ay@

The remarkable
birth of planet

a
832r

orris, Henry Madison, :

Life Pacific College Alumni Library

wa

a net

P9-EDN-426
 orris, Henry Madison |
The remarkable birth of planet earth. |

OD Wes. Covina Sivd,

1 Dimas, CA 91773
 DATE DUE
6;
's)

>1
=
oO a =
aa TI <A
v,@ =—

se2nn0
ox
Hes ORF)
re=

zi MMAR? 4
JUN 9 jay) es. eee |

apr 20 tel] |
MAY 1.8 198
FEB 2 2 19821
5 7 é

B Wa
DARL - tO 2 2 z z a i] =
i Bhi cee
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2025

https://archive.org/details/hollowglobeorwor0000sher
THE REMARKABLE BIRTH
OF PLANET EARTH

Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Institute For Creation Research

San Diego, California

ill
 L.LF.E, College Libr
a
1100 Glendale mi
ns
Los Angeles, Calif.
$0026

COPYRIGHT 1972 INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH,

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Second Printing, December, 1972

Third Printing, February, 1973
 TABLE OF CONTENTS”
THE REMARKABLE ‘nero deste
OPLANEI EARTH >
TL CIACE RT ee oe ent ee ee Vii
Chapter I.
The Amazing Order of Complex Things .... 1
Chapter II.
The Rigorous Ways of Natural Law .......... 13
Chapter ITI.
The Terrible Death of the Ancient World.. 21
Chapter IV.
The Marvelous Nature of Living Things.... 34
Chapter V.
The Early History of All Mankind.............. 44
Chapter VI.
The Puzzling Role of the Stars Above........ 56
Chapter VII.
The Strange Delusion of Evolution ............ 70
Chapter VIII.
The Wonderful Day When the
VOL SV. AS ORSON) foe nected nc oeetitat sons s castes oe 80
Appendix A-1.
Biblical Arguments for a
BV OFLA WIG FLOOD cfcvtds ste sonoudspedeiencan
snsonten 96
Appendix A-2.
Non-Biblical Arguments for a
Worldwide lhlood! «85. cater diinewel ound 99
Appendix B.
New Testament References to
Genesist AIA 66) VRE a Le: 101
Appendix C. .
Recommended Books for 0179838
Further Reading ................. has otsh sae ae 104
PGC KAOP SCLIDUUTOS wnt es icecsces-uncsvenvetieresnesncenss 109
liveeo te OSI Gin . ee ae 112
 we: } 3 tae.
| uv

a a ch. ‘is Re ee

= MegASE ‘a
1 4 > ‘he bd awe 22 a : eri

=~ s
danniT dhivct jo ontive¥e sLaiswisht Ss = 5 i

f
. — =e<
Me yp SS fo ete taka orffu or
; eeT8¢
te ered i want acl? do ohod) Salles’ ie
— - as \ — LV Jon
Se Ret
Sythe 8 ag
~ ~1¢ - oe. mee

ie aioe
: - pad nantW thshooW ¢
“-
oH
spent Prin tings in a BTW
abi ., -.> aL Lay y! F ss b= Hk io =
Thy -
a
®t pbeertesn ten:
 PREFACE
This book has been written in order to give busy,
but interested, readers a brief summary of both Bibli-
cal and scientific reasons for believing in creation
instead of evolution. The origin and early history of
the earth and man is a marvelous and fascinating
story of God’s great power and foresight, given by
revelation in the Bible and now strikingly confirmed
by modern science.
The theory of evolution has dominated our society,
especially the schools, for almost a hundred years,
and its influence is largely responsible for our pres-
ent-day social, political, and moral problems. Many
people today, including scientists, are again examining
the evolution-creation question and often are amazed
to find that evolution is merely an unreasonable
theory containing many scientific fallacies. Creation,
on the other hand, is a scientific theory which does
fit all the facts of true science, as well as God’s revela-
tion in the Holy Scriptures.
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scien-
tists today who once were evolutionists but have
become creationists in recent years. I myself was one
of these, having accepted the evolutionary theory all
through college. Since that time, however, as a result
of considerable reading in all the various sciences
which bear on the evolution-creation question, as well
as in the Bible, I personally have become thoroughly
convinced that the Biblical record, accepted in its
natural and literal sense, gives the only scientific and
satisfying account of the origin of all things. Many
other scientists today can give a similar testimony.
Such a conclusion obviously has profound personal
meaning as well. If God created all things, then He
also controls all things, and has a purpose for all
things—including you and me! History is not a blind
interplay of forces, but is the outworking of the Cre-
ator’s plan. Things that seem to be wrong with the
world—war, disease, pollution, hatred, poverty—are
not permanent residents, but only temporary in-
truders, and will someday be exiled forever.
The record of creation has thus become also the
prophecy of restoration, for God cannot fail in His
creative purpose! Evil has been allowed for a time,
since otherwise man (created in God’s image) could
never have experienced either responsibility or recon-
ciliation.
It is time, therefore, for “all men everywhere to
repent” (Acts 17:30). Repentance means essentially
a change of mental attitude, rejecting the man-cen-
tered philosophy of struggle and evolution and ac-
cepting instead the God-centered truth of creation
and redemption.
The purpose os this book is to give a solid, though
brief, treatment of the major aspects of the question
of origins. The supposed evidences for evolution are
shown to be capable of more satisfactory interpreta-
tion in terms of creation, and the unresolved difficul-
ties of the evolutionary theory are shown to be posi-
tive evidences for creation.
The discussion is primarily approached from the
Biblical point of view, and assumes throughout that
the Bible is the Word of God, divinely inspired and,
therefore, completely reliable and authoritative on
every subject with which it deals. To some readers,
of course, this may seem an unwarranted assumption.
I can only urge them to approach the discussion with
an open mind, learning as a matter of interest just
what the Bible does have to say on these subjects.
I think they will be pleasantly surprised to find
how relevant and accurate the Bible actually is when

vill
dealing with such matters. The discussions in the book
also include enough scientific information to verify
the historical and scientific confidence we are placing
in the Scriptures. For more detailed scientific docu-
mentation the reader is referred to the reeommended
reading list in Appendix C.
In closing these opening remarks, I want to list
seventeen summary statements which, if true, provide
abundant reason why the reader should reject evolu-
tion and accept special creation as his basic world-
view. The evidence that they are true will be found
in the pages that follow.

1. The Bible clearly teaches that all things were

created in six natural days several thousand
years ago, and all other Biblical interpretations
of the creation account contain many irrecon-
cilable contradictions with both science and
Scripture.
2. There is no demonstrated fact of science which
cannot be satisfactorily correlated with this
simple and straightforward Biblical record.
3. There are many amazing scientific insights in
the Bible which long preceded their actual dis-
covery by modern scientists.
4. No fact of actual observation has ever con-
firmed the general theory of evolution, as dis-
tinct from those minor variations which are
known as the special theory of evolution.
5. All facts of observation support the concept of
the original creation of distinct kinds of organ-
isms, each with a genetic ability to develop into
many different varieties but never into a new
kind.
6. Both the present world of living organisms and
the fossil world of dead organisms exhibit the
 same clearcut gaps between kinds, with no
transitional forms between.
. Man has never created “life in a test-tube’’. nor
is there any evidence that non-living substances
have ever evolved into living organisms, either
in the past or in the present.
. Inheritable and novel changes (mutations)
which take place in organisms today have
always been observed to be harmful in some
way to the organism in its natural environment.
. The tremendous complexity and order of the
world and its plants and animals can only be
explained by intelligent planning, not by a ran-
dom process of chance variation and natural
selection.
10. The basic laws of nature, to which all natural
processes. must conform, are laws of conser-
vation and disintegration, as the Bible
teaches—not laws of innovation and integration,
as evolution teaches.
1h: The entire fossil record can be explained better
in terms of cataclysmic destruction of all the
ecological zones of one age than in terms of
evolutionary development of changing world-
wide floras and faunas through many ages.
ap There are more natural phenomena indicating
the earth is very young than those indicating
it is old, and all the latter can easily be rein-
terpreted in terms of young age.
De Belief in special creation has a salutary influ-
ence on mankind, since it encourages responsi-
ble obedience to the Creator and considerate
recognition of those who were created by Him.
14. Belief in evolution is a necessary component
of atheism, pantheism, and all other systems
that reject the sovereign authority of an om-
nipotent personal God.

xX
 15. Belief in evolution has historically been used
by their leaders to justify a long succession of
evil systems—including fascism, communism,
anarchism, nazism, occultism, and many others.
16. Belief in evolution and animal kinship leads
normally to selfishness, aggressiveness, and
fighting between groups, as well as animalistic
attitudes and behaviour by individuals.
17. Belief in evolution leads usually and logically
to rejection of the trustworthiness of the Bible
and, therefore, failure to appropriate its prom-
ises leading to salvation and eternal life.
The reader will find ample evidence for the forego-
ing statements in the eight chapters of this book, and
much more evidence in the books recommended for
further study. The evidence clearly shows. creation
to be a much more reasonable alternative than evolu-
tion. That being the case, the reader should soberly
consider the consequences in light of eternity should
he choose to continue to reject (or, which is even
worse, neglect) his Creator and Redeemer in defer-
ence to the unproved philosophy of evolution.
“Know ye that the Lord He is God, it is He that
hath made us, and not we ourselves: ... be thankful
unto Him and bless His name” (Psalm 100:3,4).

Henry M. Morris
San Diego, California
September 1972

xl
 /
7
Jeane ote b Lp
P
ae
=
ie it :-
~ 4 es —-.

: A Sis

TOEa Po AG Hees *
ie or (late cietyyes as
: Alter Bet 6 2 . ae tye a'sor ee
> . 4 = =.
~ ite ANSI AM 22 Bagot a oF gitAbies 5
SH (! set 5S WeeBs a TY gy fos D
x eyilty)

Ds yet. Vor eo hegit tertPat879

Wisse Gas yest Aigdk auitayOe i tails
dit saP 1h teahin histoire gla wo}
rag ei ee Mago 2 of ng OTS Tet} ei
Sul Faith ts) 6 Th adie ©? 9'l! go) maer
ogriot Si afd Ayalte bal ‘(rer aay
bos WoO = iy Fame Grey if Ean
‘Tot babyrsicgen Sead axl. ii 12 Bi
7 ¢ BP tke [ ma C TsT) 2s ‘ i 3 i fg

sot 3" SV ETRE " Omir iy

| ade tiuvda yebes Say sen ay5 aie 3

eve eC iaiiw 2G) FasRir o2 suse a) oer

, %' J “ ‘ > = 2 J am

Looks te .en aye

“3iod TWEE DOT Dae wie} aie Sasi:
7 DIS bos to
AOI OM frbstene:
CBU RRS BO: a siliaf a
dort) af} ss 4!" # v's) pie eae ls
3 kK est .t ot APL iad Set sts
"tithe 5 a0 Oat ioe Dae, Le aa iy
i AP, oi
at : ints ao } sa aly
see asgat
; wT ‘new pete 7

7 x a hy nah putting 4Lay ‘ania — i

iy ied, vi
aborhlint: De a tae tia 2‘= ereeu ately s
ays wiHirsi xen eal“aria, Bh
DSRS ep. eta C unease Simi
; >» “etna mhunkisd ~w it wera te
7 Ba
ra ce Bex
ty. : ad ‘“0, Cae fy ape st
te
eid
oy,
oa? hatte a) hy
ead had
— y 14 E
plane 2r a ‘al i <n ° ar

