Want Some Answers ???Evolutionism
Thanks for emailing your notes summary.
>> Dear Mark In view of your request, I won’t post but have decided to shrink, summarise and e-mail. Creationist doctrines that are neither Biblical nor Scientific. 1 Date of Creation DRHumphreys (Evidence for a young world (AiG)) uses wrong terms “biblical age” and “biblical timescale” on page 1. But the Bible gives no age, no timescale, and has no data to work it out. It doesn’t decide between Ussher 6007 yr, Morris 10,000, others millions. The Bible just says it was “in the beginning” and the earth is “old” Psa 102.<<
"...special creation about 6,000 years ago" (p.88 Morris, Science and the Bible). Humphrey’s estimations about dates are more ‘biblical’ than evolutionary guesswork of “millions” of years. Biblical genealogies are ‘data’ easily 'worked out' into a ‘timescale’. The dates vary, but the words ‘old’ or ‘in the beginning’ are no problem. Ps.102:25-27 also says the heavens and earth are growing old, subject to the law of decay (indicating they're subject to the curse).
Your criticism of Humphreys ‘Introduction’ doesn’t address his book. He has good ‘scientific’ evidence “against the evolutionary time scale and for the biblical time scale” (p.1). So why reject his credible evidence?
>> 2 Animal death from Adam’s sin Rom 5.12 a is used wrongly as basis for this belief. This verse certainly teaches that human death came from Adam’s sin. The second half of the verse says who suffered this death –“all men”. Animals are not listed. It also says all men die because they sin. Animals are non-moral and do not sin. The context is of the human race only and its two heads. Animals aren’t in either group. The “world” is not oikoumene (physical world) but kosmos (arrangement, the world of man).<<
Genesis indicates the penalty for sin caused the death of the animals. This is shown by those God killed to clothe Adam and Eve. Yes Rom.5:12 indicates the effect of sin/death on man, but it doesn’t preclude death in the animal kingdom. Correct, ‘the second half of the verse says’ “all men” received the penalty. But the first-half says “sin entered the world”. The word ‘world’ kosmos isn't restricted to man. It can be, but not in Rom.5:12. Adam is the federal head of the old creation and death is a universal experience of the whole world. Yes 'animals' are ‘non-moral’ yet they are in the world and perished in the deluge and grow old.
Kosmos “in the NT is used nearly 200 times…has a very flexible meaning, indicating the world (ie all created things)….the entire world”. (p.638 Dr Richards. Expository Dic of Bible Words. Regency 1985). Or even “the entire material universe”. ‘Oikoumene’ however is “used to denote the inhabited earth”. It “was restricted in its use” (p.1114 International Standard Bible Eny. vol.4 Grand Rapids 1988).
>> Re Theologians: Alford uses the expression ‘moral world’ so he didn’t include animals.<<
Under God’s curse and judgment both man and creatures often are 'included' (Zeph.1:2-4 Ez.32:12-13 Ex.9:3-4). While Kosmos can mean humanity ‘warped by sin’, according to NT Greek scholars it refers to the entire world. See also Matthew & Henry’s Commentary & Strong’s Exhaustive concordance, as Adam was head of creation.
>>1Cor 15:20-23 is also only about mankind (see v23); but if animals/plants were included in the death, then in v 22 “all” teaches that they too must be included in the resurrection.<<
Rom.5:12 says sin & death are interwoven, so does 1 Cor.15:54-56. And 1 Cor.15:21 states, “It was by man that death first came into the world. That man was Adam” (Believer's Bible Commentary). Commentaries then point us to Gen.2:17 3:19 Rom.5:12-21.
Sin & death will be ‘swallowed up’ or removed from creation. This doesn’t mean ‘animals/plants’ will be ‘resurrected’. But death will be banished (1 Cor.15:26-28) and “everything” will be subjected “to Him” (heavenly bodies, animals, plants, fishes, birds, etc). Paul implies a earth restoration without death. “All things” (1 Cor.15:27) restored (Isa.65:25) to their original condition before sin/curse which was “very good” (Gen.1:31).
