidal waves 57 Georgia State 65 Day-Age 23, 24, 35 Tiglath-Pileser, King 120 Glasgow, of 98 dust cloud 11 time 1, 2, 11-13, 16, 22-25, 27- Graham Perdue 79 dynamo 52 34, 47, 50-54, 57, 61, 63, Harvard 95 evolution (evolution, 65-67, 69-73, 77-80, 85-88, Harvard Law School 137 natural) 93, 96, 97, 100, 104-106, Hawaii, of 10, 61 Framework 23, 32, 36, 109-113, 116, 120, 121, Hopkins 108 37, 45, 70, 74, 79, 89, 129, 136-138, 144 Lehigh 86, 87 96, 110, 121 Titan 63 Oregon, of 89 Creationism, Progressive tomb 136 Oxford, of 45-47 God of the Gaps tongue, mute 132 Princeton 1 late gap Torah 109 Texas, of 18 nebular tornadoes 32, 41 Waikato, of 80 OE transgression 101, 142 Yale 44-47, 53, 107, 108 old earth transitional fossils 31, 38-40, uranium 54, 65, 67, 68 modiﬁed gap 42, 69, 88 235 68 molecules-to-man trees, fossilized 51 238 68 planetesimal 11 trees, mummiﬁed 51

155 The Case for Divinity

uranium-lead dating 54, wine 129, 132 Y 65, 67 water 29, 33, 34, 40.51, 60- Yale University 44-47, 53, Ussher, Anglican Bishop 29 62, 69, 79, 86-88, 109, 107, 108 121, 132, 144, 145 YE 50-52 V witnesses 136-138 YE Ice Age Model 52 vapor 26, 121 women 136 yôm (Hebrew for ʻdayʼ) 23, vegetation 24, 33 Word of God 5, 31, 32, 103, 34 vestigial organs 75, 78 108, 112, 113, 144 Young Earth (YE) 50-58 Virgil 108 world 1, 2, 10, 15-17, 19, 20, Young Earth, Evidence for virgin 128, 132 27, 28, 37, 41, 42, 46, 47, 50-58 volcanic activity 32, 50 51, 53, 55, 62, 71, 74, 80, volcanic rock 67 Z 82, 83, 90, 95, 105, 106, Zion 130 W 108, 117-119, 121, 125, 130, zoology 79 Waikato, University of 80 133, 134, 137, 138, 145 Zoroaster, Gathas of 143 walker arms 87, 88 worship 12, 45, 129, 136, 143 Zoroastrian scriptures 143 Washington, George 127 wounds 136 whales 40

156 Scriptures

Old Testament References Genesis 22, 24-26, 28, 29, Deuteronomy Psalms, The 33, 34, 59, 66, 71, 75, 93. 9:24 118 16:10 128 110, 119 31 34 19 20, 101, 103, 142 1 12, 13, 15, 23-29, 31-34 Joshua 19:1-6 15, 101 1:1 24-29, 117 6:26 119 19:5 34 1:1, 14-16 12 19:11-13 101 Judges 1:1-2 25 22:16 128 19:22 2 1:1-18 12 22:16-17 131 1:2 24-29 1 Samuel 22:18 131 1:3 24 33:6-9 31 2 Samuel 1:14-18 26 41:9 131 1:20-31 72 1 Kings 68:18 128 1:25 50 11:26-39 111 74:14 73 1:31 27, 30 11:40 111 74:16-17 22 2 27 12:1-17 111 78:2 130 3:3 27 13:2 119 104:26 73 3:19 27 14 111 110:1 128 5 110 14:25-26 111 135 121 7:11 61 16:33, 34 119 135:7 121 8:22 22 2 Kings Proverbs 10 117 2:3-11 119 8:28b 61 12:3 128 9-10 112 Ecclesiastes 12:11-13 118 23:15-18 119 15:1 33 1:7 121 1 Chronicles 17:19 128 Song of Solomon 19:1-38 2 2 Chronicles Isaiah 49:5-7 118 12 111 7:14 128 49:10 128 12:2-8 111 13:17-22 119 20 119 Exodus 24:1 26 15 34 Ezra 27:1 73 20:11 30, 31 35:5, 6 132 31:17 31 Nehemiah 2:1-2 129 44:18 126 Leviticus 44:28 119 18:22 2 Esther 45:1 119 20:13-15 Job 45:13 119 45:18 26 Numbers 38:4-7 22 53:3 130 21 34 40:15-24 73 53:4 132 24:17 128 41:1 73 55:6-9 xv