at ae pe
Paris
 CHAPTER I
THE AMAZING ORDER
OF COMPLEX THINGS

One of the strangest phenomena of human nature

is that brilliant minds often make foolish decisions.
There is no more common and universal fact of expe-
rience than the fact that order never arises sponta-
neously out of disorder and a design always requires
a designer. Yet many scientists and other intellectuals
believe that our intricately-designed and infinitely-
ordered universe developed all by itself out of prime-
val chaos!
The law of cause-and-effect is a universally-ac-
cepted concept of modern science. If like causes did
not produce like effects, in fact, science would be
impossible. The world would be a chaos, not a cosmos.
Furthermore, since an infinite chain of secondary
causes extending chronologically backwards into past
eternity is a meaningless and unsatisfying alternative,
the concept of a great uncaused First Cause is the
most reasonable and powerful explanation for the
infinite array of ordered effects which are observed
in the universe.
Thus the simplest, and yet most profound, expla-
nation for the world is found in the first verse of
God’s Word: ‘‘In the beginning, God created the
heaven and the earth.” The tremendous complex of
orderly relationships in the universe, challenging the
highest intelligence of man to describe, certainly im-
plies an intelligent First Cause of these relationships.
It seems absurd in the very nature of things for men
to use their own intellectual capacities to try to devise
an intelligent explanation of things in terms of non-
intelligent origin. How could unthinking atoms create
intelligent thought? No wonder the Biblical writers
are emphatic in denouncing such sophistries. “The
fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm
14:1). “Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools, . . . and worshipped and served the creature
more than the Creator, ... even as they did not like
to retain God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:22,25,
28).
If the law of cause-and-effect applies to all known
phenomena—and it does—then there must be an ade-
quate cause even to explain why such men seek to
explain all things without a First Cause. Atheists are
not born that way; it is natural and normal for a
child to believe in God, and this innate belief must
be “educated” out of him if he is to become an atheist.
The cause of this phenomenon is to be found in
the words of Romans 1:28, above quoted: “They did
not like to retain God in their knowledge.” It is not
 that there is not adequate evidence of a Creator, it
is just that men prefer to avoid Him. They make
themselves believe in “no God” instead of retaining
their inborn belief in His true existence.
Therefore they try by every means possible to ex-
plain away the innumerable evidences of order and
design in nature on the basis of some natural process,
without creation. But how can complexity arise natu-
rally out of simplicity, and order out of disorder?
Nothing like this is observed to happen in the real
world. Real processes always go, if left to do what
comes naturally, in the direction of greater disorder
and randomness. How can the appearance of design
be produced without the reality of design?
This argument from design has always been consid-
ered as a most powerful evidence for the existence
of God. A watch requires a watchmaker: then, what
about the far more intricate and precise atomic and
sidereal clocks? A water supply system requires the
efforts of a great many skilled engineers and builders;
then, what about the marvelous reservoir, pumping,
purification, and distribution system involved in the
hydrologic cycle which supplies water to the earth’s
inhabitants? A great building presupposes a trained
architect; the infinitely-more complex structure of the
human body cannot even be analyzed, let alone de-
signed, by man. The greatest digital computers are
absurdly simple in comparison to the complex cir-
cuitry of the human brain and nervous system.
The idea that a complex structure or system can
somehow be formed by chance is a persistent delusion
accepted by evolutionists. Typical naturalistic rea-
soning supposes that anything can happen if enough
time is available. Monkeys pecking away blindly at
typewriter keys are bound eventually to hit on a
Shakespearean sonnet, so the thinking goes.
 But this idea is absurd. To illustrate, consider an
ordered structure of, say, 200 parts. This is not an
unusual number—the human skeleton, for example,
contains more than 200 separate bones, all aligned
together into a perfectly integrated functioning whole.
There are innumerable systems in the world far more
complicated than this.
Consider the possible number of different ways 200
parts could be aligned together. A system of one part
could be lined up in only one way; one of two parts
in two ways (1x2); one of three parts in six ways
(1x2x3); one of four parts in 24 ways (1x2x3x4); and
so on. Thus a system of 200 parts could be aligned
in a number of different ways equal to 1x2x3x4x5x6
..x...x 200. This number is called “200 factorial”
and is written ‘“200!”.
This is a tremendously large number. It can be
shown to be approximately 10*’, that is, a number
written as “one” followed by 375 “zeros”. Therefore,
the correct alignment of the 200 parts has only one
chance out of 10°"* of being selected on the first trial.
Suppose a new trial can be made every second. In
all of supposed astronomic time (about 10 billion
years) there have only been 10'* seconds, so the chance
that the correct alignment might be obtained once
in the 10 billion years would be only one out of
10°**"'*, or 1 in 10*. This is still practically zero.
Suppose that we try to improve the chances by
arranging to have a large number of sets of the 200
parts, all being tried simultaneously. Suppose that
each part is only the size of an electron, which is
the smallest particle that exists in the universe, so
far as we know. Then, let us fill the entire universe
(of radius 5 billion lhght-years) with solidly-packed
sets of electrons. It can be shown that the whole
universe could only contain, at the most, 10'*’ such
sets of 200 solidly-packed electrons. Thus, we now
are trying to visualize 10'*’ sets of 200 parts each,
and trying to arrange only one set into the correct
alignment by chance, just once in ten billion years,
anywhere in the universe.
Suppose also that we invent a machine capable of
making not one trial per second, but a billion-billion
different trials every second, on every one of the 10'”°
sets. Surely this is the maximum number of possible
trials that anyone could possibly conceive as ever
being made on this type of situation. This would
permit a total of (10'*°)(10'*)(10'%), or 10%, trials to
be made.
Still, after all this, the chance that one of these
10'* trials would give the right result and make the
system work is only one out of 10**°"'®*, or 1 in 10°°.
In other words, the idea that a system of 200 parts
could be arranged by chance into the correct order
is absolutely absurd!
Most systems, of course, including all living organ-
isms, are far more complex than a mere 200 parts.
The cerebral cortex in the human brain, for example,
contains over 10 billion cells, all arranged in proper
order, and each of these cells is itself infinitely com-
plex!
The obvious conclusion is that complex, ordered
structures of any kind (and the world is full of them)
simply could never have happened by chance. Dis-
order never spontaneously turns into order. Organi-
zation requires an organizer. The infinite array of
complex effects seen in the universe must have been
produced by an adequate cause. An adequate Cause
is God, the Creator, and nothing less!
The modern Darwinian evolutionist thinks he has
a naturalistic explanation for all this, of course. The
magic formula which transforms electrons into living
cells, and frogs into princes, is “random mutation and
natural selection,” and the magic wand which makes
it work is “billions of years.”
As the modern leader of evolutionary thought, Sir
Julian Huxley, has said:'
“Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as
the creator of organisms from the sphere of ratio-
nal discussion. Darwin pointed out that no su-
pernatural designer was needed; since natural
selection could account for any known form of
life, there was no room for a supernatural agency
in its evolution.”
Similarly, but more recently, Francisco J. Ayala,
of Rockefeller University, has insisted on this per-
spective as follows:
“Darwin substituted a scientific teleology for a
theological one. The teleology of nature could
now be explained, at least in principle, as the
result of natural laws manifested in natural pro-
cesses, without recourse to an external Creator
or to spiritual or non-material forces.’”
As we shall see in later chapters, however, Dar-
winism is not really a “scientific teleology” at all.
Random mutations necessarily generate, not order,
but disorder, and natural selection at best constitutes
a screening mechanism for sieving out the disor-
ganized misfits produced by mutational pressures, and
thus for conserving the original complex systems al-
ready present. Furthermore, the longer the period of
time available for such pressures to operate, the more
likely it is that they will tend to overcome the selec-
tion process and drag the entire biosphere downhill
to lower levels of order!
The tenet of neo-Darwinism—that random muta-
tion combined with natural selection eliminates the
need for God—is pre-mature, to say the least. It has
already been shown that complex ordered structures
could never be produced by “random selection” of
their parts. Nevertheless, evolutionists insist that
“selection” can somehow affect the “random” nature
of the process. Even though genetic mutation is a
random process, they feel that natural selection can
so efficiently sieve out the “good” mutations that its
randomness is gradually converted into increased
order, even without an intelligent organizer to control
its
But this is asking far too much of such an imper-
sonal, unintelligent, static phenomenon as natural
selection. At the very best, natural selection cannot
produce the mutations—it does not energize or orga-
nize anything itself. All it can do is “decide” whether
or not a combination of parts presented to it by the
random mutation process is more ordered or less
ordered than its non-mutated predecessor combina-
tion; and we have already seen that a random process
could never produce an ordered structure for selection
to “select”—even such a relatively simple structure
as one containing only 200 components.
At this point the evolutionist might object that
he is being misunderstood. He does not propose that
an ordered structure should be suddenly organized
from its 200 separate parts all simultaneously. Rather,
the process works gradually, part upon part, slowly
over long ages. Only one part is added at a time.
However, a little consideration will show that this
only makes matters worse. The same selection process
has to take place over and over again, and each time
against greater odds than the time before.
That is, when the structure advances from one to
two parts, it has two “choices” as to alignment, and
therefore a 1 in 2 chance of success. When it goes
from two to three parts, it has six choices, and there-
fore a 1 in 6 chance, and so on. If it goes all the
way to 200 parts, its final advance has, as calculated
earlier, only a 1 in 10° chance. Each step in the
chain has to keep “trying” until it hits on the right
combination at each step before it can go on to the
next one. Thus, the probability of developing an or-
dered structure of 200 parts by this step-by-step mu-
tation-selection technique is only 1 out of the number
represented by the series 2! + 3! + 4! + .... +
199! + 200!. This number is obviously far larger than
the 200! (or 10°"°) improbability of the system arising
all at once. The evolutionist should have left well
enough alone!
Now, admittedly, the above analysis assumes that
each successive step must in effect “start from
scratch”, and this isn’t really fair. The evolutionist
does not visualize all parts being completely re-
shuffled at each step. On the other hand, it must
also be remembered that, in every living organized
system there is an intricate inter-dependence of all
parts upon each other. The elevation of an n‘® degree
ordered system to an (n + 1)" degree ordered system
is certainly far more involved than a mere linking
of the new part on to the previous structure un-
changed. And there is also the question of where the
new part comes from in the first place. A mutation
may cause a change in an existing part, but how does
it create a new part to add to the system? Further-
more, if there is to be a change, what is to prevent
the system from going downhill to less order instead
of uphill to higher order?
As a matter of fact, if mutations constitute the
mechanism for producing this supposed increasing
complexity, it is far more likely that the system will
become less ordered with each change in order, instead
of more ordered. All evolutionary geneticists agree that
the great majority of mutations are harmful, with
not more than one in a thousand being really benefi-
cial (actually there are probably no true mutations
that have ever been demonstrated to be permanently
helpful in the natural environment).
However, let us give the evolutionary process the
maximum possible benefit of the doubt and assume
that each successive step has a 50:50 chance of suc-
cess. That is, for a given structure, the probability
that the next change will be an addition of order is
assumed to be exactly the same as that it will be
a decrease of order. The probability of success at each
step is 1 out of 2.
There are 200 steps, of course, to be made to arrive
at an integrated 200-component system. If any one
of these steps fails (that is, a “lethal” or otherwise
“harmful” mutation) then of course the evolutionary
process in that particular system either stops alto-
gether or goes backward.
All 200 steps must succeed and the probability of
success at each step is 4%. Elementary statistical theory
shows that the probability of success of the whole
chain of steps is the product of the probabilities for
each step. That is, the probability that a 200-step
evolutionary chain can succeed is only one out of
(44)?°°, or 1 in 2?°°, even assuming beneficial mutations
are as frequent as harmful mutations.
This number is equal to a number represented by
1 with 60 zeros, or 10°’, or a quadrillion quadrillion
quadrillion quadrillion. Not a very likely sequence!
Therefore, even this very simple evolutionary se-
quence of 200 steps is for all practical purposes impos-
sible. An ordered system can, by no means mathe-
matically conceivable, ever arise by a random process
from non-ordered components, even if a screening
mechanism such as natural selection is available to
conserve its acceptable products.
The evolutionist may still offer one faint objection,
saying that even though one given system only has
a 1 in 10° chance of evolutionary success, there must
be at least some systems in the world that make the
grade.
So, let’s go this one more mile with him. The surface
area of the earth contains about 3 x 10'* sq. ft. Assume
that each part of the system is actually a living cell,
and the entire surface of the earth is covered with
living cells stacked one foot deep. There would be
about 10'* cells then piled on top of each square foot,
and the earth’s surface would hold about 3 x 107°
such cells. If all of these are operated in this evolu-
tionary process simultaneously, there would be,
therefore, about 10°* systems of 200 parts each avail-
able in the entire earth. Since each of them has one
chance in 10° of evolutionary success, the chance that
one out of all the 10°* sets would succeed is thereby
reduced to 1 in 10*°. This is still an impossibly large
number.
However, as each set fails, then let a fresh set come
in and try again. Suppose each step takes one-half
second, so that the 200 steps in each set would take
100 seconds. Then, in the 10'* seconds of astronomic
time, each of the 107' sets could have 10'° tries. Thus,
a total of 10*° attempts could be made in all time
in all the world to evolve a structure of 200 parts.
The probability that one of them would ever succeed
anywhere is still only 1 in 107°, or one chance out
of ten billion times ten billion.
And this is only one very simple structure! The
world is full of great numbers of far more complicated
structures and systems than this.
We conclude that evolution by any kind of chance

10
process, even with natural selection operating, is
mathematical and scientific nonsense.
The argument from design, therefore, has not at
all been refuted by natural selection theory, but is
actually stronger than ever. The innumerable and
marvelous structures and systems of the cosmos, and
their intricate adaptations to each other constitute
a vast complex of intelligible order for which creative
forethought and design can be the only rational ex-
planation. It is pointless to give examples because
literally every system of any kind in the whole cosmos
is itself a marvelous model of intricate structure and
complex planning.
The great Designer who created this wonderful
world can be none other than the God of the Bible—
omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, holy—yet also
personal, loving, and gracious. The Cause of all the
phenomena of the universe must encompass at least
all their own characteristics. |
“He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he
that formed the eye, shall he not see?—he that
teacheth man knowledge, shall he not know?”
(Psalm 94:9,10).
The finely-balanced structure of the earth’s hy-
drosphere, atmosphere, and lithosphere are stressed
in the rhetorical question of Isaiah 40:12:
“Who hath measured the waters in the hollow
of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span,
and comprehended the dust of the earth in a
measure, and weighed the mountains in scales,
and the hills in a balance?”
As if in answer, the prophet replies by stressing
God’s omnipotence and omniscience:
“Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath
created these things, that bringeth out their host
by number: he calleth them all by names by the

11
 greatness of his might, for that he is strong in
power, not one faileth” (40:26).
The tremendous evidence of design and order in na-
ture encourages us to testify, with the Psalmist:
“O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom
hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy
riches” (Psalm 104:24).

‘Issues in Evolution (Sol Tax, Ed., University of Chicago Press,

1960) p. 45
*“Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology” Philosophy
of Science, Vol. 37, March 1970, p. 2

12
 CHAPTER II
THE RIGOROUS WAYS
OF NATURAL LAW

The world that God created is not a dead, static,

unchanging thing. Rather it teems with activity, with
things happening, with life. Not only does the creation
exhibit an infinite variety of marvelously designed
structures and relationships, as discussed in Chapter I,
but also there is an unlimited complexity of inter-
actions between these systems.
These inter-actions are called processes, and the
study of these processes is the function of scientists.
Because of the great number of different systems and
processes, it has been necessary for science to divide
and subdivide itself over and over again. Not only

13
are there physicists and chemists, biologists and geol-
ogists, and other such basic scientists, but also physi-
cal chemists, organic chemists, nuclear physicists,
classical physicists, and numerous other specialists
within these basic disciplines. Many fields of science
which once were special emphases in physics or one
of the broad sciences have developed into independent
branches of their own—sciences such as meteorology,
hydrology, ecology, metallurgy, paleontology, and
many others.
All of which points up both the extreme breadth
and complexity of science and also the impossibility
of any one scientist ever becoming a real first-hand
authority in more than a very restricted scientific
specialty. Furthermore, scientists as individuals are
real people and therefore subject to the same conceits,
prejudices, and other weaknesses as non-scientists.
Scientists should accordingly be very cautious about
making broad pronouncements on sociological or reli-
gious matters in the name of “science,” and laymen
should be carefully skeptical about such pro-
nouncements when they do make them.
In spite of the great number and variety of scientific
processes, there are two statements that can be made
about all of them without exception. These are:
1. All processes involve interchanges and conver-
sions of an entity called energy, with the total
energy remaining constant. Scientifically this is
called the law of conservation of energy, or the
First Law of Thermodynamics.
2. All processes manifest a tendency toward decay
and disintegration, with a net increase in what
is called the entropy, or state of randomness or
disorder, of the system. This is called the Second
Law of Thermodynamics.
Thus all the processes of nature are fundamentally

14
processes of quantitative conservation and qualitative
disintegration. These two laws, accepted by all scien-
tists as the most universally-applicable principles
which science has been able to discover, were only
recognized about a hundred years ago.
However, these basic principles have been in the
pages of the Bible for thousands of years, though not
expressed in modern scientific terminology. The con-
servation principle is clearly set forth by the fact of
a completed creation which is now being sustained
by its Creator.
Colossians 1:16,17, for example, indicates both
aspects of this truth. “By Him were all things created
. and by Him all things consist.’ Note that
“created” is in the past tense. The Scripture does not
say: “By Him are all things being created.” Thus,
creation is not going on at present. The word “consist”
is a translation of the Greek word from which we
get our English word “sustain.” Thus, the verse says
in effect that “by Him all things are sustained.” By
the Lord Jesus Christ, all things—all systems and
structures, all kinds of organisms and relationships—
were created once for all in the past and are now
being conserved.
This same principle—that nothing is now being
created or destroyed—is also implied in many other
passages. Examples include Hebrews 1:2,3: “. . . He
made the worlds... upholding all things by the word
of His power”; II Peter 3:5,7: “by the word of God
the heavens were of old and the earth... the heavens
and the earth which are now, by the same word are
kept in store”; Psalm 148:5,6: “. . He commanded,
and they were created. He hath also established them
for ever and ever’; Isaiah 40:26: “... He hath created
these things, .. . for that He is strong in power; not
one faileth”; Nehemiah 9:6: “. . . thou hast made

15
heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host,
the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas,
and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all.”
The first chapter of Genesis describes this creation,
and it should be stressed as strongly as possible that
it is only in the Bible that we can possibly obtain
any information about the methods of creation, the
order of creation, the duration of creation, or any
of the other details of creation. Since, according to
both Scripture and the First Law of science, nothing
is now being created, therefore the scientific study
of present processes can reveal nothing about creation
except that it must have taken place. This is the most
fundamental fallacy in the evolutionary theory. Evo-
lution assumes that these present processes are the
same processes by which all things have developed
from primeval chaos into their present complexity.
Both the Word of God and the First Law of science
say otherwise.
At the end of the account of creation, the record
is very explicit and definite: “Thus the heavens and
the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
And on the seventh day God ended His work which
He had made, and He rested on the seventh day from
all His work which He had made. And God blessed
the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in
it He had rested from all His work which God created
and made” (Genesis 2:1-3).
This summary is very clear in its insistence that
whatever methods God used in creating and making
all things—including man himself—He stopped using.
The present work of providence—of providing for the
conservation and sustenance of all the basic entities
He had created—is of a different order altogether from
His work of creation.
Superimposed on the conservation principle, how-

16
' ever, is the decay principle. The Second Law of Ther-
- modynamics, no less than the First Law, is a universal
law governing all processes. Although energy is never
destroyed, it continually becomes less available for
_ further work. Everything tends to wear out, to run
down, to disintegrate, and ultimately to die. All proc-
esses, by definition, involve change—but the change
is not a change in the upward direction, such as the
evolutionists assume.
Somehow it seems contrary to the nature and pur-
poses of God that He would create a universe in which
decay and death constitute one of the basic principles.
He is a God of grace and power; as a gracious and
merciful God surely He would not build such a princi-
ple into His creation if He could help it. Since He
is also omnipotent, He certainly did not have to do
it this way.
Why, then, do “we know that the whole creation
groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.”
(Romans 8:22)? There is no doubt that the Second
Law is a universal law, in both the physical and
biological worlds, so far as science can determine. Left
to itself, everything collapses, deteriorates, grows old,
and dies, sooner or later. Eventually the whole uni-
verse seems destined to die, when all the energy of
the sun and stars will have been degraded to uniform-
ly-dispersed low-level heat energy, no longer capable
of being converted into useful work.
Is this what God intended, when He finished His
creation and pronounced it all “very good” (Genesis
1:31)? Obviously not; God is not capricious, and we
can be absolutely sure He will accomplish His good
purpose in creation.
The answer can be only that the Second Law is
a sort of intruder into the divine economy, not a part
of either the original creation or God’s plan for His

17
eternal kingdom. God’s description of the entire cre-
ation as “very good” must tell us that at that time
there was no disorder, no deterioration, no groaning
and travailing, no suffering, and, above all, no death
in the whole universe, “the heavens and the earth,
and all the host of them” (Genesis 2:1).
The imposition of the principle of decay and death
on the original creation was the result of man’s sin.
God had to bring the Curse upon both man and his
dominion because of man’s rebellion against his Crea-
tor. “Cursed is the ground,” God told Adam (Genesis
3:17). The very ground out of which Adam’s body
had been constructed, the dust of the earth, the basic
elements of the creation, were thus brought into the
“bondage of decay” (Romans 8:21). “Yea, all of them
shall wax old, as a garment.” (Psalm 102:26).
The Curse is not permanent and irrevocable, how-
ever, but only remedial and disciplinary. “The cre-
ation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage
of decay into the glorious liberty of the children of
God” (Romans 8:21). “There shall be no more curse”’
(Revelation 22:3). “We, according to His promise, look
for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth
righteousness” (II Peter 3:13).
At the same time God pronounced the Curse, He
also promised the coming Redeemer, the seed of the
woman (Genesis 3:15) who would someday provide
salvation, both for individual souls and for the whole
creation.
In the meantime, however, in so far as our present
study is concerned, we can see now that the two basic
laws of science, the First and Second Laws of Ther-
modynamics, are merely man’s scientific statements
of the two revealed facts of: (1) a creation originally
completed and now sustained by God’s power, and
(2) the curse of decay and death, superimposed on
the creation by its Creator because of man’s sin.