When sin entered the world man had headship over creation, so creation was affected - emphasized by Noah’s flood. God’s judgment was on man and creation because of man’s sin. The animals perished in the flood because judgment was universal. The fact Noah takes 7 clean animals (veggie eaters) compared to the 2 unclean (meat eaters) into the Ark. The world had become full of violence by man & animals. The result of sin is ‘death’. Paul says because of sin, creation was subjected to futility (Rom.8:19-22). But we can’t blame God for this, He has no pleasure in suffering and death.
>> Other * If plants couldn’t die before the Fall, then animals couldn’t eat. Grass dies if eaten. * Fungi and bacteria feed on dead things, and were made/finished before the Fall Gen 2.1.*Seed sprouting involves death John 12.24* Cooking needs dead firewood. For all these reasons, there was death before the Fall.<<
Plant decomposition is not the same as animal death. Vegetation was made to be eaten. When I say ‘there was no death before Adam’, I simply mean death was not an issue or problem. It doesn’t mean there was no digesting or seed germination. It was simply a world without the pain, suffering, degeneration and death of today. It can be safely said there was no violent death that involved bloodshed. No fighting, killing, eating one another as today. There was nothing wrong with creation. Today, due to genetic defects which altered bacteria etc, death rules everywhere.
>> * Who made the lovely autumn colours of dying leaves? Sin? the Fall? God, says Psa 104.24.<<
Then why not have a picture of lions killing a baby gazelle in your living room? Why, because plants are a different order of creation than animals. Autumn leaves don’t revolt like dead gazelles. Death of animals or man is a brutality in comparison. The Bible refers to plants and animals differently, plants are no where referred to as ‘living creatures’ or ‘living souls’. They are biological organisms without conscious life.
>> * Adam must have known what death was, when God told him of it in Gen 2.<<
He knew disobedience would be punished, but I’m not sure he knew all that meant. Did he know the disease, murder and suffering that would result? He was in a different world.
>> 3 Cursed Earth theories Henry Morris misquotes Gen 3.17 (in Scientific Creationism). The Bible says the ground is cursed. Morris says that the Earth is cursed (as a whole and including all its physics and biology and systems). This is his first and very serious error. Every translation uses the word Ground or Soil, not Earth. The Earth was not cursed. It is easy for people to not see his slip, seeing that Soil is called Earth in ordinary parlance.<<
No 'misquote'. He says, “The first was when He cursed the ground for man’s sake (Gen.3:17). The second was when He was forced to say ‘behold I will destroy them with the earth’ (Gen.6:13)” (p.213 Scientific Creationism Morris. Master Books).
Have you read Gen.8:21-22? When God says He cursed the “ground” He also mentions the “earth”. How about Gen.4:10-12? God uses the words “earth” and “ground” (in relation to the curse) over and over. The words are interchangeable. To say ‘the earth is not cursed’ defies the evidence. What about the natural disasters, storms, earth quakes, deserts, etc they prove the earth is cursed. Surely an omnipotent and omniscient God could create one planet without faults?
Most Bible dictionaries will say in the Bible “Often 'earth' simply means the ground in which we plant crops” (p240 Expository Dictionary of Bible Words. Richards). See also Vines Dictionary ‘Ground’ and ‘earth’). So Morris is correct. Adam came from the ground, and was depended on the earth for life.
>> Secondly, Gen 3 tells clearly what the curse entailed: only 2 items: The serpent was cursed, and the ground was cursed in that hard labour and weeds came. Eve’s child-bearing pain and human death is not called a “curse”. Morris adds human imagination:- 1 plants /animals started to die. 2 systems of recycling and biological control started then – the Carbon and other cycles. 3 science can’t study the past. As for animals, the serpent’s change is the only one that God gives us any right to believe<<
Belief must be bible based, that's why Progressive Creationism is unbelievable. If we read Gen 3:14 its clear your “2 items” aren't enough. God said to the serpent, “You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field”. This indicates the ‘animals’ were also ‘changed’ or included in the ‘curse’. Yes God cursed the ground. That’s why the consequences of man’s fall are all around us and we suffer because of them.
Note the thorns and thistles they are found in the fossil record. Proving the record can’t be millions of years old. So Gen.3:18 indicates the curse of thorns and weeds began at the Fall. So plants also were ‘changed’ by the curse.