157 The Case for Divinity

61:1-3 130 New Testament References John 130 68:18 128 Matthew 130 1:1-3 32 110:1 128 1:1 128 1:6, 7 144 1:11, 12 131 Jeremiah 1:2 128 2:14-16 129 4:23-27 26 1:6 128 2:16 125 10:13 121 1:18-23 128 3:5 34 10:23 124 2:13-15 128 4:25, 26 134 23:5 128 2:16 128 6:40 134 31:15 128 5:18 3 6:47 134 33:25 22 8:10-26 118 8:28, 29 133 49:15-20 119 8:16, 17 132 8:32 5 51:16 121 10:4 131 8:46-47 133 51:26, 43 119 11:27 133 13:34-35 130 8:58 134 Lamentations 24:27-30 134 10:6 118 Ezekiel 25:31-32 135 10:17 134 25:12-14 119 26:25 131 10:28-30 134 25:16 120 26:31-56 118 11:25 134 27:3-8 131 11:47-53 131 Daniel 27:11 133 12:27 130 7:6 119 27:35 131 12:32-33 134 8:5-8 119 14:6 5, 133 9:25 129 Mark 130 16:16 134 11:2-4 119 6:52 118 16:32 118 8:18 118 17:5 133 Hosea 10:5-8 30 11:1 128 18:36, 37 134 14:61-62 135 18:38 1 Joel 15:2 133 19:31-33 105 16:16 143 Amos 19:37, 38 105 Luke 130 21:12-15 138 Obadiah 2:1-7 128 Acts 106 Jonah 2:25-27 128 1 138 3:33 128 Micah 1:1-3 138 4:18-19 130 5:2 128 1:9 128 4:43 130 1:9-11 138 Nahum 5:20, 21 133 2:22 137 Habakkuk 6:17-19 132 2:25-32 128 7:30 130 9:1-6 2 Zephaniah 7:48, 49 133 17:30 144 Haggai 8:24, 25 118 22:16 144 9:40-45 118 23:1 2 Zechariah 18:31-33 134 9:6 120 19:35-37 130 Romans xi, 106 9:9 130 22:69 133 1:18-21 xi 1:18-23 16 Malachi 23:1-3 133 1:26-27, 32 2 3:1 128 23:33 128, 132 24:39 136 3:23 125 3:23, 24 125

158 Scripture Index

5:12 132 Philippians Hebrews 6:3-7 144 1:3 128 Colossians 6:23 124, 125 7:26 13 7:22-24 125 1st Thessalonians 11:1 5 8 139 2nd Thessalonians 8:34b-39 139 2nd Peter 106 10:9 144 1st Timothy 106 1:21 3 10:17 144 1:10-11 2 2nd Timothy 1st John 1st Corinthians 1:3-4 124 1 3 2:15 5 3:16 3 2:16 125 1:11 118 3:4 124 2 3 3:16-17 102 2:4 118 3:16 103 2nd John 3:17 103 4:2 143 3rd John 5:55-57 30 Titus 6:9-11 2 Jude 15:12 118 Philemon 1:7 11:6 144 15:6 136 Revelation xii 15:20-28 139 James 12 27 15:21-22 32 1:25 103 12:5-12 27 2nd Corinthians 2:19 144 2:4 118 1st Peter Galatians 1:22-25 103 3:27 144 2:2 103 2:21-22 128 Ephesian 3:21 144