18
 Rather than science disproving the Scriptures, as
many allege, the two best-proved, most universal laws
of science, within which all processes must operate,
were anticipated and recorded in Scripture thousands
of years before man discovered them! Furthermore
these two laws give a clear and sure testimony to
the fact of creation, and therefore of a Creator. The
Second Law demonstrates that there must have been
a beginning, or otherwise the universe would already
be dead. The First Law demonstrates that the uni-
verse could not have begun itself, since none of its
processes creates anything. Thus the only logical
conclusion is that “in the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth.”
Furthermore they tell us plainly that the processes
of nature are conservative and disintegrative, not
innovative and integrative, as the evolutionist main-
tains. There is a universal process of change operating
in the world, and often the evolutionist tries to define
evolution merely as “change.” However, he really
means a directional change, whereby molecules
slowly change into men, over aeons of time. The real
law of change, however, is one of decay, not of growth,
a change “down” instead of a change “up.” Thus the
laws of thermodynamics sharply conflict with the
philosophy of evolution. The latter is at best a reli-
gious faith, not science.
Some writers have attempted to circumvent the
witness of the Two Laws against evolution by arguing
that the earth is an “open system” and the sun’s
energy is great enough to offset their effects. However,
all systems in the world are “open” in some degree
to the sun’s energy, so this in itself is no argument.
There is a universal tendency for all systems to
go from order to disorder, as stated in the Second
Law, and this tendency can only be arrested and
reversed under very special circumstances. We have

19
already seen, in Chapter I, that disorder can never
produce order through any kind of random process.
There must be present some form of code or program,
to direct the ordering process, and this code must
contain at least as much “information” as is needed
to provide this direction.
Furthermore, there must be present some kind of
mechanism for converting the environmental energy
into the energy required to produce the higher organi-
zation of the system involved. Even if there is enough
energy from the sun in the environment, it will not
automatically transform itself into some kind of or-
derly structural growth in a system. There must be
an efficient and powerful energy converter present
if the work is to be done.
Thus, any system that experiences even a tempo-
rary growth in order and complexity must not only
be “open” to the sun’s energy, but must also contain
a “program” to direct the growth and a “mechanism”
to energize the growth. Otherwise the system will
merely disintegrate and die, regardless of the sun’s
energy.
Now the imagined age-long evolutionary growth of
the whole world of organisms has neither program
to direct it nor mechanism to empower it. Neither
mutation nor natural selection is a program, and
neither mutation nor natural selection is an energy
conversion device. Neither one is either one. To offset
the Second Law, and produce true evolution, evolu-
tionists need still to find a directing code and an
enabling mechanism, and neither of these has yet been
disovered.

20
 CHAPTER III
THE TERRIBLE DEATH
OF THE ANCIENT WORLD
When confronted with the fact that no evolution
from one basic kind to another has ever been observed
to take place in the historic period and that, in fact,
the basic nature of natural processes (as specified by
the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics)
seems to preclude the very possibility of significant
evolutionary changes of this type, the evolutionist
must eventually fall back on the fossil record. He
regards this record as firm proof of evolution, docu-
menting the gradual increase in complexity of the
organic world with the passage of aeons of geologic
time.
Most of the surface of the earth’s crust is covered
with great thicknesses, sometimes up to several miles

21
deep, of sediments and sedimentary rocks, and these
normally contain fossil remnants of plants and ani-
mals which once lived on the earth. The deeper rocks
normally contain simpler fossils than the shallower
rocks (though there are many significant exceptions
to this rule). In fact, the very concept of the geologic
ages is based on this assumed gradation of fossils.
The various individual geologic ages are supposedly
recognized and identified by the evolutionary stage
of the fossil assemblages found in them.
However, there are many scientific difficulties with
this interpretation of the fossils. The very existence
of fossils in any significant size and number seems
to require rapid processes of sedimentary deposition,
burial, compaction, and lithification. Otherwise, nor-
mal decay processes would soon destroy and dissipate
such organic remains.
Furthermore, the fossil record does not show a
continuous evolutionary progression at all, as the
theory requires. The same great gaps between the
major kinds of plants and animals that exist in the
present world are also found in the fossil world. Of
course many animals that once lived have become
extinct (such as the dinosaurs); but extinction is not
evolution!
In addition, as mentioned above, there are nu-
merous localities around the world where supposedly
older and simpler fossils have been deposited in layers
vertically above layers containing “younger,” more
complex, fossils. One famous area of this type is in
Glacier National Park where a vast block of Precam-
brian limestone, supposedly nearly a billion years old,
is found resting on top of Cretaceous shales, presum-
ably only (!) a hundred million years old. The re-

29
markable thing about this is the fact that this out-
of-order block of limestone is perhaps 350 miles long,
35 miles wide and 6 miles thick, with every appearance
of having been laid down by normal sedimentary
processes on top of the “younger” shale beds below.
In fact, there seems to be no known present physical
process that could produce such a gigantic
“overthrust” as this. If indeed it could ever be demon-
strated by physical proof that the order of the strata
had really been inverted by actual movéments after
their original deposition, it would prove also that
forces entirely different from anything now in exist-
ence must have been acting in the past. The standard
geological dogma of uniformitarianism—namely, that
processes of the same kind and intensity as at present
are able to explain all past phenomena—is thereby
proved false either way.
This is only one example, out of scores that could
be mentioned. Furthermore, there are even greater
numbers of examples of missing “ages” in localities
everywhere. It is not too much to say that, in some
location or other, one could find practically any se-
quence whatever of the so-called geologic ages.
Obviously there is something basically wrong with
the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record.
Is there an alternate explanation, which would not
confront such problems as these, as well as many
others which could be mentioned? Does the Bible give
any light on this?
Most creationists are convinced that the key to the
real understanding of the fossil-bearing sedimentary
rocks is nothing less than the great Flood of the days
of Noah. The fossils speak, not of the gradual evolu-
tion of life on earth over vast ages, but rather of the
sudden extinction of life, all over the world, in one
age.

23
 According to the Bible, there was no death before
Adam sinned. “As by one man, sin entered into the
world, and death by sin” (Romans 5:12). That is,
death came into God’s perfect world only when sin
came into the world through man. The fossils, how-
ever, speak of death, and on a gigantic scale!
There was never such an opportunity for produc-
tion of fossils as in the great Flood. Neither was there
ever, before or since, such an opportunity for the
formation of vast beds of sediment and for their rapid
conversion into sedimentary rock, as in the great
Flood. “And every living substance was destroyed
which was upon the face of the ground, both man,
and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of
the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth;
and Noah only remained alive, and they that were
with him in the ark” (Genesis 7:23).
The Biblical record of the Flood is not merely an
exaggerated description of a local flood, as many have
thought, but instead describes a worldwide aquaeous
cataclysm, “Whereby the world that then was, being
overflowed with water, perished” (II Peter 3:6).
God told Noah: “The end of all flesh is come before
me; for the earth is filled with violence through them;
and behold, I will destroy them with the earth” (Gen-
esis 6:13). Obviously, if all men on the earth were
to be destroyed by a flood, then the flood would have
to cover the earth, because man had filled the earth
with violence. In fact, God said explicitly that the
earth would be destroyed, along with the men on the
earth.
The construction of Noah’s ark makes no sense at
all, of course, if the Flood were only a local flood.
Such a huge structure, easily capable of accommo-
dating two of every known species of dry-land animal,
living or extinct, was absurdly unnecessary if the birds

24
and animals could simply have migrated out of the
flood plain.
When the Flood came, it soon covered all the
mountains. As a matter of fact, it was eight months
after the Flood began before the waters went down
enough so that “the tops of the mountains were seen”
(Genesis 8:5). The ark in the meantime had rested
“upon the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4).
Mount Ararat at present is 17,000 feet high, and
there are also many other high mountains in the
region where the post-diluvian dispersion began. Ob-
viously, therefore, the Flood would at least, according
to the Bible, have covered these mountains. But a
flood which can cover a 17,000-ft. mountain for eight
months is not a local flood!
Furthermore, after the Flood, God promised ‘“nei-
ther shall there any more be a flood to destroy the
earth” (Genesis 9:11). If the Flood had been only a
local flood, God has not kept His promise, because
there have been many other disastrous local floods
since that time, in all parts of the earth.
Finally, the Flood is referred to in many later parts
of the Bible, always in such a way as to indicate that
it was worldwide (Psalm 104:6-9; Isaiah 54:9; He-
brews 11:7; II Peter 2:5; etc.). The Lord Jesus Christ
Himself said: “And as it was in the days of Noah,
so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man,
... the flood came and destroyed them all” (Luke
17:26; see also Matthew 24:37-39). Those people who
advocate the local flood theory obviously do not take
the words of Scripture, even those of Christ, very
seriously. In Appendix A will be found a list of 96
arguments for a worldwide flood, 64 Biblical reasons
and 32 non-Biblical reasons.
It should be noted briefly that some Bible students,
seeking to find some means of explaining the fossils

25
without having to attribute them to the Flood of
Genesis, have suggested that they may have been
formed in a pre-Adamic cataclysm which left the
earth “without form and void,” as described in Genesis
1623
This suggestion, however, contradicts the explicit
Biblical teaching that there was no death in the world
prior to Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12; I Corinthians
15:21), as well as God’s evaluation of the entire uni-
verse as “very good” (Genesis 1:31-2:3) at the end
of the six days of creation.
The pre-Adamic cataclysm theory is illogical and
unscientific as well. Any cataclysm of such devastat-
ing nature as to leave the entire globe shrouded in
absolute “darkness on the face of the deep” (Genesis
1:2) must have been nothing less than a shattering
worldwide nuclear or volcanic explosion of some kind.
Whatever its exact nature may have been, such a
thermal holocaust would unquestionably have utterly
annihilated any evidence of previous living organisms.
It could never have produced the finely-stratified
sedimentary beds of the earth’s crust, with their
abundance of finely-structured fossiliferous contents.
Consequently, the fossil record must be attributed
to the Noahic Deluge and perhaps, in lesser measure,
to subsequent related regional disturbances stemming
from the after-effects of the Flood. Although there
are still many unsolved geological problems in con-
nection with this Biblical interpretation of the fossils,
these problems are not nearly so difficult to interpret
as those confronting the evolutionary geologist. Many
creationist scientists today are actively doing research
on these problems and the scientific basis of so-called
“flood geology” is becoming stronger all the time.

92
 The evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record
is based on the assumption that the simpler fossils
are found in the older rocks. However, it is also true
that rocks are dated primarily by the fossils they
contain.
The main proof of evolution (the fossil sequence)
is derived from the relative age of the rocks, which
is determined on the basis of the assumed evolution-
ary sequence of the fossils. One can prove ANYTHING
if he starts with his conclusion and then reasons in
a circle.
Furthermore, as noted before, there are many local
exceptions to the standard fossil order found in the
actual rocks. Outlandish physical mechanisms with
no parallel in the modern world have to be invented
to explain them, building hypothesis on hypothesis
on hypothesis.
There is, in fact, no way by which one geologic
“age” can be distinguished from another except by
its fossils. There are no physical differences in struc-
ture or appearance. Radiometric “ages” (as discussed
in Chapter VIII) are extremely variable and are only
accepted if they happen to coincide with the assumed
fossil age.
Furthermore, there is no dividing line in the rocks
between the ages. As far as physical aspects are con-
cerned, each “age” merges imperceptibly into the next.
The fossils themselves, of course, all speak of sudden
death and rapid burial—otherwise they would quickly
have been destroyed by bacteria, scavengers, and
other agents of decay. Each fossil deposit, therefore—
and it is these which “date” the rocks—is a witness
to catastrophic deposition of its own beds.
Since the rocks, therefore, everywhere speak of

2
catastrophism, rather than uniformitarianism, and
since there is no way by which one “age”’ is distin-
guished from another and no evident time lapse from
one rock system to another, it seems reasonable to
think of the entire fossil-bearing assemblage of strata
as having been formed in only one great worldwide
catastrophe. This theory of course allows a tremen-
dous complexity of localized phenomena and the for-
mation of a wide variety of stratigraphic sequences
in different parts of the world. It involves a global
hydraulic and sedimentary cataclysm, accompanied
by great volcanic and tectonic movements and then
followed by a drastic change in climate and conti-
nental glaciation.
The general order of fossils, from simple on the
bottom to complex on top, is exactly what would be
expected in such a cataclysm. The different geologic
“ages” are actually different ecologic zones in the one
antediluvian age. Simple marine organisms tend to
be found buried at the lowest elevations in the geo-
logic column for the simple reason that they lived
at the lowest elevations. Birds and mammals are
found in the more “recent” geologic epochs mainly
because they lived at higher elevations and had
greater mobility.
Though there are unsettled problems in this fiood
theory of geology, they are not nearly so serious, nor
do they require nearly so many auxiliary hypotheses,
as in the evolutionary theory.
The cause of the deluge was the concurrent release
of the “waters above the firmament” (Genesis 1:7)
through the “sluiceways of the heavens” and the
waters locked under the crust through “the fountains
of the great deep” (Genesis 7:11;8:2). Prior to the
deluge, the waters above the “firmament” (literally
“expanse,” referring to the atmosphere) had ap-

28
parently been in the form of a vast canopy of water
vapor, invisible and, therefore, translucent to the light
of the heavenly bodies (Genesis 1:16), but producing
a marvelous worldwide “greenhouse effect’. The cli-
mate was warm and mild everywhere, thus inhibiting
air mass movements of a global nature and precluding
rain as we know it now (Genesis 2:5;9:13). It also
effectively filtered out radiations from space which
now are known to have an accelerating effect on the
aging process, thus probably being a chief agent in
the maintenance of patriarchal longevity before the
flood (Genesis 5:5,27).
The warm subcrustal waters emerged under con-
trolled conditions through great artesian springs (Gen-
esis 2:10-14) to supply the antediluvian rivers. There
were no great deep and wide oceans, but rather a
network of epi-continental seas (Genesis 1:10). There
were no deserts or ice-caps and the greenhouse climate
supported lush vegetation and animal life on the lands
and abundant marine life in the seas (Genesis 1:20).
The coming of the great flood changed all this. The
mild topography and pleasant climate of the old world
became the rugged terrains, vast oceans, and violent
climates of the new world. “... the waters stood above
the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled, at the voice
of thy thunder they hasted away. (The mountains
rose up, the valleys sank down unto the place which
thou hast founded for them.) Thou has set a bound
that they may not pass over; that they turn not again
to cover the earth” (Psalm 104:6-9).
When one realizes that the fossils do not represent
a long-drawn-out dimly-understood evolutionary his-
tory of the earth but rather a graphic record in stone
of a former world much like our own, with which
we are directly connected through our great ancestor
Noah, then the study of fossils and geology becomes