No one said ‘child-bearing’ is a curse. But we now have ground, plants and animals subject to the curse. To me, that explains perfectly why the earth is the way it is. In Genesis 3 man’s punishment has consequences. He was appointed by God for headship over the lower creation. When he fell, creation became subject to the law of “bondage of decay... the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now” (Rom.8:21-22). Man would not have died if it were not for sin (Gen.2:16-17 3:22-23).
Genesis has the only true account of the origin of all physical and moral evils that are in the world. Now if the universe doesn’t suffer under the curse, why will God burn it all and create a fresh new universe? (2 Pe.3:10-13 Isa.65:17 66:22). The curse and the flood constitute a permanent witness to man concerning God’s hatred of sin, why deny that?
>> Other * Animals and plants, whether predator or prey, show design and thus God’s purpose.<<
Did God design predators to kill because He cares nothing about violence and death? You might say ‘yes, we can learn from that’ and quote Psalm 104. But God hates violence (Mal.2:16). So the design functions appear because there was a new environment and God’s control over creation altered. The design functions indicate sin had entered the world and all creation was affected because of man’s sin.
Possibly some of the design functions had a different use before the fall. And some may have developed after the fall, as varieties within species. In the struggle for survival God equipped them to survive in a dangerous environment. Even though God intended the animals to eat vegetables, yet they became wild, hostile to man and each other. The “Answers Book” has a detailed chapter on this subject.
>> *Bible and Science say the sun is dying. As the sun dies, so earth life dies, apart from a Fall. <<
I would say because of the Fall, “they shall wax old as a garment” (Heb.1:11). But before the fall, God exercised sustaining power. Israel wandered through the wilderness for 40 years clothes and shoes didn’t ‘wax old’. God holds all things together by the power of His Word, but sin altered His sustaining power in relation to man.
>> *Psalm 104 teaches nature as it is now is harmony, wisdom, beauty, unlike a “cursed earth”. See my exposition of Psa 104 (Geoff’s book page 14-15). I’ve twice found creationists get angry when faced up to Psalm 104, a lovely ecological, anti-evolution, anti-Marxist poem. Conversely, my ire goes up when creationists use an evolution poem “nature red in tooth and claw”, a sick and godless view of nature, and untrue according to Psa 104.<<
But there is harmony and disharmony on earth. Wisdom/foolishness. Beauty/ugliness. Waste land, deserts, barren-desolate wilderness, violence, war, storms, etc. Creation is NOT ‘very good’ as originally.
If we don’t rightly divide scripture we will have “a sick and godless view” about the earth. And “a sick and godless view” about God. Progressive Creationism implies God is to blame for the suffering and death on earth. It attacks God’s goodness, Christ’s atonement and scriptural authority. ‘Red in tooth and claw’ is what it’s all about. It has God allowing innocent creatures (with no connection to man or sin) die in trillions for millions of years. They die in every kind of catastrophe conceivable. God allows (or even sends) multitudes of afflictions down on these animals with some going to extinction. That’s not 'wisdom'.
>> *The sun was not cursed, nor was starlight and astronomy. Significantly, both space and earth are consistent scientifically. This is against Morris, but it reveals the unity of God.<<
Obviously if "the sun is dying", its part of creation and under the curse. The stars also are burning themselves out and will eventually die. The whole universe will run-down and suffer a heat-death. But the order we see in the stars is nothing like any ‘big bang’ explosion (Gen.1:14 Job 9:7-10 38:31-33).
Interesting, since 1836 observers have made visual measurements suggesting the suns diameter is shrinking. The data concludes if the sun existed 7 million years ago, it would have been so large life on earth couldn’t exist. In fact we can't even go back 1 million years because the sun would be too big for life on earth.
>> Isa 11.6 and 65.25 don’t refer to a past Eden. They speak of the future.<<
But Isaiah’s vision of future bliss does reflect the former paradise lost through sin. If you deny that, then so much for the harmony etc of Psa.104 because God indicates in Isaiah this world was not the way He intended it to be. It makes more sense to say creation will be restored to its original glory (1) “I create new heavens and new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.”
(2) Animals are restored to what they once were, “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard lie down with the kid; and the calf and young lion and fatling together; and a child shall lead them.”