159 Author Index

Alphabetical by Name A Burgess, Alexis 1 F Aardsma, Dr. G. A. 66 Burgess, John P. 1 Farrell, Dennis 94 aboutbibleprophecy.com 130 Burrows, Millar 107, 108 Finnigan, G. C. 90 Albright, Dr. William F. 107, C Flew, Antony 42, 90 108, 117 Caesar 104 Fox, Stuart Ira 76 Ackerman, Paul D. 95 Carroll, Sean xi Frank, David 44 Ahlberg, Per E. 88 centuryone.com 109 Free, Dr. Joseph P. 107 Alden, Andrew 67 Chang, K. 40 Futuyma, Douglas J. 141, 142 Allen, Thomas W. 105 Chesterton, G. K. 98 Allison, Michael 8, 9 G Chomsky, Noam 95 Amos, the prophet 120 Geisler, Norman L. 4, 10, 16, Chou, Ming-Dah 62 Anderson, Sir Robert 129 18, 19, 30, 31, 39, 81, Cicero 108 Andrews, E. H. 82 105, 106 Corbett, Dr. Andrew 3, 13, 42 answersingenesis.org 24, 25, Glueck, Dr. Nelson 107 Cosner, Lita 18 38, 59, 66, 75, 93, 119 gotquestions.org 22, 138 Cottrell, Dr. Jack 107 Aristotle 1, 104, 127 Gould, Stephen J. 69 Croteau, Ed 120 Arp, H. C. 12 Grassle, J. Frederick 62 Augustine 29 D Gray, Asa 17 Austin, Steven A., Ph.D. 38, Daniel (prophetic writer) 113, Gray, Gorman 25 62 119 Greenleaf, Simon 137, 138 Dann, Leighton xiii, 79, 80 Grossman, L. 68 B Darwin, Charles 17, 38, 39, 40, Gurney, P. W. V. 18 Bagley, Mary 13 56, 68, 71, 75, 84, 85, 97 Balfour, Arthur J. 98 H Darwin, F. 17 Ballard, Robert D. 62 Hartenstein, Roy 75 David, King 16, 34, 101, 131, Barnes, Thomas G., D.Sc. 54 Hauser, Marc D. 95 142 Barrett, Dr. Justin 45-47 Hayden, Dan 119 Davies, Keith 55 Batton, Don 25 Herodotus 104 Dawkins, Dr. Richard 82 Behe, Michael J. 86, 87, 89 Hebert, Dr. Jake 63 de Groot, Dr. Mart 11 Berean Call, The 107 Hodge, Bodie 24, 25 Deem, Rich 27, 83 Black, Jim Nelson, Ph.D. 46 Homer 104, 106 Demosthenes 104 Bloom, Paul 44, 45, 47 Hoyle, Sir Fred 12, 41 Denton, Michael 17, 38-41 bible.org 103 Hou, Arthur Y. 62 Descartes 1 Bird, W. R. 41 Hume, David 11 Driscoll, Mark 128 Brackett, Charlie 3, 34 Humes, Robert. C. 54 Dutko, Bob 8 Brennecka, G. A. 68 Huxley, Aldous 60 Brian, Thomas, M.S. 40, 44, 45, E Humphreys, D. Russell, 52, 61, 62, 68, 70, 89, 90 Eastman, Mark, M.D. 129 Ph.D. 55, 56 Brooks, M. 45 earthage.org 51 I Bruce, F. F. 105, 136, 137 Einstein, Albert 94, 127 Ions, Dr. Lee 32 Budziszewski, J. 18 Elder, J. F. Jr. 83 israelite.net 109 Burbidge, G. 12