29
dynamic and vitally relevant to our world today. God
has preserved all over the earth, for everyone to see
as long as the present world endures, this tremendous
monument to His sovereign. control of the created
universe. Just as He was able to destroy the rebellious
“world that then was” by the waters of the Flood,
so He is still able to see that “the heavens and the
earth which are now ... are kept in store, reserved
unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition
of ungodly men” (II Peter 3:6,7).
The great coal beds of the world are recognized,
not as the accumulations of age after age of peat-bog
growth, but rather as the transported and metamor-
phosed remains of the extensive and luxuriant vege-
tation of the antediluvian world. The oil reservoirs
are the traps into which the compressed and con-
verted remains of millions of buried marine animals
have migrated after burial in the subterranean
upheavals of the “fountains of the great deep.”
The great fossil graveyards of land vertebrates— —
reptiles and mammals—are recognized in terms of
Biblical geology to be herds of pre-diluvian animals
which were overtaken by the vast sediments propelled
by the Flood waters and buried before they could
escape. In some of these cases, there may also be the
possibility of burial by some post-Flood regional
catastrophe. Great volcanic lava flows, earth move-
ments, violent windstorms, and other catastrophes,
including the great Ice Age, were after-effects of the
Flood, resulting from the global cataclysmic changes
in the earth’s lithosphere, hydrosphere, and atmos-
phere during the Flood.
The most spectacular of the fossil deposits, of
course, are those of the dinosaurs. It is primarily the
dinosaurs which have caused many people to think
that the fossil world is so different from the modern

30
 world that it must have existed millions of years ago,
long before modern plants and animals evolved.
Other than the dinosaurs, however, most of the
fossil organisms have present-day descendants which
are essentially still the same. One thinks of crocodiles
and turtles, starfish and clams, sharks and eels,
cockroaches and scorpions, bats and pelicans, opos-
sums and coneys, and innumerable other modern ani-
mals, all of which are found in the fossils, in rocks
supposedly laid down far back in geologic time.
It is not at all far-fetched, in fact, to think that
the dinosaurs themselves lived contemporaneously
with man in the antediluvian world. Dinosaur foot-
prints have been found in abundance in rocks in many
places, and these are occasionally found associated
with what appear to be human footprints in the same
rocks. One location in central Texas has yielded at
least two dozen man-like tracks along with the dino-
saur tracks. A number of these are in distinct trails—
right foot, left foot, right foot, etc.—and some of the
human-like tracks actually overlap dinosaur tracks.
Also there are places known,—in Rhodesia and Ari-
zona, for example,—where dinosaur pictographs,
drawn on cave or canyon walls by some prehistoric
human artist, have been found. The evidence seems
- strong that the artist had somewhere seen living
dinosaurs.
The universal primitive belief in dragons may be
significant in this connection. How can we account
for the fact that every nation seems to have traditions
dealing with dragons unless their distant ancestors
somehow encountered fearsome reptilian creatures
around which such tales developed?
The Bible frequently mentions dragons, for that
matter, and this can only mean that such creatures
really existed within the period of man’s history (note

31
Psalm 148:7, Isaiah 43:20; etc.). In fact, the account
of creation may well have mentioned them. “God
created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, . .. And God made the beast of the earth
after his kind . . .” (Genesis 1:21,25). The Hebrew
word for “whales” is tannin, and in certain other
passages is actually translated “dragons.”
The book of Job is one of the oldest in the Bible
and reflects living conditions in the early centuries
after the Flood. The climax of the book is when God
speaks directly to Job and his friends in Job 38,39,40
and 41. God is calling attention to His great power
in creating and sustaining all things (exactly the
message urgently needed by the world today).
Finally He calls attention to His two greatest cre-
ations in the animal kingdom, behemoth (Job
40:15-24) and leviathan (Job 41:1-34). Most com-
mentators today suggest behemoth is either the ele-
phant or hippopotamus and that leviathan is the
crocodile. However, the actual descriptions (and these,
coming as they do from the mouth of God Himself,
certainly refer to real animals) obviously do not apply
to any animals known today. The most reasonable
interpretation, therefore, is that they refer to extinct
animals. Perhaps, then, behemoth is a land dinosaur
and leviathan a marine dinosaur. Suddenly these
chapters become very much alive and meaningful!
These great animals were still living in Job’s day,
even though they may have become extinct since.
The cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs is, of
course, still a mystery to uniformitarian geologists
even today. However, the Flood and its devastating
residual effects on post-diluvian climates and food
supplies constitute an adequate solution to the mys-
tery.
In reading God’s description of behemoth, one can

32
clearly visualize a giant brontosaur, with his long neck
projecting out to eat the swamp vegetation and to
wash it down with great quantities of water, and with
his powerful legs and tail easily capable of demolish-
ing his enemies with their overwhelming blows. “Be-
hold now behemoth,” God remarks, .. . “he eateth
grass aS an ox... his strength is in his loins, and
his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his
tail like a cedar.” (—ever see an elephant’s tail?) “His
bones are as strong pieces of brass, his bones are like
bars of iron” (no wonder so many fossil dinosaur bones
have been preserved so long). Finally God states, “He
is the chief of the ways of God” (thus the greatest
animal God ever made); “He that made him can make
his sword to approach unto him” (thus God Himself
can destroy the dinosaurs, even though man could
not). “Behold, he drinketh up a river, . . . his nose
pierceth through snares.”
Thus the great dinosaurs, along with all other crea-
tures, were made by God in the six days of creation.
The fossil record is a continuing testimony to God’s
sovereign destruction of that first creation in the great
Flood.

33
 CHAPTER IV
THE MARVELOUS NATURE
OF LIVING THINGS
The marvel of life can only be explained by creation.
One of the strangest phenomena of our supposedly
scientific age is the insistent faith held by many
scientists (!) that somewhere, somehow life has arisen
from non-life by naturalistic evolutionary processes.
Science is supposed to be based on facts and knowl-
edge, not speculation and wishful thinking. The law
of biogenesis, based on all the observed data of biology
and chemistry, states that “life comes only from life.”
The doctrine of abiogenesis, on the other hand,
teaches that certain unknown conditions in the prim-
itive atmosphere and ocean acted upon certain mys-
terious chemicals existing at that time to synthesize

34
 still more complex chemicals which were able to re-
produce themselves. These replicating chemicals,
whatever they were, constituted the original living
systems from which all living organisms later evolved.
Thus, primeval unknown life forms which no longer
exist were derived from unknown chemicals by un-
known processes which no longer operate, in an atmos-
phere of exotic and unknown composition in contact
with the primitive oceanic soup of unknown structure!
This remarkable construct is today taught as sober
science in our public schools, in spite of the fact that
there is not one single scientific observation to dem-
onstrate that such things ever happened or even could
happen.
Of course, millions of dollars in research grants have
been fruitlessly spent in the search for some such
evidence. Amino acids have been synthesized, genes
and viruses and cells have been disassembled and then
reassembled, and “proteinoid” blobs have been con-
structed in futile attempts to manufacture true pro-
tein molecules. But all such activities are as far from
the true creation of life as a rock-pile is from the
Taj Mahal.
This yearning to make something that has life is
a modern equivalent of the ancient pagan idolatry.
“Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s
hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes
have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they
hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They
have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but
they walk not: neither speak they through their
throat. They that make them are like unto them;
so is every one that trusteth in them” (Psalm
115:4-8).
Even more foolish than man’s presumptuous at-
tempt to create anything else that has life is his belief

385
that blind chance acting on non-living molecules
could do it. Only God, “in whom is life” (John 1:4),
can produce life. An effect must have an adequate
Cause.
There are three specific acts of special creation
recorded in Genesis One: (1) the creation of the basic
inorganic components of the space-mass-time universe
(Genesis 1:1); (2) the creation of living creatures, the
life principle, consiousness (Genesis 1:21); (3) the
creation of the image of God in man (Genesis 1:27).
Each of these verses utilizes the Hebrew bara, which
implies creation in a special, unique sense, evidently
a creation utilizing no previous materials of any kind,
a creation out of nothing except God’s own power.
Between these acts of direct creation, God’s work
consisted of “making” or “forming” all things into
their completed structures, utilizing the basic entities
He had created. However, these processes were not
evolutionary processes, but rather integrative pro-
cesses under the active control of God Himself, in-
volving His own direct “handiwork” (Psalm 19:1).
Both types of activity on God’s part—creating and
making—were accomplished and finished in the six
days (note Genesis 2:3; Exodus 20:11).
Man’s body itself did not involve a new creation,
since it was “formed of the dust of the ground” (Gen-
esis 2:7), the basic elements of which had already been
created on the first day of creation. The same is true
of the bodies of the animals (Genesis 2:19).
The same is true, evidently, of the biological life
which is shared by man in common with the animals.
The second act of specific creation was when “God
created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth” (Genesis 1:21). The word “living creature”
is the Hebrew nephesh, which normally is translated
“soul.” It is the same word used later when “the Lord

26
 God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man
became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). Thus, both men
and animals share the created entity of God called
the nephesh, the “living soul.”
One important, almost synonymous, aspect of this
life is “the breath of life.” That this is also shared
by animals is clear from Genesis 7:21,22, where it is
said that “All in whose nostrils was the breath of
life, of all that was in the dry land, died.” This state-
ment is a summary of the preceding statement that
“all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of
fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man.”
The word “breath” in the Hebrew is ruach, and
also is the same word translated “wind” or “spirit,”
the context determining in each case which it should
be. It involves the respiratory and circulatory appara-
tus, which maintains biological life in the body. In
the case of man and the higher animals, the blood-
stream is the medium through which the life-main-
taining oxygen provided by the breathing mechanism
is transmitted to all parts of the body for its necessary
maintenance. “The life (i.e., nephesh, “soul’’) of the
flesh is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11; Genesis 9:4).
Both man and animals, therefore, share that cre-
ation of God called the “soul” and the “breath.” Since
this is a special creation, and since only God can
“create” (in the Bible, the only subject ever used with
the Hebrew bara is God), it is absolutely futile for
man to think he can ever create a “soul” or a “breath
of life.” Even if it were conceivable that man might
be able someday to design some complex chemical
that can replicate itself, which he might then arbi-
trarily define as “living,” such a replicating chemical
would still not possess in any sense the “breath of

37
life” or the factor of consciousness which is associated
with life in the Biblical sense.
This attribute of consciousness needs to be empha-
sized. It is apparently centered physically in the brain
which, with its fantastically complex electric circuitry
and associated nervous system, is undoubtedly the
most highly organized and intricately structured type
of system in the universe. Its functioning, of course,
depends on the blood, with its “soul,” and the
“breath” with its oxygen. Injury to the brain causes
unconsciousness or deficient consciousness, and per-
haps biological death.
The above considerations indicate that plants do
not possess life in this Biblical sense. They are merely
extremely complex replicating systems of organic
chemicals. It is significant that they were “brought
forth” (Genesis 1:12) on the third day, prior to the
first creation of “living creatures” on the fifth day.
The same is perhaps true of the simpler forms of
what men have defined as the animal kingdom,
though the exact dividing-line between conscious liv-
ing creatures and non-conscious replicating systems
is not yet clear, either from Biblical definitions or
scientific study. Since plants do not have life in the
Biblical sense, they cannot die in the Biblical sense.
When men and animals were given instructions to
eat the fruits and herbs God had created, this was
therefore quite consistent with the fact that there
was originally no death in the world. As we have
repeatedly emphasized, death came into the world
only when “by one man sin entered into the world”
(Romans 5:12).
Death, however, is not necessarily cessation of
existence. The “soul,” as well as “spirit” (same word
as “breath” in both Hebrew and Greek), can exist
apart from the body, since they involve a special

38
creation of God. Though the brain may become un-
conscious or die physically as a result of injury or
disease, somehow the consciousness of the soul and
spirit can survive the unconsciousness of the brain.
In fact, even when man is unconscious outwardly
(through sleep or anaesthesia or brain injury) experi-
ence indicates that he is still conscious in some other
sense—call it “dreaming,” perhaps.
Furthermore, there is an abundance of evidence in
the Bible, as well as in the phenomena of spiritism
and occultism (not all of which are fraudulent or
imaginary) that there do exist in the world intelligent
“spirits” of some kind who are not embodied spirits.
The “breath” can exist apart from the nostrils and
respiratory system and the “soul” can exist apart from
the blood, though for this present world they are
normally so embodied.
There is obviously much that we do not yet under-
stand about these matters. Science is as yet, and
perhaps always will be, incapable of dealing with the
phenomena associated with the soul and spirit, espe-
cially after death, or with other created spirits, such
as angels or demons. It can only deal with the physical
realm and those phenomena of the biological and
psychological realms which are directly connected for
the present with the physico-chemical structures
through which they function.
As far as the Scriptures are concerned, as we have
seen, both man and animals have body, soul, and
breath, in their present earthly lives. There are many
similarities between man and animals, in terms of
both structure and function, and it is perhaps under-
standable that evolutionary relationships might be
suggested by non-theists to explain those similarities.
However, in addition to the Biblical history of their
actual distinct creative origins, there are three essen-

39
tial differences revealed in Scripture between man
and the animals. One of these is that each man’s
soul-spirit complex survives death; that of the indi-
vidual animals does not. Similarly, only man’s body
will be raised from the dead and made immortal. The
reason for these two differences is found in the third
difference—namely, that man was created in the
image of God.
This was the third of the special creative acts of
God mentioned in Genesis One: “So God created man
in His own image, in the image of God created He
him; male and female created He them” (Genesis
1:27). God also had said: “Let us make (Hebrew asah)
man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26),
just as He had also “made the beast of the earth”
(Genesis 1:25) and other living creatures that He had
“created” (Genesis 1:21). There is evidently an al-
most-synonymous usage of the two verbs “create” and
“make,” when God is the subject of either, the one
emphasizing an initial creation out of nothing except
God’s omnipotence, the other a rapid formation of
such character and complexity as none but God could
accomplish. When God “made man in His image and
likeness,” He utilized entities and attributes which
He already had created and which He foreknew would
one day be incarnate in His Son. When he “created
man in His own image,” He called into being a distinct
and eternal individual personality, capable of inter-
communion and fellowship with Himself.
When man was then told to “Be fruitful, and mul-
tiply, and fill (not “replenish,” as the Hebrew male
is incorrectly translated in the King James Version)
the earth” (Genesis 1:28), the process of reproduction
of course was essentially the same as that for the
animals. Physical attributes, as well as biological, can
be transmitted from parents to children by definite
genetic laws. However, for each new person so gen-

40
erated, there is also a special creation which takes
place, the “image of God,” a unique and eternal per-
sonality, capable of fellowship with his Creator. This
is not true in the case of animals, whose physical
and biologic characteristics are purely the result of
heredity and environment.
This process of reproduction is itself a marvelous
evidence of God’s wisdom and power. Man has been
able to learn much about it and even to control it
to a limited degree. That is, through processes of
controlled breeding and selection, he can develop
characteristics in plants and animals which he con-
siders desirable for his own uses. In a sense, he is
exercising in this way his God-given ability to “have
dominion” over all other creatures (Genesis 1:28),
though he has no doubt often mis-used this authority.
However, he can do this only within narrow limits.
Even the wizardry of a Luther Burbank cannot make
“the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries; either
a vine, figs” (James 3:12). All the words written about
evolution have never made it happen. Like always
begets like; one basic kind may proliferate into many
varieties, but it never changes into another basic kind.
This is always true in the real world, as distinct
from the hypothetical world of evolutionary specula-
tion and the similar imaginary world of children’s
fairy tales, where pumpkins turn into coaches and
mice into men. A species of white moth may change
into a gray moth, but never into a praying mantis.
A long-legged sheep may mutate into a short-legged
sheep, but never will it become a donkey. The fruit-fly,
Drosophila, has been bred in the laboratory for a
thousand successive generations and continual radia-
tional bombardment of the unfortunate insect has
produced a great variety of mutational deformities
on it but it is still a fruit-fly.
One would think a thousand generations would

4]
 suffice to demonstrate some kind of evolutionary
development, but none has yet appeared. -The evolu-
tionist needs still more time, and he has faith that,
given enough time, the kind will itself evolve into
a different kind. This faith is not science, of course,
but blind faith, without any foundation in experiment
or observation at all, and indeed actually contrary
to all evidence, as well as the basic laws of thermo-
dynamics. .
As already noted, he does not find the supposed
transitional forms in the fossil record either, but only
great gaps between the kinds. This he then must
attribute to periods of ‘explosive evolution” which
occurred so rapidly they left no trace in the fossils.
Again he must walk by faith, not by sight! Evolution
occurs so slowly in the present world we cannot detect
it and so rapidly in the fossil world we cannot detect
it. “Therefore,” he says triumphantly, “evolution is
a fact, and everyone must believe it!” Evolutionary
logic is at least an interesting study in programmed
learning.
The actual fact of variation within permanently
fixed kinds is, of course, clearly the teaching of Scrip-
ture. Ten times in the first chapter of Genesis, we
are told that the created entities, both plant and
animal were to bring forth after their own kinds
(Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25), and not after some other
kinds.
This is also taught in the New Testament, in I
Corinthians 15:38,39. “But God giveth it a body as
it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind
of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of
‘fishes, and another of birds.”
“To every seed his own body.” The unique structure
of the genetic mechanism for each kind is now under-

42
 stood in terms of the genetic code. The transmission
of the hereditary “information” from parents to pro-
geny is evidently the function of the D.N.A. molecule,
structured in the intricate double-helical coiling of
its components. The information encoded is such as
always to assure that the progeny will be of the same
kind as the progenitors, though with an abundance
of individual variation possible and necessary. When
something goes wrong in this complex system (i..,
“mutation’’), there is a deficient transmission of the
information and the result becomes, to some degree,
a disordered structure destined probably to be elimi-
nated by natural selection.
But this is exceptional. Mutations are rare and,
for the most part, the process of reproduction is mar-
velously efficient and wonderful. “I will praise thee;
for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Marvelous
are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
My substance was not hid from thee, when I was
made in secret, and curiously wrought (literally ‘“em-
broidered,” perhaps an intimation of the intricate
weaving of the D.N.A. molecular structure) in the
lowest (or “hidden”) parts of the earth. Thine eyes
did see my ‘substance, yet being unperfect’ (this
phrase is one Hebrew word that could perhaps be
translated ‘‘embryo’’); and in thy book all my
members were written, which in continuance were
fashioned, when as yet there was none of them”
(Psalm 139:14-16).