(3) The animals are at peace, no killing and with the diet God intended. “And the cow and bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox…. be glad and rejoice what I create….They shall not hurt nor destroy” (See Isa.11:6-8. 65:17-66:3).
>> Rom 8.19-25 has no mention of the Fall. But creation and God are implied in v 20. Commentators: half of them think it’s the effects of the Fall, half the effect of Creation.<<
You need to read vs17-19. The sufferings of God’s children cannot be compared to the glory that shall be revealed. Paul talks about the suffering in this world and the restoration coming. He's referring to a fallen 'creation' or the passage has no contrast. The effects of the fall are seen in creation. Anybody can see that but a Progressive Creationist who doesn’t want to because he wants support for the theory of evolution. When Paul says ‘creation’, it’s everything mentioned in Gen.1-2, “For creation made subject—not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it —in hope, that also the creation itself shall be set free from the servitude of the corruption to the liberty of the glory of the children of God; for we have known that all the creation doth groan together, and doth travail in pain together till now” (Rom.8:20-22).
>> 4 The second law of thermodynamics. If this law of decay started at the Fall, then the sun never shone on Eden, nor lost energy and gained entropy. The British creationist Robt E D Clark (who wrote books on this) called Morris’ idea “baseless rubbish”.<<
I wouldn’t share the view the ‘law of decay started at the fall’. The net effect of the 2nd law was sustained by God before the fall. God’s sustaining power kept creation in pristine perfection and kept everything from falling apart. After the fall, sin and the curse changed things, now the 2nd law is running rampant in a fallen world. Animals and plants are becoming extinct, genetic defects increasing, eventually all creation will die. It’s in ‘bondage to decay’ (Rom.8.21).
I wouldn’t expect every creationist to be identical. But E.D Clark does seem to direct a few thoughts your way, “Every theory of evolution has failed in the light of modern discovery and, not merely failed, but failed so dismally that it seems almost impossible to go on believing in evolution” (p.145 Darwin Before and After. E.Clark. Grand Rapids 1958).
>> 5 Morris on Theology He said Science must defer to Theology (‘the Biblical basis of Modern Science’). Yet both are human activities and can be right or wrong. Copernicus found that planets go round the sun but Calvin and Luther argued from Psa 93.1 that earth doesn’t move. The theology based on literal theologians reading the poem is wrong, and the scientist using what is deprecatingly called “naturalism” (i.e. observation and reason) is right.<<
The bible and true science don’t conflict. It’s false science that conflicts and ‘must defer’. What Morris really said, “the facts of science oppose evolutionism, and most people see this, once these facts are shown to them”. So, “Must we choose science or Scripture? No, of course not! The same God who created the world has revealed the Word, and He does not contradict Himself. If there seems to be a problem, one or the other must have been misunderstood” (Young Earth. Morris).
Galileo and Copernicus didn’t disprove the Bible. They would have been shocked at the thought. They accepted biblical authority more faithfully than church leaders today. The four main heroes of heliocentricism – Copernicus Galileo, Kepler, and Newton were all creationists and also the great astronomers Herschel and Maunder. None of these used ‘naturalism’ (interpreting the world without God).
And the ‘rising & setting’ of the sun (terms we use) are from poetry books and not intended to teach a particular astronomical model. With ‘observation and reason’, we learn the historical books (ie Genesis) are taken literally. So Calvin and Luther were right. Calvin - “Little more than 5 thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe”. And Luther - “We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago”.
>> 6 Flood Geology By this I mean the teaching that almost all the earth’s landforms and fossils were formed at the Flood. It has not one verse of Bible evidence going for it. Yes, there was a massive flood. But as for Flood Geology, the Bible is rather against it – rivers in Eden are there today. You can forget Ham’s and Morris’ pathetic ‘explanation’.<<
What’s wrong with the Morris/Whitcomb ‘explanation’ in their book ‘The Genesis Flood’? I think the problem is not the Bible or the evidence but the mind-set of those looking at the Bible and evidence.