160 Author Index

J Mayer, Dr. Ernest 85 Pew Forum on Religion and Jackson, Wayne 10-12, 34 McClister, Dr. David 112 Public Life 118 James, brother of Jesus 103 McDowell, Josh 104-107, Pinnisi, E. 82 Jastrow, Dr. Robert 10, 11 116-118, 120 Plato 104 Jeanson, Dr. Daniel 74 McLver, Tom 27 Pliny 104 Jeanson, Nathaniel T., Ph.D. McVeigh, K. 88 Price, Dr. Randall 107 74 Menton, Dr. David N. 75, 85 Q Jenkins, Ferrell 106, 127 Merson-Davies, Ashby xiii, Jeremiah, the prophet 121, 79, 80 R 124 Miller, Jeff, Ph.D. xi, xii Ranganathan, Dr. B. G. 41, 84 Job, the patriarch 61, 73, Miller, Stanley L. 40, 80 Reeves, Jay 2 120 Miller, W. R. 108, 137 Roach, J. 88 John, the apostle 124, 125, Missler, Chuck 129 Ross, Dr. Hugh 42, 118 130, 136, 138 Mivart, Jackson 97 S Johnson, A. P. 40 Morris, Henry M., Ph.D. 12, Sagan, Dr. Carl 82 Johnson, Philip 41 13, 25, 26, 56, 72, 87, 95, Saladin, Kenneth 76 Jones, Clay 105 117, 121 Sanger, Frederick 83 Josephus 109, 136 Morrison, Frank 137 Sarfati, J. 18 Moses, the prophet 34, 61, 109 K Saucy, Robert 108 Kant 1 N Scoﬁeld, C. I. 26 Karl, David 61 Narkiewicz, Katazyna 88 seekingtruth.co.uk 22, 50, 51 Kelvin, Lord 54 Narkiewicz, Marek 88 Shakespeare 83 Kenyon, Sir Frederic 108 Narliker, J. V. 12 Sherwin, Frank 75, 76, 88 Kenyon, George 108 Nasiraddin, Tusi 15 Slichter, Dr. Louis B. 54 Kline, Dr. Meredith G. 32, 33 National Academy of Sneath 75 Sciences (NAS) 37 Snelling, Andrew, Ph.D. 66, L Nehemiah, the prophet 129 67 Lacey, Troy 24 neverthirsty.org 128, 130 Solomon, King 61, 111, 120, 121 Levinton, J. 70 Newport, Frank xii Sokal 75 Lewis, C. S. 18, 42, 43, 44, 49, Niedzwiedzki, Grzegorz 88 Sophocles 104, 108 96, 97, 100, 124, 125, 135 Niessen, Richard 23 Stenger, Victor 10, 11 Lidden, Henry 127 Nusslein-Volhard, C. 89 Stevens, Dr. John 85 Lindzen, Richard S. 62 Strobel, Lee 18, 137, 138, Lipson, H. S. 69 O 142, 143 Lisle, Dr. Jason 52, 54, 59 Oktar, Adnan 41, 141, 142 Strong, James 73 Livy (Livius Patavinus), Titus P Szrek, Piotr 88 104 Pack, David C. 17, 40-42, Luckhoo, Sir Lionel 138 T 60-69, 82-85, 99 Luke, the gospel author 130, Tacitus 104 Patterson, Dr. Colin 69 136, 138 Tertullian 3 Paul, the apostle xi, 16, 124, Thaxton, Charles B. 83 125, 136, 138, 139, 143, M Thomas, Brian, M.S. 40, 41, 45, 144 MacLaine, Shirley 3 52, 61-63, 68, 70, 89, 90 Pearcey, Nancy R. 83 Malachi, the prophet 129 Thompson, Bert, Ph.D. 82 Peck, M. Scott 83 Mark, the gospel author 106, Thorpe, W. H. 41 Perman, Matt 111, 113 130, 136 Thucydides 104, 105, 108 Peter, the apostle 103, 106, Martini, Fred 76 Tooley, Dale 31 136, 144 Matheson, Stephen 74 truthinscience.org.uk 68 Matthew, the apostle 130, 136 Petrovitch, Dr. Olivera 47

161 The Case for Divinity

Turek, Frank 4, 10, 16, 18, Wells, Jonathan 38, 74, 75 Wolchover, Natalie xi, xii 19, 31, 39, 81, 105, 106 West, John G. 97, 98 Wood, Dr. Bryant C. 107-111 Turner, B. J. 83 West, Martin L. 105 Wysong, R. L. 17 West, Susan 62 U X Whie, William 145 Unger, Merrill F. 145 White, Monty 93 Y Ussher, Anglican Bishop 29 White, Dr. Tim 69 Yamauchi, Edwin 143 V Wickramasinghe, N. C. 12, 79 Young, Dr. Davis 23 Van Bebber, Mark 32 Widner, Wes 27 Z Vardiman, Larry, Ph.D. 62 Wieland, Carl 70 Zukeran, Pat xiii Vine, W. E. 145 Wieschaus, E. 89 Zylrsta, Rev. Mark 32 Virgil 108 Wiford, John Noble 72 Van De Graff, Kent M. 76 Wigner, Eugene P. 94 W Wiley, John 54, 94 Walker, Tas 67 Willis 12 Walpole, Brenda xiii, 79, 80 Wilson, Dr. Clifford 95, 106

