by Hector M. Earle
On the question of evolution, Genesis holds up well
For decades, there have been many arguments on whether science and Genesis are on the same page with respect to the beginning of the world. Scientists and astronomers alike, through established evidence, have come to accept the “Big Bang” theory of the universe, which states that the universe has a starting point. This indicates that nothing physical existed earlier to that instant. According to this model, the universe is now expanding as evidenced from background radiation, which according to astronomers, can still be detected throughout the universe from the original “explosion”. Consequently, they go on to believe that a random explosion caused the beginnings of things rather than accept the Genesis version of creation.
Despite the many knocks on creation, Genesis has held up well under the scrutiny of modern astronomy and physics. In a quote from Readers Digest, (May 1991), George S. Johnston stated, “Twentieth-century physics, moreover, describes the beginning of the universe in virtually the same cosmological terms as Genesis. Space, time and matter came out of nothing in a single burst of light entirely hospitable to carbon-based life. A growing number of chemists and biologists agree that life had its origin from clay templates… I would say all this is a curious development for Darwinists.”
Even if we dismiss the Big Bang model, the laws of thermodynamic and fundamental laws of the physical sciences, still indicate that the universe had a beginning. The first law states that the amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. The second law states that the amount of energy available for work is running out.
Taken together, they require that the universe had a beginning with much usable energy that is now running down. Therefore, both the Big Bang theory and the laws of thermodynamics are in harmony with Genesis 1:1. (In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.)
On the question of evolution, Genesis holds up well under scrutiny as well.
Is it true that plants and animals really reproduce according to their “kind,” as Genesis 1 says, or did they evolve as the theory of evolution teaches? Let’s look at a couple of well-known facts.
Evolution claims all plants and animals evolved from tiny, primitive ancestors. This theory maintains that microscopic kinds of creatures, such as amoebas, eventually evolved into fish, then amphibians, then birds, then mammals and finally human beings.
But the law of biogenesis states:
1) living matter comes only from living matter and
2) living things reproduce only according to their own kind. In other words, chickens produce eggs that produce more chickens—not some other type of creäture.
It is what God said all along in Genesis 1:24 “… Let the earth bring forth the living creäture after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”
Changes within a species, which can be called microevolution, do indeed occur. But macroevolution, or the change from one animal kind to another, has never been verified in nature.
Therefore, all living organisms produce after their kind in the natural way God had intended. So orange trees keep on producing oranges, tigers give birth to tigers, elephants engender more elephants, and rats keep making rats—and plenty of them.
So in this regard, science actually backs the Bible and not evolution! Maybe we should have all trusted God’s word from the beginning.
Reader’s Digest, May 1991
biogenesis, Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia
United Church of God, The Good News, The Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate. December 1, 2009-Holy Bible (KJV)
Holy Bible (KJV)