Many verses support the flood. God said He would destroy ‘every living thing - I will destroy them with the earth - and all flesh died that moved upon the earth, fowl, cattle, beast and every creeping thing, every man, all the fountains of the great deep broke up” (Gen.6:13,17 7:4,11,21,23). So if there was a worldwide flood, what would we expect to find - fossils in the landforms? Fossils speak of death ‘by man came death’ (1 Cor.15:21). We find millions of dead things in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. The only reasons for denying flood geology come from outside the Bible.
Peter wrote, “for they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” (2 Pe.3:5).
Note Psa.104. After the waters covered the mountains (v6) God rebuked them and they fled (v7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (v8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (v9). They are the same waters. Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth (Isa.54:9). Clearly what the Bible is telling us is that God altered the earth’s topography.
And why do we still have a Tigris River? The same reason why there is a Liverpool and Newcastle in Australia and London & Oxford. Although they were originally place names in England, features in the post-flood world were given names familiar to those who survived the Flood.
>> As for geologic columns, tree trunks, coal, oil… I have to disagree with you. Fossil forests at Yellowstone are 18 layers, each under lava, mostly vertical trunks. Vertical means they were not dropped by a flood but were destroyed in situ. Lava means volcanic catastrophe. 18 means that it took far more than a year for 18 forests to grow in succession. Morris & Whitcomb do not discuss these items of significance which demolish their argument.<<
They do discuss the Yellowstone region (p.166) and they discuss the very things you mention here on p.418-9 (The Genesis Flood). Have a look. There has been considerable research at Yellowstone,
If the evolutionary scenario were true about Yellowstone, it would have taken 40,000 years to form the entire series at Specimen Creek / But that is based on the unobservable past not operational science which deals with the present / Growing trees have extensive root systems, but the Yellowstone petrified trees have their roots broken off / They have very little bark and few branches / Some of the trees extend into the ‘forest’ layer above, but if the next layer had to wait 100’s of years, then the exposed tree top would have completely decayed / But if laid down quickly, this observation should not be surprising / When trees fall in forests they lay flat, the petrified upright trees are consistent with a force of water or mud having acted quickly / If buried by volcanic eruptions 1,000’s of years apart, the mineral content of each would probably have been different, but they don’t differ / Volcanic minerals as feldspars quickly weather into clay, but the ‘forests’ lack clay suggesting none of the layers were exposed very long / Hot water rich in dissolved minerals (ie silica) found in some springs at Yellowstone has petrified wood in only a year (p.113 Organic chemistry of solidified wood Geo. Et Cosmo., Acta 42. 1978 A.C. Sigleo).
The idea that geologic layers form over thousands of years is not true. Tests in laboratories by scientists have show with fine gravel and running water how the layers form. The St Helen’s eruption proved the layers which evolutionary geologists claim take thousands or millions of years were all formed in hours. The eruption was over within days. These layers now have an appearance of been there for millions of years.
When Mt St Helens erupted it flattened millions of trees and caused a mud flow that carried logs. Many rested in upright positions and were buried at various stages on top of each other. If evolutionists were to discover Spirit Lake 1000 years on, they would interpret it as Yellowstone Park.
Polystrate trees are found all around the world in sandstone, siltstone, and coal seams. And buried through strata, some with 1,000's of layers of microscopic skeletons of water creatures (Central Queensland Aust). Such layers can’t represent accumulation of time. Due to the immense size of the coal-beds it points to catastrophic deposition on a huge scale, not millions of years (www.creationresearch.net click ‘WEB BOOK”).
How do you explain the coal, oil, fossil graveyards and warped folded rock layers? Or the many vast canyons that have formed quickly today? And the ancient legends around the world describing an historic flood? These to me, speak of unimaginable catastrophe.
>> 7 Language Typically Morris & AiG misuse words as pigeon-holes to convey sinister implications. It may win support, but is bad science and a bad attitude. 4 examples: 1 Evolution is a biological theory. Humphreys uses “evolutionary” of other things, cosmology, magnetic earth, ocean salt. Morris uses “evolutionary geology”, as if sequence of rock strata were invented to please biological evolutionists, but the strata sequence was discovered before evolution existed. In fact Sir JW Dawson (1895, Christian Canadian geologist) argued against evolution from the very same strata sequence.<<
I don’t see anything “sinister” about the use of those words. Evolution is a theory that tries to explain (without God) the formation of everything, not only life. Many scientists use those words when discussing problems with ‘evolutionary’ theory. Morris knows the column interpretation was ‘invented’ for evolutionists. What concerns him is the interpretation placed on the column, the assumptions which are not factual.