162 More Books by the Author

Other books by Charlie Brackett are listed below and are available at Clarion Word Publishing (clarionword.com) and all major book retailers (Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million, etc.). All of Charlieʼs books are non-fictional except the last one in the list, an historical novel. Bible Study for Joy and Profit Paperback ISBN 978-1-934821-04-6, List Price.....$15.95 eBook ISBN 978-0-9779577-5-0, List Price...... 4.95 Practical, easy-to-read. Uncover biblical authority, unlock the joy of study and motivate yourself to start and finish your own study. Learn the Lordʼs study method, easy as 1-2-3. Proven class material. 266 pages. Recommended by Others “Brother Brackettʼs book has been an encouragement to me and the Oak Ridge church of Christ. As a preacher and teacher of the gospel, this book is very refreshing with its simple and effective approach to Bible Study.” “My first impressions of your book, Bible Study for Joy and Profit, I can express in a very short sentence - complete and exhaustive. I really enjoyed ordering my thoughts according to your book, and because I know the profit of exercise for better understanding and improvement of theory I am looking forward (and hope I will manage it) to practice those things so that I can get them more deeply ʻunder skinʼ.” “Bible Study for Joy and Profit is an easily-read, common-sense approach to the problem many people have of knowing how to properly read and study the Bible. With no doctrinal axe to grind, the author removes the mystery surrounding the Bible and clearly explains the literary mechanics of correctly handling the word of God in a way that is easily understood. A valuable tool for any Bible student and the entire Fultondale church has been much benefited by studying it.” Elders of the Fultondale church of Christ

______

Liberal volume discounts are available to individuals, churches and resellers. Prices are subject to change without prior notice.Visit us at http:// www.clarionword.com or http://www.charliebrackett.com for more information, for pricing in euros or English pounds, and for ordering. Clarion Word Publishing Chattanooga, Tennessee

163 The Case for Divinity

Recommended by Others “Bible Study for Joy and Profit has changed the way I think about how to study, particularly in a group. ... I have found the simple technique of asking, ʻWhat does it say? What does it mean? What is my application?,ʼ helps focus the class.” “Many thanks for Bible Study for Joy and Profit. It is a very useful tool and welcome addition to my sources of expedients. It is exciting, easy to read and provides many valuable lessons in many areas of study. The book is a jewel and has been a continuous aid in my studies.” “Charlie Brackettʼs book Bible Study for Joy and Profit is an excellent book for not only increasing oneʼs own knowledge of the topic, but also for teaching others about this important subject. I highly recommend it for new students of the Bible, for Christians seeking to enhance their own personal studies, and for congregational Bible classes (high school, college, and adult levels).” “In reviewing and performing the activities in this book, I have come to understand several different concepts when studying Godʼs Word. Charlie Brackett shows how anyone is capable of studying Godʼs message and applying it as God intended.” “This is another very exciting and helpful book by the author, Charlie Brackett. I have studied the Bible for several years but this book, Bible Study For Joy And Profit, brought out several things which have been of help to me to have yet a richer deeper study of the Word of God. It is an easy book to read and one that is hard to put down once you start. It covers all areas of Bible Study: Are the Bibleʼs claims believable? Why should I study and what will keep me motivated? What study aids are available, etc. Itʼs all in there! A very enjoyable and beneficial book which I can highly recommend!” “This book is a wealth of information to both new students and more experienced students of the bible. Charlie Brackett uses his years of experience to help readers understand the most important reasons for Bible study. He targets topics such as Biblical authority, interpretation, understanding figurative speech and language and above all finding the motivation and desire to be a great Bible student your whole life. This book is an easy read and a wonderful addition to any Bible studentʼs library. We Have Seen the Lord Paperback, ISBN 978-0-9779577-6-7, List price...... $15.95 eBook, ISBN 978-1-934821-00-8, List price...... 3.95 Practical devotional lessons from Johnʼs Gospel. See Jesus through the apostleʼs eyes. Renew faith. Walk with the Lord, hear His teaching, thrill at His miracles, know His love, and feel His suffering. 241 illustrated pages. Recommended by Others “Charlie Brackettʼs We Have Seen the Lord is a collection of short essays that carry the reader through the Gospel of John. The purpose of these messages is so that “all will simply consider the evidence [about Jesus Christ], evidence we believe will convince those who sincerely want to know the truth.” This is a great book for personal devotions, but also the kind of book that can be given as a gift to our acquaintances and people we come into contact with who are searching to know Jesus Christ.”