43
 CHAPTER V
THE EARLY HISTORY
OF ALL MANKIND

We have already seen that man, according to the

Bible, is a special creation, entirely unrelated to the
animals by any kind of evolutionary connection. Even
if anthropologists were able to produce fossils of crea-
tures intermediate between men and apes (and no
such fossils have yet been discovered) it still would
not prove human evolution. An extinct ape could have
certain man-like features and still be an ape, even
as true men might possess certain simian-like features
and still be men.
The uniqueness of man lies not in his physiology,
which has many similarities to that of the animals,
nor even in his conscious intelligence, which is shared
at least to some extent with the animals, but in his

44
spiritual nature, the implanted “image of God,” his
capacity for abstract thought, his awareness of esthe-
} tic and ethical values and, above all, his capability
_for personal fellowship with his Creator.
This unique nature of man, with all its varied
- cultural and social implications, was specially created
by God on the sixth and last day of creation (Genesis
_ 1:26,27). The second chapter of Genesis gives further
| details concerning the events of this sixth day. “Adam
was first formed, then Eve” (I Timothy 2:13). In the
interim between the formation of Adam’s body and
that of Eve, God taught Adam a very basic lesson
which modern man has largely forgotten. “Out of the
ground, the Lord God had formed (a more precise
translation, in context, than the King James
_“formed’’) every beast of the field, and every fowl
of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what
he would call them” (Genesis 2:19).
This procedure had apparently as one of its pur-
poses Adam’s instruction concerning the nature of
those animals over which he had been given dominion,
especially those that would be in close contact with
him (the “beasts of the earth,” the “fish of the sea”
and the “creeping things” were not included) and
most likely as candidates for fellowship with man.
However, there was found in all the animal kingdom
no “help meet for him” (Genesis 2:20). Adam was
thus not related to the animals and had nothing in
common with them. The resultant special formation
of Eve out of Adam’s side is the despair of theistic
evolutionists, with whose peculiar approach to Bibli-
cal exegesis it simply cannot be reconciled.
Similarly, certain Bible interpreters have felt the
need of what they call “pre-Adamite men,” in order
to reconcile the presumed evidence of man and his
cultures at dates far earlier than any stretching of

45
the Adamic genealogical lists in Genesis 5 and 11 can
possibly allow. But the Bible is inflexible in this
respect. Adam is the “first man” (I Corinthians
15:45,47) and Eve is the “mother of all living” (Genesis
3:20). There could be no men before the first man,
nor any men living before their mother.
What, then, about Neanderthal and Pithe-
canthropus and the Paleolithic (Old Stone Age) and
Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age) cultures? We can only
conclude that, if they were truly men (as their cul-
tural and religious artifacts often show), then they
must have been descendants of Adam and, in most
cases at least, descendants of Noah as well. In many
cases (e.g., Ramapithecus, Australopithecus, etc.) the
very fragmentary evidence is quite consistent with
the view that such creatures were merely extinct
species of apes.
The so-called “cave-men,’ such as Neanderthal
man and Cro-Magnon man, were not half-brutish
ape-men as many assume. They made fine cave paint-
ings, cultivated flowers, and buried their dead. The
fact that they lived in (or perhaps merely occupied)
caves proves nothing regarding their stage of evolu-
tion. Many people live in caves today.
Those that were true men (Neanderthal man and
Cro-Magnon man, for example, are now acknowledged
by practically all anthropologists to be true Homo
Sapiens) simply represent extinct tribes of men, no
more different from other present-day tribes than
many present-day tribes are from each other. They
are normally found in so-called Pleistocene or Recent
deposits and this fact implies that they lived after
the great Flood. Chronological problems are resolved
when it is realized that all dates before about 3000
B.C. are based on radiocarbon or other indirect
methods, not on actual written historical records. The |

46
assumptions on which such methods are based are
suspect because of their fundamental evolutionary
and uniformitarian presuppositions. As discussed fur-
ther in Chapter VIII, all such calculations are easily
capable of reconciliation with the much more con-
densed Biblical version of human chronology.
Thus, man is a unique Creation of God, entirely
without evolutionary relation to the animals, and
Adam was the first man, created on the sixth day
of creation, much more recently than the speculative
chronologies of evolutionary anthropologists have
suggested. However, the present-day nations, tribes,
cultures and languages of men have all been derived
from the three sons of Noah, after the great -Flood.
“Arfa the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark,
Shem, and Ham, and Japheth ... These are the three
sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth over-
spread” (Genesis 9:18,19).
For a time after the Flood, most of Noah’s descend-
ants lived together in the Mesopotamian plain south
of Mount Ararat, where the ark had landed. This,
in itself, was contrary to the will of God, who had
commanded them to “Be fruitful and multiply and
fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1). He had also entrusted
to men the responsibility of governing themselves,
in stable social units, even with the prerogative of
capital punishment if the crime should so warrant
(Genesis 9:6).
A remarkable prophecy had also been given through
Noah in Genesis 9:25-27 concerning the general char-
acteristics which the descendants of his three sons
would manifest in the post-diluvian world. Man’s
spiritual, intellectual and physical development was
to be committed especially to Shem, Japheth, and
Ham, respectively. Of Shem, he said: “Blessed be the
Lord God of Shem,” evidently implying that through

47
Shem the Lord would be blessed; the Semites would
transmit the knowledge of the true God to future
generations. This was fulfilled in a particular way
by the nation of Israel and especially by Jesus Christ
and by the Jewish believers who wrote the Scriptures.
The prophecy concerning Japheth was: “God shall
enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of
Shem.” This enlargement apparently applies to both
geographical expansion and intellectual growth—that
is, both political and intellectual enlargement. Spiri-
tually, however, Japheth would simply depend on
Shem, dwelling in his tents. This prophecy has been
fulfilled by the Aryan and Caucasian peoples, the
Europeans and Americans. Again, however, it seems
to have been especially fulfilled by the Greek nation,
who gave science and philosophy to the world. The
Greek empire was, of course, the first world kingdom
of Gentile power, to be followed by the even more
extensive Roman empire and by other great Japhetic
nations derived from Greece and Rome. The ancient
Greeks acknowledged “Iapetos” as their original an-
cestor and they have always been recognized as the
prime example of Japhetic culture. It is also signifi-
cant that, while the writers of the New Testament
were all Jews, they actually wrote it in the Greek
language.
Noah’s other son was Ham and because of Ham’s
sin against his father, Noah was unable to prophesy
either a spiritual (as for Shem) or intellectual (as
for Japheth) contribution for his descendants. The
other main aspect of man’s life is physical and it is
on this area that his Hamitic prophecy focuses. And
again, as for Israel in the case of Shem and the Greeks
in the case of Japheth, the prophecy centers especially
on one particular son of Ham, Canaan, though it
undoubtedly applies in general to all Ham’s descend- |

48
} ants. (The prophecy clearly was intended to be uni-
| versal in scope, so those not included either as Semites
or Japhethites must necessarily be considered Ham-
ites and thus included to some degree in the proph-
ecy concerning Ham.)
“A servant of servants shall he be to his brethren”’
(Genesis 9:25). This strange prophecy seems to have
had a partial fulfillment in a literal sense, but a
broader fulfillment in a more extended sense. The
: first great Hamitic nations, Sumeria and Egypt, even-
tually were conquered and subjugated by the Semites.
_ The great Canaanite kingdoms, including especially
the Hittite empire and later the seafaring Phoeni-
clans, were finally defeated by Japhethites. None of
these has ever risen to power since. The Canaanite
tribes in Palestine were conquered by the Israelites
and the African tribes by various Japhethite nations,
as were the Indians of America and the Polynesians
of the South Seas. The one significant exception seems
to have been the Mongols, including the Chinese and
Japanese (it is probable that these are Hamitic peo-
ples, since there is no evidence that they could be
either Semitic or Japhetic). Although these have
never been actually subjugated by Shem or Japheth,
militarily, they have until the last few years been
dominated economically and scientifically by outsid-
ers, and their own attempts at outside military en-
largement always thwarted.
But there is a second, and perhaps more significant
meaning to this Hamitic, or Canaanitic, “curse.” Just
as Shem would emphasize the spiritual side of man’s
nature, and Japheth the intellectual (spirit and soul,
respectively), so Ham would mainly be concerned
with the “body,” or material aspect of man. A “serv-
ant of servants” may mean in effect a “servant ex-
traordinary,’ the one who would provide physical

49
benefits for mankind. It can be shown, for example,
that Hamitic peoples were the original pioneers who
settled in the world’s remote regions (neither Co-
lumbus nor the Vikings discovered America—the In-
dians did!). Hamites invented both agriculture and
animal husbandry, for man’s food, and building
methods, for man’s shelter. They were the original
shipbuilders and mariners—especially the Canaanitic
Phoenicians—thus inaugurating transportation and
world trade. The Phoenicians also invented the al-
phabet and the Chinese invented printing, for man’s
need for written communications. Innumerable dis-
coveries in the fields of medicine and technology are
attributable to Hamites, as well as the invention of
money and banking. The list could go on and on.
If man owes his spiritual heritage to Shem and his
scientific and philosophical heritage to Japheth, he
surely owes most of his material comforts to Ham.
There are, of course, two problems with this in-
terpretation. Why should this vast contribution to
man’s material well-being be considered a ‘curse’?
And why was it pronounced specifically relative to
Canaan, instead of his father Ham—as were the pro-
phecies relating to Shem and Japheth?
The curse in one sense, of course, applies to military
and economic subjugation, as already noted. Sec-
ondly, it could be considered as relative only—that
is, there was a “blessing” concerning spiritual values,
but a “curse” concerning material pursuits; there was
neither blessing nor curse, but merely a statement
of fact concerning intellectual matters. Note, inciden-
tally, that all of these are prophecies, that have been
fulfilled, because of God’s foreknowledge and also
because of Noah’s insight into the fundamental na-
tures of his three sons. They do not require any
extraneous action from man to assist in their fulfill- |

50
 ment—it is a very strange type of exegesis that has
_ led some people to attempt to justify enforced slavery
_ of some of Ham’s descendants on the basis of this
passage.
_ Another aspect of the curse on Ham can be noted.
_ Although he has provided so many material comforts
_ to mankind in general, he himself has participated
in few of them. The original Canaanites, the Phoeni-
cians, Hittites, Sumerians, most of the Egyptians,
Cretans, and others have either become extinct or
' completely lost their identities through assimilation.
Their modern-day descendants, such as the Africans,
the South Sea islanders, the Aborigines, the American
Indians, the Copts of Egypt, the Dravidians of India,
even most of the Chinese and Japanese, have lived
through most of their history largely in poverty.
_ Though Ham has been a great servant to mankind,
he has mostly benefited Shem and Japheth rather
than himself, just as the prophecy foretold.
The original Edenic curse, pronounced on both man
and his world, stressed particularly the toil necessary
— to sustain himself physically in this world. The Hami-
_ tic curse likewise focused on the physical aspect of
man’s life and directs Ham, as it were, to take the
lead in mitigating the material aspects of the Edenic
curse.
Now although the prophecy undoubtedly encom-
passed all of Ham’s descendants, it focused particu-
larly on Canaan. This was probably because it was
occasioned by the sin of Ham, who was Noah’s young-
est son (Genesis 9:24). Canaan was likewise Ham’s
youngest son (Genesis 10:6). Noah thus emphasized
that just as Ham’s sin had dishonored and grieved
his father, so Ham likewise would suffer through his
own sons, the curse extending even to his youngest
son. The reference to Canaan serving his brethren

51
also served to show that the prophecy applied not
just to Noah’s own sons, but also to their descendants.
It should be stressed of course, that this prophetic
tri-furcation of mankind has a general application to
the nations as a whole, not to all individuals in the
nation. An individual Japhethite, for example, might
be adept in material technology and an individual
Hamite very spiritual. The prophecy is general, not
specific.
However, before the prophecy could begin to be
fulfilled, and also before God’s purpose for man on
the earth could be accomplished, men must be forced
to separate and to develop their own cultures and
civilizations. Although communication and coopera-
tion among men would be necessary for these pur-
poses, it soon appeared that too easy communication
would lead to the wrong kind of cooperation, not to
control man under God, but rather to unite man in
rebellion against God.
This rebellion was also led by Hamites, especially
by Nimrod, at the city of Babel. The events are
described in Genesis 11:1-9 and the leadership of
Nimrod in Genesis 10:8-12. It is probable that there
were approximately 70 family clans at Babel, as in-
dicated by the 70 original tribes listed in Genesis
10:1-32. These included Semites and Japhethites, as
well as Hamites.
Rather than moving out to “fill the earth,” as God
had commanded, they all prepared to unite together
in the form of a great city, in which they could ‘““make
us a name” (Genesis 11:4). This decision involved a
direct rebellion against God’s command and thus
indicated that at least their leaders, especially
Nimrod, no longer feared God.
|
They seemingly had been convinced, perhaps by |
some form of occult communication with demonic |'

52
 spirits, that they could successfully follow Satan in
_ his continuing rebellion and thus be free from God’s
restraint and especially His Hamitic curse. They built
the first great temple “tower, whose top ... unto
heaven” (Genesis 11:4) as the central headquarters
| of this rebellion. They probably emblazoned the
various astrological emblems in the shrine at the top,
_ thus dedicating the tower “unto heaven”—that is, to
the worship of the host of heaven. The stars were
identified with the host of Satanic angels. This prime-
val astrological system is the fountainhead of all
occultism, polytheism, and false religion in general.
Babylon was the “mother of harlots” (Revelation
5).
In any case, it was from Babel that God forcibly
dispersed the rebels, by a mighty miracle. “The Lord
did there confound the language of all the earth: and
from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon
_ the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9).
The skeptic may question this record, but let him
- devise a better explanation for the origin of human
- languages! The languages of even the most “primi-
tive” tribes are extremely complex and are removed
by a great gulf from the chatterings of the most
“advanced” apes, as well as other animals. There is
neither any evidence nor any explanation for any
assumed naturalistic evolution of human language.
The attribute of language—the ability to articulate
and communicate even abstract concepts—is the most
basic aspect of a human culture. Physiological dis-
tinctives such as skin color are of minor importance
compared to language as the cause of divisions among
the nations and tribes of mankind. When God decided
to enforce a separation and scattering of men, He
did so by the most effective way possible, confusing
their tongues. After they were separated into distinct

53
 tribal units, then it was possible for distinctive physi-
ological characteristics, hitherto inhibited by the in-
_ termarrying at Babel, to become fixed genetically, by
tribal inbreeding. Thus the different physical charac-
\teristics of different national groups were indirectly
the result of the confusion of tongues.
The seventy original nations, as listed in Genesis
10, have proliferated into over 2000 tribes and lan-
guages. Since this primeval dispersion there have been
many attempts by strong men to unite all nations
under their rule, as well as efforts by politicians to
establish voluntary unions of all nations, but every
one has failed. This is because “the Most High divided
to the nations their inheritance, when He separated
the sons of Adam” (Deuteronomy 32:8). God has
“made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell
on all the face of the earth, and hath determined
the times before appointed, and the bounds of their
habitation” (Acts 17:26).
It is well to recognize that, while the Scriptures
place high importance on the distinctiveness of na-
tions and tribes as such, they never once mention
the concept of race. Biblically there is only one
race—the human race. There is only one kind of
man—that is, mankind. “God hath made of one blood
all nations of men.”
The idea of race is strictly a category of evolu-
tionary biology, not of Scripture at all. The threefold
division of mankind into Japhethites, Semites, and
Hamites is not a racial division, but rather of three
different streams of nations. The biological entity
known as “race,” on the other hand, is supposed to
be a sub-species in the process of evolving into a new
species, with a long evolutionary history of its own.
Modern racism has always found its strongest and
most vicious expression among doctrinaire evolution- \|
\\

54
ists—men such as Karl Marx, Adolph Hitler, and other
such advocates of group struggle and survival of the
fittest.
A real understanding of man in relation to his world
will never be attained, nor solutions to his problems
ever achieved, as long as our educational and political
leaders persist in thinking of them in evolutionary
categories. Man is not an evolved animal and his
cultures and institutions have not been developed
from the herd-instincts of animals. Rather, he is a
unique creation, made in the image of God, and his
tribes and nations represent divisions established by
God for man’s own good and for the ultimate ac-
complishment of His divine will on the earth, not
through their own devices but by His power and grace.