Did you know the geological column is really only a theoretic and abstract device? Nowhere on earth is there found a series of rock strata representing every age name in the column; in fact the most that can be expected are a few strata together representing only a very small part of it. “There is no present day process at all capable of producing such formation” (p.107 Scientific Creationism. H.Morris Master Books 96).
>> 2 Uniformitarianism is presented as error, Catastrophism as ignored truth. But all uniformitarians accept catastrophism (as for example in at least four “extinction points”).<<
But ‘uniformitarians’ won’t accept biblical ‘catastrophism’ but anything instead. Their extinction theories are often based on assumptions of what they think happened. And it’s the assumptions they start with that will determine the conclusions they come to.
Uniformitarianism is a theory that erosion and sedimentation is essentially the same throughout time – the present is the key to the past. It’s an unknown theory until after the mid-19th century. It wrongly assumes all earth’s history was shaped by the same processes we see happening today. As there’s no global flood happening today people don’t go looking for evidence of a global flood. They try to explain evidence seen in the present by the process seen operating only in the present. The Bible predicts this wrong approach to geology that denies miraculous creation and the Deluge (2 Pe.3:3-7).
>>3 Secular naturalism is a new one to me, and could be turned against you. You all go for secular science degrees and glory in the qualifications, quote Big Names and PhDs, use nonBiblical arguments, more naturalistic and unreasonable than the opposition’s.<<
‘Secular naturalism’ describes an atheistic world-view about the origins of life. It says ‘evolution is a fact’ regardless of the evidence. Do you agree with that?
Interesting, when young earth scientists have 'qualifications' they are criticized as conceited. When they don’t, they are criticized as knowing nothing. And when highly qualified scientists leave 'secular naturalism' for Biblical truth, you deride them with scorn.
The list of Christian scientists I provided Professor Geoff, he treated flippantly. I’m convinced it wouldn’t matter who was quoted, their 'qualifications' or what they said, you would dismiss them if they undermine your belief.
>>Example: Morris: “God can do anything”. This is true and biblical. But he uses it to bolster his belief in his own conjectures, that God did what Morris thought up. Now that’s wrong. In contrast, Christ encourages sound reasoning from observation (as in “you shall know them by their fruits”). My advice: never malign sound reasoning from observation. 4 Progressive Creationist That’s what you and I both are if we believe Gen 1. It took time.<<
But this ‘example’ is not “nonBiblical”, “naturalistic” or “unreasonable” at all. The worldwide flood and six day creation are not something “Morris thought up”. And it’s not “wrong” to believe God caused a worldwide flood because He “can do anything”.
Jeremiah also said, ‘God can do anything’ (Jer.32:17). It's ‘true and biblical’ and reasonable to believe He can create the world in six days, as He said. When Jesus mentioned about ‘their fruits’, He was referring to ‘their works’, NOT a belief ‘God can do anything’. My advice, never rubbish Scripture because in your ‘reasoning’ you think it can’t be true. And if we have the same God, then creation in 6 days is a very long 'time'.
>> 8 Nature and what it teaches You and Morris needlessly limit what you feel nature reveals, and how God can use any natural observation. Morris takes this stand to support “cursed earthism” and “Flood Geology”. But God uses nature to reveal a lot that Morris disallows.<<
God can use 'observations' of nature but they are limited in what they reveal and are subject to human interpretation. They can’t reveal God’s mind or how to be saved (Ross thinks they can, what do you say?). Nature ‘groans and travails in pain’ because of sin (Rom.8:22). So how can sinful fallible humans think their assumptions of sin-cursed-nature have equal authority to God’s Word?
You can’t allow a global flood because that ‘reveals’ the entire case for evolution collapses. Evolution depends on the fossil record interpreted in terms of vast geological ages; but with the flood its gone.