164 More Books by the Author

In the Steps of the Apostles Paperback ISBN 978-0-9779577-7-4...... $16.95 eBook ISBN 978-1-934821-01-5...... 4.95 Devotional messages from Acts tracing the apostlesʼ challenges and successes. Learn how the early church added members, functioned in a sinful world, and grew amidst opposition. Youʼll be inspired to greater service in the Lord. 368 illustrated pages. Get Ready, Get Set, I Do! Paperback ISBN 978-0-9779577-0-5, List Price...... $10.95 eBook ISBN 978-0-9779577-3-6, List Price...... 3.95 Titled especially for those contemplating marriage, this Get Ready, Get Set, I Do! self-help book is a great aid to any married couple, young or old. Full of Scripture and practical advice; great for self-reflection. Helps you focus on Jesus as you improve spirituality, selflessness and skills in communication, conflict resolution, positive thinking and love of truth. Explore the nature of love and how to recapture romance. 115 pages. Get Ready, Get Set, I Do! Teacherʼs Guide Paperback ISBN 978-0-9779577-2-9, List Price...... $10.95 eBook ISBN 978-0-9779577-9-8, List Price...... $3.95 Build faith by strengthening homes. 13-weeksʼ marriage study expanding the basic book. Designed for all marrieds and those getting ready to marry. 59 pages. Get Ready, Get Set, I Do! Student Workbook Paperback ISBN 978-0-9779577-1-2, List Price...... $6.95 eBook ISBN 978-0-9779577-8-1, List Price...... $2.95 For teachers of the Bible and Brackettʼs ”little” marriage book. A full quarter study including student workbook, authorʼs answers and teacher helps. 88 pages. Recommended by Others “Get Ready, Get Set, I Do! is the book I have been looking for… It is well written and readable, but the End Notes reveal its most valuable attribute. While there are enough references to current literary sources to indicate thorough research and full awareness of modern social trends, the vast majority are scripture references. The emphasis on Godʼs plan of marriage and the early introduction of Bible teaching on divorce and eligibility for marriage are features I can highly recommend.” “Brackett utilizes Godʼs revealed word to explore subjects that other authors often leave untouched, such as Godʼs pattern for roles in marriage, who has a right to marry and divorce, selfishness and its harmful effects on marriage and many other insightful topics. … full of scripture and practical advice. His advice is a mixture of eternal truths and current insights. I especially liked his “3 S” formula for a better marriage.” “… a good presentation of how to improve oneʼs marriage. The composition approaches marriage from a solid biblical foundation.”

165 The Case for Divinity

“Especially helpful to the readers are those sections that call for personal self-reflection. At strategic places, the book asks the reader to take personal inventory.” “Excellent points on marriage!! I really enjoyed this “little” book on marriage. After fifteen years, sometimes you feel like the romance is gone, but this book tells you how to take Godʼs word and make your marriage into something stronger and more powerful, aligned to Godʼs idea of marriage and family.” “But this book showed me that we donʼt have to struggle along those 40-50 years together unhappy. We can have it all now! Itʼs thought that children of God are to naturally have happier marriages than “regular” people, but we all struggle in our marriages and we all need reminders to put Christ into every aspect of our life, especially our relationship with our husband or wife. This book reminds us to do just that.” “Our brother, Charlie Brackett, renders the church of our Lord a particularly well-documented service, and wider still all society a blessing with his new book, Get Ready, Get Set, I Do! This 115 page well-printed without flaw book is designed to “Improve Your Marriage.” It admirably fulfills its designed purpose.” “Get Ready, Get Set, I Do! – Is a valuable resource for married couples, as well as those contemplating marriage. … Our young people will receive much-needed guidance in considering the seriousness of the choices that need to be made in selecting a lifelong partner. They are asked to respond to key questions that will insure an honest appraisal in areas of potential disagreement. Scriptures are used to support the concepts that are put forth by the author. I am happy to recommend this book.” “This book has proven to be an interesting and well-thought-out presentation of vital principles that will work in achieving or improving the marriage relationship as God intended it. As a preacher, I have long sought good material that would be helpful to young couples planning to marry. … Any builder must have good tools, and the tools Charlie Brackett supplies will be most helpful when used with the Master Builderʼs Manual – the Bible. I found the book, Get Ready, Get Set, I Do!, very meaningful, practical and easy to read.” “Charlie Brackett says it all in the opening sentence of his book – ʻnext to your decision to serve the Lord Jesus Christ, the decision to marry the love of your life is the most important, life- changing choice you will ever make.ʼ If this decision is that important, you will want to be as prepared as possible when making it. … Get Ready, Get Set, I Do! is an immensely valuable book and it is essential that this book be widely read.” Putting Off and Putting On Paperback ISBN 978-1--934821-09-1, List Price...... $13.95 eBook ISBN 978-1-934821-03-9, List Price...... $3.95 A study guide in the biblical view of human psychology. The apostle Paul challenged Christians not to be conformed to this world but seek things above. That process is about how we think and behave - the realm of psychology. The plain, practical language of this book shows how to change behavior Godʼs way. Learn what the Bible says about habitual anger, depressive thinking, low self-esteem, and addictions and what motivates behavior, both good and bad. Understanding the biblical view of human psychology will help you distinguish between the valid and the ungodly of secular psychiatry and psychology.