50
 CHAPTER VI
THE PUZZLING ROLE
OF THE STARS ABOVE

The invention of the telescope is a very recent event

in earth history, but it has made it possible for man
to discover that the amazing statements of the Bible
about the universe were true after all. For example,
the Scriptures teach that the cosmos is infinite in
size and the stars are innumerable, at least in so far
as man can measure. God said, in Isaiah 55:9: “For
as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my |
ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than
your thoughts.” Similarly, David said: “For as the
heaven is high above the earth, so great is His mercy |
toward them that fear Him” (Psalm 103:11). The only ]

56
comparisons appropriate for the infinitude of space
are the omniscience and infinite grace of God.
The study of the heavens ought by all means to
convince men of the necessity of a Creator. As the
great astronomer Herschel used to say: “The unde-
vout astronomer is mad!” Yet today it is sadly true
that there are perhaps fewer creationists among pro-
fessional astronomers than in almost any other
branch of science. Theories of stellar and galactic
evolution have become so inextricably interwoven
with the study of the stars that it is almost impossible
to separate between fact and speculation in mod-
ern-day astronomical writings.
For some time now, astronomical theorists have
been divided into two camps—those favoring Gamow’s
“big-bang” theory and those supporting Hoyle’s “con-
tinuous-creation” theory. Both theories are evolu-
tionary theories demanding an immensity of time in
which to function. Neither is capable of scientific
proof since both deal with non-reproducible events
of past history. How does one study experimentally
the evolution of a universe?
In addition, there are many subsidiary theories
relating to the evolution of particular types of stars
and galaxies, which theories are themselves more or
less independent of the basic theory. These are also
not susceptible of experimental proof. Cosmogony
seems to be a sort of game that astronomers play,
a tongue-in-cheek charade in which only the initiates
know the rules and the spectators stand in awe.
It will help the outsider to maintain his balance
in the sea of astro-evolutionary speculation if he will
keep reminding himself that no astronomer has ever
seen one kind of star evolve into another kind of star
or one type of galaxy into another. As long as men
have been observing the stars they have never seen

57
them evolving! The starry heavens look exactly the
same today as they did when Galileo and even Nimrod
first looked at them—occasional “novas” and dying
comets and meteorites excepted. Ideas about their
“evolution” must always remain speculation—and
nothing else.
It is strange that astronomers are so reluctant to
consider the possibility that the heavens may have
been specially created in their present form. After
all, science is supposed to be based on observation,
what one actually sees taking place in the real world.
Astronomers never see evolution taking place. What
they see is the essential stability of the starry heavens.
Since this is exactly what would be expected on the
basis of an initial completed creation, why should they
not conclude that creation is the most reasonable
explanation for what they see?
It seems the only answer to this conundrum is again
to be found in the words of Romans 1:28: “They did
not lke to retain God in their knowledge.” Never-
theless it remains true that there is not a single fact
of observational astronomy which cannot be satis-
factorily understood in terms of the special creation
of the stars in their present forms in the beginning.
There are many such facts, on the other hand, which
cannot be satisfactorily explained in terms of any of
the current evolutionary theories of the origin of the
universe. That being the case, we conclude that the
special creation theory is the best theory, strictly on
the scientific merits of the case.
The problem is completely settled, of course, by
the Scriptures. The fact that some men do not believe
the Bible is irrelevant. The Bible is still true, regardless
of what men may think! And the Bible says: “By
the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and
|
all the host of them by the breath of His mouth... |\

58
For He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and
it stood fast” (Psalm 33:6,9). “He commanded, and
they were created” (Psalm 148:5).
The stars, in fact, were made on the fourth day
of creation week, along with the sun and moon. “And
God made two great lights, the greater light to rule
the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He
made the stars also ... And the evening and the
morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1:16,19).
The formation of these bodies to “give light upon
the earth” (Genesis 1:17) was, of course, subsequent
to the creation of light itself. On the first day of
creation, God had said: “Let there be light: and there
was light” (Genesis 1:3). This light was visible light,
since it was to “divide the light from the darkness.”
However, it obviously did not emanate from the sun,
moon, and stars, since these were not made until the
fourth day. There is no way now of determining the
nature of this initial source of visible light, since it
was later delegated, as it were, to the heavenly bodies.
It may well have emanated from the theophanic
presence of God Himself.
As far as effects were concerned, the primeval light
of the first day and the “light bearers” of the fourth
and all succeeding days produced the same results.
They “divided the light from the darkness” (Genesis
1:4,18). This division has been accomplished since the
fourth day by the rotation of the earth on its axis;
presumably the same was therefore true on the first
three days.
Thus, two basic movements began concurrently on
this first day. One was the diurnal rotation of the
earth, which is the most important cyclic movement
in the universe, as far as man is concerned. The other
was the motion of light waves, traveling at the ul-
timate of all speeds, the velocity of light.

59
 Motion is the manifestation of energy. It is signifi-
cant that these two fundamental types of motion fol-
lowed directly when “the Spirit of God moved on the
face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2). The primeval earth
was created formless and empty, covered with water
and surrounded by darkness. But then God’s Spirit
proceeded to “move” (or, more literally, “vibrated’’)
over the face of the waters. The result was the out-
raying of vibrating light waves and the spinning of
the earth on its axis.
Although the emphasis in Genesis is on visible light,
it is probable that the entire spectrum of electro-mag-
netic energy was initiated at the same time. Certainly
by the time of the fourth day this must have been
true, since the sun, moon, and stars were made then,
and all types of electro-magnetic phenomena are as-
sociated with these bodies. The continuity of other
forms of electro-magnetic energy with visible light
in the spectrum would also indicate that the entire
spectrum was included in God’s initial command for
the light to appear.
There are problems, of course, involved in the
teaching of Genesis 1:16 that the stars were made
only on the fourth day of creation. The first is Genesis
1:1: “In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth.” This statement obviously applies to the
first day, not the fourth.
However, the stars are not “heaven,” but rather
the “host of heaven” (Genesis 2:1, Deuteronomy 4:19).
They were placed as “lights in the firmament of the
heaven,” (Genesis 1:15) but they were not heaven
itself. The term “heaven” (Hebrew shemayim) thus
is essentially equivalent to “space.” It can be used
either of space in the general sense or of a particular
space, such as the space where the stars were placed
or the space where the birds fly.

60
 The term “firmament” is similar (Hebrew raqia).
It means, literally, “thinness” or ‘‘that which is
stretched out.” The phrase “firmament of the
heaven,” therefore, connotes “stretched-out space.”
Another problem that has been associated with
Genesis 1:16 is found in Job 38:4-7, where God asks:
“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of
the earth ... When the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” This passage
has been interpreted as teaching that the stars were
already in existence when the foundations of the earth
were laid and therefore directly contradicts Genesis
1:16, which says the stars were made on the fourth
day.
However, it should be clear that figurative language
is used here, since “morning stars” do not literally
“sing together.” In fact, the Hebrew construction
makes it clear that the “morning stars” are actually
the same as the “sons of God.” The latter were the
created beings called angels and they are frequently
associated in Scripture with the stars. Both the stars
and the angels are, in fact, called “the host of heaven”
in many places in the Bible. Whatever the reason
for this symbolic association may be, it is obvious
that Job 38:7 refers to the angels, and not to actual
stellar bodies.
A third problem is scientific in nature. If the stars
were made on the fourth day, and if the days of
creation were literal days, then the stars must be only
several thousand years old. How, then, can many of
the stars be millions or billions of light-years distant,
since it would take correspondingly millions or bil-
lions of years for their light to reach the earth?
This problem seems formidable at first, but is easily
resolved when the implications of God’s creative acts
are understood. The very purpose of creation centered

61
in man. Even the angels themselves were created to
be “ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them
who shall be heirs of salvation” (Hebrews 1:14). Man
was not some kind of afterthought on God’s part at
all, but was absolutely central in all His plans.
The sun, moon, and stars were formed specifically
to “be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and
years,” and “to give hight upon the earth” (Genesis
1:14,15). In order to accomplish these purposes, they
would obviously have to be visible on earth. But this
requirement is a very little thing to a Creator! Why
is it less difficult to create a star than to create the
emanations from that star? In fact, had not God
created “light” on Day One prior to His construction
of “lights” on Day Four? It is even possible that the
“light” bathing the earth on the first three days was
created in space as en route from the innumerable
“light bearers” which were yet to be constituted on
the fourth day.
The reason such concepts appear at first strange
and unbelievable is that our minds are so conditioned
to think in uniformitarian terms that we cannot easily
grasp the meaning of creation. Actually, real creation
necessarily involves creation of ‘apparent age.”
Whatever is truly created—that is, called instantly
into existence out of nothing—must certainly look as
though it had been there prior to its creation. Thus
it has an appearance of age.
This factor of created maturity obviously applies
in the case of Adam and Eve, as well as of the individ-
ual plants and animals. There is nothing at all unrea-
sonable in assuming that it likewise applies to the
entire created universe! In fact, in view of God’s power
and purposes, it is by far the most reasonable, most
efficient, and most gracious way He could have done
it.

62
 We still do not know the full answer to the problem
of the total purpose of all the stars. Especially is this
true of the innumerable stars that can only be seen
_ through telescopes. If astronomic distances are as
great as astronomers believe, then it is quite impossi-
ble for man himself ever to reach the stars by space
travel. Even the closest star is four light-years distant,
over 10,000 times as far away as the sun. The stars
that are visible to the naked eye are, of course, valu-
able for navigation as well as beauty, but these only
constitute an infinitesimal fraction of the total
number of stars. What, then, was the purpose God
had in creating all the others?
Certain tentative and partial answers to this ques-
_ tion can be suggested. In the first place their amazing
number and variety bear an ever-growing witness to
the infinitude of God’s power and ingenuity. “The
heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament
sheweth His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1).
Secondly, since in Scripture stars are frequently
associated with angels, it may be that the stars are
in some way involved in the ministries of the angels.
It is interesting that the Bible speaks of an “innumer-
able company of angels” (Hebrews 12:22), just as it
similarly speaks of the stars in the declaration: “the
host of heaven cannot be numbered” (Jeremiah
33:22). This possible association of angels with the
stars, incidentally, is the only suggestion that Scrip-
ture makes concerning intelligent life on other worlds.
There are definitely no men, or man-like intelligences,
living on other planets or stars, in so far as the Bible
indicates. ‘The heaven, even the heavens, are the
Lord’s: but the earth hath he given to the children
of men” (Psalm 115:16).
Lastly, it may be that, even though the stars are
beyond man’s reach in this present age, they will be

63
accessible to him in “the ages to come” (Ephesians
2:7). The stars, as well as the earth, the sun, and
the moon, were created to last forever (note Psalm
104:5; Psalm 148:3-6; Jeremiah 31:35,36; etc.). Those
who share in the resurrection of the just will have
resurrection-bodies which, though truly real and
physical, will yet be “as the angels of God in heaven”
(Matthew 22:30). They will be immortal and incor-
ruptible bodies, not subject to death and deterio-
ration, as are our present bodies (I Corinthians
15:51-53). Similarly, just as the angels, they will no
longer be subject to either the gravitational or elec-
tro-magnetic forces of the cosmos. When the Lord
comes, we “shall be caught up together” (I Thes-
salonians 4:17), “to meet the Lord in the air.” We
shall have a body “like unto His glorious body” (Phi-
lippians 3:21) and, thus, like Him, will be able easily
to “ascend up far above all heavens” (Ephesians 4:10).
Not being subjected to the forces of the physical
world, our movements will not be controlled by them,
and thus our “spiritual bodies” (I Corinthians 15:44)
can move with velocities far exceeding the speed of
light. Consequently, inter-galactic travel will be per-
fectly feasible for redeemed men in future ages, just
as it is for the angels even in this present age. It
may well be a fitting activity and responsibility for
men in the eternal future to explore and develop the
infinite universe that came from the creative hand
of the omniscient God.
The unending variety and intricacy of the galaxies
of the heavens is, even now, a marvelous discovery
made through the gigantic optical and radio tele-
scopes of the present day. “There are also celestial
bodies, and bodies terrestrial, but the glory of the
celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is |
another. There is one glory of the sun, and another \\

64
glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars;
for one star differeth from another star in glory” (I
Corinthians 15:40,41).
We need now to return briefly to a consideration
of possible changes that have taken place in the stars
since they were created. At the end of the six days
of creation, “God saw everything that He had made,
and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). That
this statement included the heavens as well as the
earth is evident from both Genesis 2:1 and Exodus
20:11. The planets, however, as well as asteroids and
meteorites, give evidence of having experienced an
abundance of violent volcanic and seismic activity
since they were created, and the occasional appear-
ance of novas and supernovas among the stars in-
dicates that these also are subject to destructive
forces.
On the earth such phenomena are attributable
basically to God’s Curse on man’s dominion because
of his sin. To what extent this Curse affected the
rest of the universe is not explicitly revealed, except
that the Scripture does say that “the whole creation
groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now”
(Romans 8:22).
There is also, of course, the possibility that the sin
of Satan, who evidently once had dominion over the
stars of heaven, led to a curse on his dominion just
as Adam’s sin led to the Curse on the earth. He had
been the “anointed cherub that covereth” (Ezekiel
28:14), evidently the highest among the cherubim,
who are those in the angelic hierarchy closest to the
throne of God Himself (Psalm 99:1). But he had said:
“T will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne
above the stars of God” (Isaiah 14:13). Furthermore,
he had led with him in his rebellion “the third part
of the stars of heaven” (Revelation 12:4). God, there-

65
fore, said “I will cast thee to the earth” (Ezekiel
28:17), and ultimately “down to hell, to the sides of
the pit” (Isaiah 14:15).
Satan thenceforth became “the prince of the power
of the air” (Ephesians 2:2) and has concentrated his
efforts and those of his angelic followers on trying
to defeat God’s plans for man, especially by enlisting
man (with his unique powers of procreating his kind)
in his own battle against God.
God’s holy angels, on the other hand, have con-
tinued faithful to God and are continually “doing his
commandments” (Psalm 103:20) and especially keep-
ing watch over the “heirs of salvation.” It is clear,
therefore, that there is a continuing cosmic warfare
between “Michael and his angels” and “the dragon
and his angels” (Revelation 12:7). Aspects of this
conflict are glimpsed occasionally in Scripture (Daniel
10:5, 12-13,20; Psalm 34:7; Jude 9; etc.).
The physical stars, which are somehow associated
with the spiritual host of heaven, may thus be also
involved in this heavenly warfare. The “stars” as-
sociated with the solar system, such as the planets
and asteroids (and it should be remembered that the
term “star” in Biblical usage applies to any heavenly
body other than the sun and moon) would be particu-
larly likely to be involved, in view of the heavy con-
centration of angels, both good and evil, around the
planet Earth.
There are a number of Biblical references indicating
that in some way the stars may actually participate
in human battles (Numbers 24:17; Judges 5:20; Reve-
lation 6:13; 8:10; etc.). Such passages may all be
simply figurative, but then again they may not. In
any case, the possibility is at least open that the
fractures and scars on the moon and Mars, the shat-
tered remnants of an erstwhile planet that became