>> The Bible really encourages us to observe all nature and learn from it. Here are some:- Job 38+ God taught Job from natural observation about ostriches, wild donkeys, ravens… his eternal power and wisdom, his care for the insignificant, his patience with sinners. Job 12 invites us to look at the animals, and also the earth, to teach us….<<
No “the Bible really encourages us to observe” Christ, not nature. ‘In Him dwells all the fullness of God’ (Col.1:19 2:9). There are lessons in nature and we can use scripture to learn about nature, but we don’t ‘observe nature’ to learn about Christ. ‘Observations about’ animals don’t reveal God’s mind. If you want to know more about God you must go through scripture to His Son. He’s the only way to God.
Creation suffers under the “curse” (Gen.3:17-19 Rom.8:20-22) while Scripture is ‘God-breathed’ (2 Tim.3:15). Men might ‘know’ about God by ‘nature’ (Rom1:18-22) but they can’t know God personally. “How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? (Rom.10:14). You cannot learn from nature that you 'must be born again'. Job only had limited information (general revelation), while we have Scripture (special/full revelation).
>> 1 The Flood couldn’t have changed the starlight that shows an old universe.<<
I’m sure the flood didn’t change starlight. But the assumption starlight proves ‘an old universe’ is based on evolutionary theory. Do you limit God’s creative power to what men say they think must have happened? God is outside time and space nor limited by either, and obviously created ‘all things’ out of nothing. There will always be wonder about His creation, as to how He did it. But even assuming an old universe, there are still problems with accepting the idea of old starlight. James Reid says, “The mass equivalent of this light energy far outweighed the mass of matter itself. Scientists conversant in these matters are in agreement that this light outweighed matter for at least 250,000,000 years” (p.103 God, Atom and the Universe. Rapids 86).
>> 2 If science can’t see back beyond the Flood, then nor can Morris (who pretends to know what life is like before the Flood and Fall, in considerable imagined detail, in his book.)<<
That’s why we should trust the One who was there and tells us what happened in His book. And be thankful for the detail He has revealed in His book instead of doubting it.
>> What does nature reveal? a summary list of some I am working on:- God’s size, eternity, brilliance, power, gentleness, unity, beauty, design, harmony, engineering, wisdom, laws to control nature, fine detail, personality and will, invisibility, orderliness and lack of caprice, mental powers, plentiful supply, love and beneficence (Yes! God’s love is in nature! he makes even the necessary things enjoyable) impartiality, sacrifice in nature, future life evident in this life, basic morality (Butler’s ‘Analogy’ 1736), spirit as against the material, great unknowns. Nature reveals all of these, and almost all of them are also in the Bible. I’d welcome additions to this list. Yours sincerely, David<<
These truths are far better revealed in the Bible ‘we have a more sure word’ (2 Pe.1:19). Don’t look for truth else where. The Bible has all we need, to know the Saviour, for our walk with Him. The “only infallible canon for determining true truth is the written Word of God. Nature, though it does reveal some things about God, is limited and can be misread by mankind. The human mind, though often brilliant in what it can achieve, suffers limitations and darkening” (p.25 Basic Theology C Ryrie)
And even according to your belief, there are facts you ignore – ‘nature’ reveals God to be the author of violence, suffering, cruelty, pain and death ‘nature’ teaches that God struggled to create over millions of years, so He is not all powerful, good or loving.
So I have a few reasons to reject the big-bang and millions of years assumption –
(1) Its inconsistent with God’s omnipotence. He has all power and able to create the universe in an instant.
(2) Its inconsistent with His personality. If man made in His image was His goal, why wait till the end of geological time before creating personalities? No personal fellowship was possible with rocks or dino's.
(3) Its inconsistent with His omniscience. The record of extinctions misfits etc., all very poor planning. It’s inconsistent with His love. The storms, disease, famine, violent death, as the ‘mechanism’ of evolution. A loving God would be more caring than that. I doubt even a sadist could think of a more cruel and ugly way to produce the animals over which Adam was to rule.
(4) Its inconsistent with His wisdom. If His goal was creation and the redemption of man, why waste billions of years of aimless evolutionary meandering? What’s the purpose of millions of deaths and extinctions?
(5) Its inconsistent with His forethought. As if His forethought was not adequate for the entire evolutionary process at the beginning. He therefore frequently interfered in the process setting it back in the right direction. So what do you think?