166 More Books by the Author

Recommended by Others “In writing Putting Off & Putting On, the author lays out the Bible like a beautiful banquet and invites us all to “taste and see that the LORD is good”. Ps.34:8 Being successful in our journey is very important (II Peter 1:3,4) because we will have to answer to Him. Putting Off and Putting On gives great insight to Who God is and His plan for our overcoming every stumbling block that we may encounter. This book was surely inspired by God Himself.” “Charlie Brackett explains the concepts on using Godʼs Word to deal with problems of this world. Early Christians helped one another on a daily basis. With this guide, Charlie helps us all to understand how to be the counselors that God intended.” “This book shows you how the Bible can be used to address any problem in your life. It is a very valuable tool in Bible study. No problem, whether mental, physical, or spiritual is left out in this wonderful guide to life.” “We live in an age when most managers have their own psychologist. If somebody asks me where I should go to look for an answer in times of trouble, either to a psychologist or to the Bible, my answer is easy - to the Bible. The Bible is the Word of my Creator. He knows my soul many times more perfectly than any psychologist of the world. That is one of the important elements I use in the biblical education of my children. In many internet psychology advisory pages, we read a question first, description of some difficult life situation, and then together with our children we look for the answer independently in the Bible. Many times our children have already found the answer themselves. And then, after having an independent, biblical answer, we look at the answer of the psychologist. “But, sometimes it is not easy to find in the lines of biblical text the principles for operation of the human soul. Charlie Brackettʼs book, Putting Off and Putting On, can help very much to improve orientation within Bible principles. “I often nervously twirl on the sofa when I watch attempts to turn biblical stories into movies. Later, I ask was this detail from, for example, Davidʼs life in the Bible or only the filmmaker fantasy? Charlie Brackett´s diligence to neither take away nor add to the Bible, which I know also from his other books, makes it possible for me to read the book in peace, from this point of view. “The longer a man is a Christian, the longer he is in danger of stagnating in stereotypes. The longer a man is a Christian, the more he needs new views on the same passages, because the new views break the stereotypes. And, this is another profit of the book, Putting Off and Putting On. “Although I know how necessary it is to have a good theoretical foundation, I prefer biblical advice for everyday life. I can also recommend Charlie Brackettʼs book in this regard. It is a book for everyday practical work with my own ʻselfʼ, as well as being very suitable for preparation of a preacherʼs Sunday sermons.” A History of Christianity and the church of Christ Paperback ISBN 978-1-934821-11-4, List Price...... $6.95 eBook ISBN 978-1-934821-12-1, List Price...... $3.95 The 2001 Edition of Barrettʼs Encyclopedia reported the “number of Christian denominations has skyrocketed, from some 1,900 a century ago to 35,500 today - one measure of the immensity of the ecumenical task in the twenty-first century.” Jesus said, “I will build My church...” and “I am the way, the truth. and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me.” Such statements lead one to believe the Lordʼs church is not divided. Early on, Paul wrote “But even if we, or an angel