66
the asteroids, the peculiar rings of Saturn, the mete-
orite swarms, and other such features that somehow
seem alien to a “very good” universe as God must
have created it may have been acquired later. Perhaps
they reflect some kind of heavenly catastrophe as-
sociated either with Satan’s primeval rebellion or his
continuing battle against Michael and his angels.
Immanuel Velikovsky and other modern writers
have stressed the possible significance of the host of
ancient traditions and myths dealing with the “wars
of the gods.”’ Such “wars” and “gods” were always
for some reason associated with the various stars,
whose names they shared. The long fascination of
men of all nations with pagan astrology can only be
understood if it is recognized that there is some sub-
stratum of truth in the otherwise strange notion that
objects billions of miles away could have any influ-
ence on earthly events. Certainly the physical stars
as such can have no effect on the earth, but the evil
spirits connected with them are not so limited. Fur-
thermore, the well-documented association of certain
“U.F.O.” sightings with occultic influences and ten-
dencies suggests that the “rulers of the darkness of
this world” (Ephesians 6:12) are increasingly imagi-
native in their battles for the minds of men.
Angels, both good and bad, can be shown Biblically
to have considerable knowledge and power over natu-
ral processes and, thus can in many cases either cause
or prevent physical catastrophes on earth and in the
heavens. In any event, this type of cause warrants
further research as a potential explanation for appar-
ent disturbances in the stars and planets since their
creation.
In concluding this chapter, we come finally to con-
sider that first and most basic of all Scriptures, Gen-
esis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heaven

67
and the earth.” We have already noted that the word
“heaven” meant essentially, “space.” Similarly, it is
evident that “earth” at this point meant, essentially,
“matter.” As we have seen, there were then no other
physical bodies yet in existence. The earth was the
only “matter” created. As yet, however, it had neither
structure nor occupant, living or non-living. It was
“without form and void” (Genesis 1:2). The remainder
of Genesis One tells how this initially formless and
empty matter was structured and equipped to ac-
complish its purpose and function as man’s home.
To all effects, therefore, Genesis 1:1 can be under-
stood as saying: “When time began, God created space
and matter.” The space-matter-time continuum,
which constitutes the basic framework of our uni-
verse, was thus brought into existence as God’s first
recorded act of special creation. “Time” thus pro-
ceeded to flow onward forever. “Space” was stretched
out toward infinity. And everywhere throughout
space and time, “Matter” began to appear, first as
the formless earth, then as a matrix of water sustain-
ing the basic elements of matter in the earth, then
as light energy piercing the darkness, then as an
atmosphere separating two great hydrospheres, then
as solid materials emerging from the watery matrix,
such materials perhaps resting for the first time on
what the Bible calls “the foundations of the earth”
deep in the earth’s core, next as complex replicating
materials all over the earth’s surface forming its cover-
ing of vegetation, and then, finally, as an infinite array
of heavenly bodies dotted everywhere throughout the
universe, in an equally infinite variety of sizes, shapes,
groupings, compositions and activities.
As one scans the starry heavens, he can hardly
refrain from asking with the Psalmist: “When I con-
sider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon

68
and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man,
that thou art mindful of him?” (Psalm 8:3,4). And
yet, in all the created physical universe, man alone
has “the image of God.” Standing halfway in size
between the incredibly wonderful world of sub-atomic
space and the gigantic and innumerable stars of cos-
mic space, man’s structure is the most complex and
intricate system ever created. Of man, as represented
and redeemed by the Son of Man, it is witnessed:
“Thou madest him to have dominion over the works
of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet”
(Psalm 8:6).

69
 CHAPTER VII
THE STRANGE DELUSION
OF EVOLUTION

We have now considered a number of aspects of

the problem of origins—the origin of the universe, the
origin of the solar system, the origin of life, the origin
of the various kinds of organisms, the origin of man,
and the origin of man’s basic languages. In every case,
the Genesis record is clear in its teaching that these
are all special creations of God; none came by any
process of evolution.
We have also seen that the innumerable evidences
of order and complexity in the world point clearly to
a great Designer, and that the fundamental nature
of all physical processes likewise points to a primeval

70
 period of special creation. The clear testimony of true
science thus supports the explicit testimony of Gen-
esis that the world and all things therein came into
existence by special creation, not by innate processes
of development.
However, many religious people today have felt
they should somehow accommodate evolution in their
system of thought. The wide acceptance of evolution
in the academic and political worlds has made it
uncomfortable for them to take a stand against it,
especially since such a stand requires some study and
effort to be effective and may also involve willingness
to be ridiculed and pressured by their more “liberal”
evolutionist colleagues. Accordingly, many Christians
have been inclined to go along with some form of
theistic evolution and others have thought they could,
like ostriches, ignore the whole problem. They find
it more convenient to assume that Scripture can
somehow be reinterpreted to harmonize with evolu-
tionary philosophy.
For those, however, for whom Biblical and theolog-
ical considerations are of first importance, there can
be no compromise with the evolutionary system. We
need to recognize that science as such can give no
conclusive determination as to origins, even though
the facts of science do lend themselves to interpreta-
tion better in terms of creation than of evolution.
But the Christian is not limited to empirical science
on the question; he has the advantage of authoritative
revelation from the Creator Himself, in the Holy
Scriptures.
> For Christians, therefore, considerations such as the
following should settle the question, regardless of any
remaining unsolved scientific questions. Listed below
are seven basic Biblical and theological objections to
any Biblical compromise with evolution. So far as

71
we know, no “Christian evolutionist” has yet at-
tempted a serious answer to even one of these difficul-
ties.
(1) Evolution contradicts the Bible record of a
finished creation.
The fundamental premise of evolutionary philoso-
phy is that the origin and development of all things
can be understood in terms of basic natural laws and
processes which can be studied in operation right now.
This assumption flatly contradicts the Biblical state-
ment that “God rested from all His work which He
created and made” (Genesis 2:3) after the six days
of creation. “In six days the Lord made heaven and
earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was
refreshed” (Exodus 31:17). “The works were finished
from the foundation of the world” (Hebrews 4:3).
Scientifically, this statement of the completion of the
creative process anticipated by thousands of years the
discovery of the law of conservation of mass-energy.
(2) Evolution contradicts the doctrine of fixed and
distinct kinds.
If evolution is really true, then all kinds of plants
and animals have developed naturally from a common
ancestor. Consequently there is no real permanence
of kinds, but a perpetual state of flux and an organic
continuity of all forms of life. However, the Bible
says “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is
one kind of flesh of man, another flesh of beasts,
another of fishes, and another of birds” (I Corinthians
15:39). God, in His omniscience and omnipotence, was
able to make things the way He wanted them to be,
and He intended them to stay that way. “God made
the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after
their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the
earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good”
(Genesis 1:25). “God giveth it a body as it hath pleased

72
Him, and to every seed his own body” (I Corinthians
15:38). This primevally-ordained fixity of kinds is
illustrated in the law of biogenesis—life comes only
from life and like begets like.
(3) Evolution is inconsistent with God’s omni-
science.
The supposed history of evolution is filled with trial
and error, misfits, evolutionary blind alleys, and
meaningless extinctions. The supposed raw materials
of evolution are provided by random mutations, not
by ordered planning. If the goal of the evolutionary
process was man, why did God take so long to get
to the business at hand? What was the need for
dinosaurs to rule the earth for 100 million years only
to become extinct 70 million years before man
evolved? Such an aeon-long process of random evolu-
tionary meandering is the most wasteful and inef-
ficient method that one could possibly devise by
which to create a world. The omniscient Creator
would certainly not be so foolish as this. “God is not
the author of confusion” (I Corinthians 14:33). God
has commanded “Let all things be done decently and
in order” (I Corinthians 14:40), and it would be strange
for Him to set such an incredibly poor example in
His own work.
(4) Evolution is contrary to God’s nature of love
and mercy.
Unnumbered billions of living creatures must have
died in the history of the evolutionary process, if
evolution is really true. The fossil record is filled with
evidence of injury and disease, of suffering and violent
death, on a gigantic scale. How could the “God of
all grace” (I Peter 5:10) possibly be responsible for
such a cruel spectacle as this? “One sparrow shall
not fall on the ground without your Father”
(Matthew 10:29). It would be infinitely more gracious

73
and merciful, as well as more efficient, for God to
create all things complete and fully developed right
from the start, exactly as the Bible says He did.
(5) Evolution contradicts the universal principle
of decay.
Ever since God said “Cursed is the ground” (Genesis
3:17), the “creation itself’ has been waiting to “be
delivered from the bondage of corruption” (Romans
8:21). “All flesh is grass, ... the grass withereth, the
flower fadeth” (Isaiah 40:6-7). “The earth shall wax
old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall
die in like manner” (Isaiah 51:6). There is in effect
a universal principle of disintegration and death, both
the physical creation (“earth shall wax old’’) and the
living world (“all flesh is grass’’). This is nothing less
than the Curse, pronounced by God on man’s entire
dominion because of man’s sin, reflected in the scien-
tific realm by the universal law of increasing entropy.
It is obvious that the concept of a universal process
of order increasing from molecule to man is incom-
patible with a universal process of decay and a de-
creasing order.
(6) Evolution is incompatible with Christian ethics.
The essence of the evolutionary process is survival,
because obviously no organism can contribute to
evolution unless it survives and reproduces. The con-
cept of natural selection entails a struggle for exist-
ence and survival of the fittest. The weak and misfits
are exterminated, the strong and fertile survive. If
God had anything to do with the evolutionary process,
it does seem strange that He would utilize a method
which squarely contradicts the system of ethics He
established for the man He created by this process.
Jesus said “Ye have heard that it hath been said,
“An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But
I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever

74
shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him
the other also” (Matthew 5:38,39). The chief good
of evolution is struggle and survival, but the essence
of Christianity is sacrifice and death.
(7) Evolution produces anti-Christian results.
Jesus said: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil
fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit”
(Matthew 7:18). Evolution is the root of atheism, of
communism, nazism, behaviorism, racism, economic
imperialism, militarism, libertinism, anarchism, and
all manner of anti-Christian systems of belief and
practice. A solid faith ina personal, sovereign Creator,
on the other hand, leads to a strong sense of respon-
sibility before God and therefore eventually to an
awareness of one’s need for a personal Saviour.
Many other Biblical and theological difficulties
with the theory of evolution could be listed if neces-
sary. The foregoing summary, however, should make
it clear that theistic evolution cannot be harmonized
with Biblical Christianity.
Brief notice should be taken, however, of a related
concept. A sizable number of Christian intellectuals,
aware of the unsavory connotations of theistic evolu-
tion to conservative Christians, have substituted for
it the semantic curiosity called progressive creation.
To some writers, of course, this term is to all intents
synonymous with theistic evolution. They prefer it
merely because it sounds better, especially to alumni
and boards of trustees who have become alarmed over
reports of evolutionary teaching in their Christian
colleges and church literature.
More precisely, however, progressive creation is a
concept which allows isolated acts of creation scat-
tered throughout the geologic ages. For the most part
the standard system of long evolutionary ages is re-
tained intact, with the modification that the other-

75
wise uncrossable gaps in the fossil record are assumed
to be bridged by creative interjections as needed. Thus
the progressive creationists do give a sort of “nod to
God” now and then, and they consider this an ade-
quate accommodation of science to Scripture.
However, the same theological fallacies of theistic
evolution as listed above also apply to progressive
creation, though not always in the same degree. There
is still the same spectacle of suffering and death, the
same trial-and-error meandering, the same self-cen-
tered survival ethic, the same basic system with all
its corrupt fruit.
As a matter of fact, in one important sense progres-
sive creationism is actually more dishonoring to God
than is the idea of theistic evolution. That is, theistic
evolution at least assumes that God was able to plan
and control the entire evolutionary process from the
beginning. Progressive creation, on the other hand,
implies that God’s power was inadequate to plan and
energize the whole program at one time. It was neces-
sary every few million years or so for Him to come
down and give new direction and a fresh injection
of creative energy to the normal evolutionary activity.
Thus, progressive creation, though presenting a better
image than theistic evolution in its terminology, is
even more objectionable to true creationists in its
theology.
It seems completely impossible, for that matter,
for the God of the Bible to co-exist with the geological
age system at all, regardless of whether they are
identified with a theistic evolutionary or a progressive
creation framework. The geologic ages are identified
and dated by the fossils contained in the sedimentary
rocks. The fossil record also provides the chief evi-
dence for the theory of evolution, which is in turn
the basic philosophy upon which the sequence of

76
geologic ages has been erected. The evolution-fossil-
geologic age system is thus a closed circle which
comprises one interlocking package. Each goes with
the other two.
More clearly than anything else, however, the fossil
record, which is the sole support of both the geo-
logic-age system and the theory of evolution, speaks
of death. More often than not, it speaks of sudden
and violent death, as witnessed by the great fossil
graveyards found all over the world and in all geologi-
cal “ages.”
The Bible-believing Christian must realize that, if
he accepts the geologic-ages system, he is implicitly
accepting the whole evolutionary package which is
synonymous with it. He is accepting the billion-year
reign of suffering and death in the world, including
the death of even extinct tribes of men such as Homo
Erectus and Neanderthal Man, who lived and died
long before Adam, if the evolutionary chronology is
right.
Yet the Scriptures teach plainly that there was no
suffering and death in the world before Adam sinned.
“Wherefore, as by one man, sin entered into the world,
and death by sin” (Romans 5:12). Death came into
the world only when sin came into the world—not
long ages before. “By man came death” (I Corinthians
15:21);
Consequently, the vast fossil record, comprising as
it does, a worldwide cemetery preserved in stone for
men everywhere to see, is not at all a record of the
gradual evolution of life, but rather of the sudden
destruction of life. It must have been formed some-
time after man first sinned, and therefore must have
been formed cataclysmically, not gradually. Its testi-
mony is not as a witness to an evolving world, but
rather as a witness that “the world that then was,

77
being overflowed with water, perished” (II Peter 3:6).
The fossil-bearing geologic column, as well as the
universal law of increasing entropy, both testify of
God’s judgment on sin. God, as sovereign Creator and
Sustainer of the universe, is not simply an absentee
landlord as some have suggested. He is “not far from
every one of us: For in Him we live and move and
have our being” (Acts 17:27,28).
God, being God, had a high purpose in the creation
of the world and in the creation of the eternal spirit
in each individual person. And, being God, He cannot
fail in that purpose.
The age-long reign of sin and death can, therefore,
only be a temporary intruder in His universe. God
has allowed “sin for a season” not only because man,
in His own image, must be responsible before God,
but also in order that man might come to know the
Lord as Creator and as Redeemer.
Man is not an upward-evolving animal but, rather,
a lost sinner under the condemnation of death. Being
bound himself in the universal “bondage of corrup-
tion,” there is nothing any individual can do to deliver
and save either himself or others. Even such an intel-
lectual and moral giant as Paul had to say: “I find
then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present
with me. For I delight in the law of God after 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 shall
deliver me from the body of this death?” (Romans
7:21-24).
It is at such a point that God reveals Himself as
a God of grace and cleansing, as well as a God of
power and judgment. “For as in Adam all die, even
so in Christ shall all be made alive” (I Corinthians

78
 15:22). “Where sin abounded, grace did much more
abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even
so might grace reign through righteousness unto eter-
nal life by Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 5:20,21).
een
ee
ee
vie
A.
et
a
Ta
Mme
Through the conquering grace of the Redeeming Cre-
St -- er
Sen
Re

ator, each believing sinner is forgiven and saved for-

ever through faith in Christ, “who was delivered for
our offenses, and was raised again for our justifica-
tion” (Romans 4:25).
Then ultimately, when Christ comes again to bring
to consummation His great purpose in creation and
redemption, will be fulfilled the promise: “The cre-
ation also shall be delivered from the bondage of
corruption into the glorious liberty of the children
of God” (Romans 8:21).