167 The Case for Divinity from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” Paulʼs words are more a warning against division than endorsement of what has happened over the centuries. Perhaps the key question within all of Christianity is “Which are the true disciples of the Lord Jesus?” Recommended by Others “Well-researched; well-written. A valuable book on several levels. Last night I finished your book on the history of Christianity. What a delight! One could get the impression that this book is the product of a bibliophile who has brought together all the helpful features that he would have enjoyed seeing in other books. It is well-written, very readable, understandable, and even entertaining. You did an amazing amount of research. This work deserves a wide circulation.” “A History of Christianity and the church of Christ” by brother Charlie Brackett and published by Clarion Word Publishing is a 194 page soft-covered attractive book with additional Appendix A, B and C; plus a Scripture Index and a General Index. It consists of 26 chapters with questions for each chapter. Some chapters might take more than one week to cover in a class setting. I am teaching this material presently in our Wednesday night class and we are going slow – not worrying about getting a chapter done in one setting. “As the title relates it is a panoramic study of church history – from the early church of Christ to the present. The author has spent considerable time in research on this book. It is a simple study covering a vast amount of ʻchurch historyʼ in a rather condensed form yet it contains material that is certainly not shallow. In some chapters the teacher might want to do some further research. Order a copy, look it over. I believe you will find it unique and useful.” “I was so thrilled when I was reading the book. It is the best church history book I have ever read. I have found there so many interesting thoughts. Charlie, thank you very much for your work, time and money you have invested in it. It is a big encouragement for all of us. I would recommend this book to everyone who wants to see how the first century church was changed in the last two thousand years. It clearly describes the slow but very large changes and now I can easily see the tremendous gap between the church which was revealed in the New Testament and the churches we can see around us in today´s world.” “Well researched. Some footnotes and quoted texts point to other publications by brother Brackett, which will make one want to order other books by him. We (the church here) have used them in an adult study class, but it would be good for individual study, too.” Historical Fiction The Edge of Belonging Paperback, ISBN 978-1-934821-14-5, List Price...... $15.95 eBook, ISBN 978-1-934821-15-2, List Price...... 4.95 Jarek longs to go home but canʼt; Frantisek schemes and grabs for power, which appears just out of reach; Zuzka continues to look for her love, a love she deserves but cannot find; and Father Pavel prays for purity in his sinful flesh and spirituality in a secular Church. Set in the mid-14th century, the fast paced action and cultural flavor of The Edge of Belonging unfolds the daily struggles to belong of four characters whose goals are different, but whose paths intermingle as they move around what is now the Czech Republic. From the simplicity of common life to the halls of nobility, from the secular to the spiritual, from the simplistic to the academic, and

168 More Books by the Author from the real to the mythical, their experiences reflect life as it was in a time and place and among people who strongly influenced later history. Their stories, wrapped in the intriguing “Golden Age” of Czech history and culture, are rich in suspense, historical facts, cultural flavor, and entertainment. 405 pages. Recommended by Others “The Edge of Belonging... compelling intrigue with a compassionate closure. Christian rewarded for faith, hope, and love. “Captivating 1355 year setting in Moravia. A hazardous route of unscrupulous traders with an anything goes panacea. Life challenging encounters - even the cleric and his vows were questioned. Roman papacy was moved to France! Epic happening in history here. And, King Charles was found to be a true judge of courage and honor. History at its best in this “Golden Age”. From the time of his kidnapping through arduous and harrowing experiences, Jarek held in his heart and soul his Christian wish! “I thank you, Charlie, for a rewarding story in The Edge of Belonging. Exciting, suspenseful, and yes I do feel your evidence of love in telling your story. The effort in history of the “Czech Golden Age” was dynamic, a search to find beauty in everything.” (Translated from the Czech language.) “When I was reading this historical novel, which is set to the medieval Bohemian environment, I liked very much the description of places that are near my residence, and some of them I had the opportunity to visit personally in the past. “I also enjoyed how masterfully Charlie Brackett uses character dialogues in confronting common medieval faith influenced by the church as opposed to biblical ideas. “An engaging and enlightening reading. I recommend it to anyone who wants to enjoy the atmosphere of Bohemia in the 14th century.”

169 More Books by the Author

clxx