(es
 CHAPTER VIII
THE WONDERFUL DAY
WHEN THE WORLD WAS BORN

The question of the duration of geologic time is

undoubtedly the most vexing problem confronting the
Biblical creationist. Most geologists insist that the
earth is about five billion years old, that life evolved
probably three billion years ago, and even human life
at least a million years ago. Yet the Bible seems
clearly to teach that all things were created only
about six thousand years ago.
From six thousand to five billion—this is how much
the earth has “aged” in little more than a century!
If the Bible is really wrong on this, it amounts to
almost a million-fold mistake! And if it is mistaken
this much in its very foundation—the chronologic

80
 framework of history—then how can we rely on it
anywhere else? Writers who are unable to record sober
facts of history correctly are not likely to inspire
confidence when they forecast events of the eternal
future.
It is significant, however, that the Bible’s historical
data, including its chronology, have been abundantly
verified by the archaeological research of the past
century, at least to as far back as the time of Abra-
ham, about 2000 B.C. Although there are differences
of opinion between schools of archaeological thought
as to a precise Palestinian chronological scale, there
is no question any more as to the general accuracy
of Biblical history from Chapter 12 of Genesis for-
ward.
That being the case, it seems strange that most
modern scholars have rejected the historicity of Gen-
esis 1-11. These first eleven chapters of Genesis appear
to be written as sober, continuous history, and Genesis
11 merges directly into Genesis 12, at the time of
Terah and Abram. Why, therefore, should they not
likewise be accepted as historical?
The later Biblical writers frequently referred to the
events of Genesis 1-11 as true history. The Genesis
record of creation was verified by God Himself, as
He gave the ten commandments (Exodus 20:8-11;
31:16-17). The genealogical records of Genesis 5 and
11 were accepted and repeated by the author of
I Chronicles in his first chapter. Job 31:33 refers to
the sin of Adam, and Isaiah 54:9 to the waters of
the Flood. Ezekiel 14:14,20 mentions the right-
eousness of Noah, and Moses recalls the separation
of the nations at Babel, in Deuteronomy 32:8. The
various primeval nations of Genesis 10 are encoun-
tered frequently in various parts of the Old Testa-
ment. The creation is a prominent theme of many

81
of the Psalms, and is often referred to in other books
of the Old Testament.
But it is in the New Testament that these first
eleven chapters of Genesis are most frequently men-
tioned. There are no less than 80 quotations or clear
allusions to these chapters found in the New Tes-
tament writings. Furthermore, every one of the eight
different writers of the New Testament (nine, if some-
one other than Paul wrote Hebrews) refers to at least
one event or person in Genesis 1-11. Each chapter
of these eleven is rrentioned at least once in the New
Testament. Perhaps most significant of all is the fact
that Jesus Christ Himself referred to Genesis 1
(Matthew 19:4), Genesis 2 (Mark 10:7-9), Genesis 3
(John 8:44), Genesis 4 (Luke 11:51), Genesis 6
(Matthew 24:37,38), and Genesis 7 (Luke 17:27). Note
the list in Appendix B.
Thus it is obvious that one can logically reject the
historicity of Genesis 1-11 only if he likewise rejects
the inerrancy of the rest of the Bible as well, and
even the infallibility of Christ Himself. Many mod-
ern-day religious liberals and even some supposedly
conservative Christians have done exactly that. Most
Christians, however, are unwilling to go this far. Some
try to avoid the issue altogether, but this tactic almost
inevitably is a prelude to compromise.
The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course,
that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless
of any scientific or chronologic problems thereby
entailed. There may be certain unsettled problems
in the chronologies—for example, one or more gaps
may exist in the patriarchal lists of Genesis 5 and
11 or the ages of the patriarchs themselves may have
been miscopied by the ancient scribes in some in-
stances—but any such questions involve very minor
adjustments at the most. We must conclude that the
Bible teaches unequivocally that Adam was created

82
several thousand years ago, and no more. There is
no legitimate exegetical justification for any accom-
modation with the supposed million-year duration of
man’s existence on the earth. To stretch the 2000
years and 20 patriarchs from Adam to Abraham, as
indicated in Genesis 5 and 11, into the million or more
years and 30,000 generations demanded by evolution-
ists since the first true man is to caricature these
chapters of Genesis and to render meaningless any
objective criteria of Bible exegesis.
As far as pre-human history is concerned, the intel-
lectual battleground is of course the first chapter of
Genesis. The “naive literal” reading of this chapter
(to use the supercilious terminology of Bernard
Ramm, in his influential book The Christian View
of Science and Scripture) would indicate of course
that all things were made in six days. Geologists,
however, insist on five billion years, and “this is an
hard saying”!
Is there any way by which the six days can legiti-
mately be transmuted into five aeons of a billion years
each? Any such conversion will require unique tech-
niques of interpretation, designed expressly for this
one chapter. Liberals are quick to ridicule those who
accept what is called the “literal interpretation” of
Genesis, forgetting that there is really no such thing!
If something is “interpreted,” it is not taken literally
at all. An “interpretation” is actually a “translation,”
in which words are not taken at face value, but are
converted into other words. Thus, “day” may be
transformed into “age” and “all” into “some.” If God
actually employed such a coding technique in writing
Genesis One, it is strange that He would withhold
the key to the code from all His holy prophets and
apostles until it was forced from Him, as it were, by
the unbelieving scientists of the latter days.
When men use figures of speech in their writing,

83
they normally do it for emphasis and clarification,
not for cryptic concealment. The creation account
is clear, definite, sequential and matter-of-fact, giving
every appearance of straightforward historical narra-
tive. If it is an allegory, poem, liturgy, saga, or some
other literary form, it is, to say the least, highly
deceptive. If the Author did actually intend to tell
of the sequential creation of all things in six days,
it is impossible to see how He could have done so
more plainly than in the words and phrases actually
used. Would God be party to such a blatant decep-
tion? Perhaps it is not so “naive” after all to take
Genesis “literally.” Christ did.
But suppose we do take it symbolically anyhow,
and let “day” equal ‘“aeon.”’ We may thereby solve
the problem of duration but we still have the problem
of sequence. That is, there are at least 25 discrepancies
between the sequence of events in Genesis One and
the evolutionary sequences of geology. For example,
Genesis informs us that the sun, moon, and stars were
made only during the fourth ‘‘aeon,” half-way
through geologic time, long after plant life in its
highest forms evolved. Although theories of solar and
stellar evolution have been numerous and varied,
none has suggested such an idea as this. To resolve
this discrepancy, we must again become interpretively
ingenious. Perhaps the sun was not really made on
the fourth day; rather the clouds in the sky were
dispersed so that it could be seen! But, then, what
was it that happened on the first day, when God said
“Let there be light”?
Well, no doubt, only some of the clouds were dis-
persed then, the rest of them on the fourth day. God
called this first light “good” and it was good enough
to evolve plant life and maintain it for millions of
years, but it wasn’t yet good enough to satisfy God,

84
 so He finally decided to break up the rest of the cloud
cover and let the sun, moon, and stars be seen on
earth.
Of course, there was no man there to see them,
nor would there be for many millions of years to come.
The heavenly bodies were also to be used for “signs,
and for seasons, for days and for years,” but they
wouldn’t be useful for this purpose for some while
yet. Maybe there was no need for such haste in break-
ing up that cloud cover after all!
Perhaps the above fantasy is not sufficiently re-
spectful to the widely-held “day-age” theory, but this
is only one of its scientific discrepancies, and there
are two dozen more. The problem of the geologic ages
does need to be resolved, but exegesis like this is not
the solution.
What about placing the geologic ages somewhere
before the six days of creation? Then we could accept
the six days of creation literally, as the writer in-
tended them. If we do this, however, we would have
to assume that the plants and animals were only
re-created at that time, since they had all previously
existed (as shown by the fossils which identify these
supposed pre-Adamic geologic ages) and presumably
been destroyed in a mysterious worldwide cataclysm
which left the earth devastated and in gross dark-
ness, as described in Genesis 1:2.
We still have this troublesome business about hav-
ing to disperse some of the clouds on Day One, and
the rest on Day Four, of the re-creation week. And
what about the “waters above the firmament’? Were
they part of these clouds? They were installed on
Day Two. Perhaps this proved to be a mistake, since
they reversed part of the cloud dispersal on Day One.
What purpose they may have served, if any, is unre-
vealed, since they, along with the rest of the primeval

85
cloud bank, were all apparently dissipated two days
later. They could hardly have been in the vapor state,
since the atmosphere was already saturated when
they were elevated.
But the absolute darkness of Day One could not
have been caused by water clouds anyhow. Perhaps
the clouds were clouds of dust and debris, hurled into
the atmosphere by a gigantic global explosion which
disintegrated the earth’s crust, boiled away its oceans
and destroyed all life on its surface. No lesser cata-
clysm could conceivably produce such thick darkness,
nor require such extensive repair work from God as
described in the six days of re-creation.
The main reason for all this speculation, of course,
is to try to make room for the geologic ages before
Genesis. The geologic ages, however, are synonymous
with the fossil record in the sedimentary layered rocks
of the geologic column, the great thicknesses of hard-
ened and stratified sediments which now comprise
the earth’s crust. If we destroy the sediments and
the fossils by our hypothetical cataclysm (and the
type of cataclysm required would undoubtedly do
that) then we don’t have any geological ages left
anyhow!
But suppose that, by some miracle, the fossils and
sediments were all left intact by the cataclysm. Then,
whence came all the debris with which to blot out
the sun and leave the earth in pitch blackness? And,
furthermore, where is the geologic evidence for such
a cataclysm? Anything of such global extent and such
devastating effects surely must have left a clear record
of some kind in the earth’s crust. But orthodox geol-
ogy recognizes no worldwide cataclysms, least of all
one in the most recent of geologic times.
Some might suggest that the entire fossil-bearing
geologic column was itself formed by the cataclysm

86
(indeed we believe this may actually have been the
case in the great Flood described in Genesis 6-9), but
if that were the case then there remains no evidence
for the geological ages. It should be emphasized again
that it is the fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks of the
geologic column that provide the evidence for the
geologic ages. If all the fossils were buried in one
cataclysm, there remains no evidence for any pre-
Adamic ages, and therefore no need for the cataclysm!
The theory is self-negating.
Thus neither the day-age theory nor the pre-
Adamic cataclysm theory is capable of harmonizing
the Genesis record with the scientific implications of
the geologic-age concept. Not only are these two ideas
unscientific, however—they are also un-Scriptural.
For example, Exodus 20:8-11 reads: “Remember the
sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor,
and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the
sabbath of the Lord thy God: ... For in six days
the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all
that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore
the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
These words were written on a tablet of stone by
the finger of God Himself (Exodus 31:18) and thus
certainly must be taken with all seriousness. The basis
of the fourth commandment, dealing with the six days
of man’s work week, is that God did all His work
in six days. The “days” are obviously the same kind
of “days” in both cases, or else God is incapable of
meaningful communication. The word “days,” in the
plural like this, (Hebrew yamim) occurs approxi-
mately 700 times in the Old Testament, and always
means literal days.
Furthermore, not only were the “days” real days,
but the work of the six days was all-embracing.
“Heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them

87
is,” were made in the six days. There could therefore
have been no part of any pre-existing earth left over.
“All that in them is” presumably means “all that
in them is,” since God Himself said so. That being
the case, there could be no left-over fossils, rocks,
radioactive minerals or anything else that could give
any indication of a previous era.
There are numerous other exegetical problems with
both the day-age and pre-world hypotheses, but the
most serious fallacy in both of them is that they
charge God with stupidity and cruelty. Since the very
raison d’etre for either of these devices is to retain
the geologic age system, they necessarily incorporate
the fossil record, with its apparent billion-year reign
of random change, struggle, disease, suffering and
death, all over the world. The appalling inefficiency
and barbarity of the evolutionary process is evidence
enough that God would not allow, let alone invent,
such a thing.
The sufferings of this present world, of course, are
because of sin and the Curse. The geologic ages, how-
ever, with all their suffering and death, presumably
took place long before man sinned. Nor does it help
to suggest that Satan’s sin may somehow be responsi-
ble. His sin did not take place until after the geologic
ages, not before. The pre-Adamic cataclysm, in fact,
is explained by its advocates as the direct and imme-
diate result of Satan’s sin. Thus the sin of Satan in
no way accounts for the suffering and death of the
geologic ages which preceded it. As a matter of fact,
it is inconceivable that God, at the end of the six
days, could have pronounced “everything that He had
made” to be “very good” (Genesis 1:31) if, at the time,
the earth was scarred with ages of violence and death,
and the heaven itself was a battleground between the
devil and his angels and Michael and his angels. As

88
far as any clear evidence from Scripture is concerned,
the sin and fall of Satan did not occur until after
man’s creation, chronologically somewhere between
the end of Genesis 2 and the beginning of Genesis 3.
Scientifically, exegetically and theologically, there-
fore, it is impossible to retain the geological-age sys-
tem along with the six days of creation. The Bible
does teach, after all, that all things were created in
six real days several thousand years ago. Maybe this
is “naive literalism,” but it is what God has said. It
is not merely the oft-ridiculed “literal interpretation”
of Genesis; it is the actual meaning of the words
themselves and no other interpretation fits the con-
tEXU?
A good question is: if it really took five billion years
for God to make all things, why did He tell us it
took six days?
We are forced to the conclusion, as Bible-believing
Christians, that the earth is really quite young after
all, regardless of the contrary views of evolutionary
geologists. This means then that all the uranium-lead
measurements, the potassium-argon measurements
and all similar measurements which have shown
greater ages have somehow been misinterpreted.
It should be remembered that history, in the sense
of written records, supports the Bible chronology. The
first dynasty of Egypt, the first kings of Sumeria,
and all other confirmed dates in the history of man,
indicate that civilization began in the Middle East,
somewhere near Mount Ararat, about four or five
thousand years ago. All earlier dates have been es-
timated indirectly by some physical process—
radiocarbon decay, uranium decay, or something
else. Any such indirect process necessarily must be
based on certain assumptions which, in the nature
of the case, could never be proved to be true.

89
 How, then, can they be reinterpreted? Is it possible
that other assumptions could be made which, with
the same physical data, will give ages that accord
with the Biblical chronology?
It is true, of course, that even evolutionary scien-
tists recognize that many problems and errors can
affect these measurements. The techniques them-
selves are very difficult and are easily subject to large
experimental error. The systems that are used are
readily contaminated or influenced by external fac-
tors (e.g., uranium may be leached out of a uran-
ium-lead system, free argon may be trapped into a
potassium-argon system, etc.). The process rate itself
may have varied from its present rate at some time
or times in the past. A considerable number of vol-
canic rocks, known to have been formed by volcanic
lava flows in modern times, have been “dated” by
potassium or uranium techniques to be millions or
billions of years in age.
Many, perhaps most, geologic dates measured by
such processes are subject to considerable uncertainty
because of problems such as these. But it does still
seem that so many of them give dates that are far
greater than the Bible would allow that there must
be some other more basic reason for the discrepancy.
It is noteworthy that only a relatively small
number of physical processes have been adopted for
use as geologic “clocks.” In principle, there should
be almost an infinite number of processes available
for such use. Every process involves some kind of
change with time and therefore could theoretically
be used to measure the passage of time. Why, then,
have only those few been selected that change very
slowly with time?
There are numerous processes which, on the basis
of the same kinds of assumptions that are commonly

90
used for uranium dating and similar dating methods,
would give vastly smaller periods of time—thousands
or millions of years, rather than billions. Why are
these never used? Most people, even most scientists,
apparently have never even considered this question.
Somehow the natural man reacts favorably to any
evidence that the earth is very old, but unfavorably
to any indication that it may be young.
If the earth is really only several thousand years
old, as the Bible teaches, then there obviously is no
time for any significant evolutionary process to have
occurred. Creation is the only alternative, and men
are very uncomfortable when made to realize God
has a direct and immediate concern with this world,
with the development of human events, and with their
own personal lives. Consequently, they seek by every
means available, consciously or subconsciously, to
relegate God to as inconspicuous a role as possible—as
far removed in time and space and interest from the
physical universe as the data will possibly allow.
This purpose is nicely served by the scientific prem-
ise of uniformitarianism, which holds that the origin
and development of all things can be described in
terms of the same natural laws and processes which
function today. Thus there is no room for either a
period of special creative processes or a period of
special catastrophic processes in the past. If the world
must have attained its present state by the same slow
processes which operate today, then an immensity
of time is demanded.
Even on the basis of uniformitarian assumptions,
it would seem that the processes which yield young
ages are more likely to be correct than those which
give great ages. That is, a process is more likely to
operate uniformly and without external interruptions
for a short period of time than for a long period of

EM
time. Nevertheless, the only methods that have been
acceptable to uniformitarians have been those which
give long ages.
Other processes do give much younger ages, how-
ever. For example, the present rate of sedimentary
erosion would have reduced the continents to sea level
in six million years and would have accumulated the
entire mass of ocean-bottom sediments in 25 million
years. Present rates of volcanic emissions would have
produced all the water of the oceans in 340 million
years and the entire crust of the earth in 45 million
years.
There is no measurable accumulation of meteoritic
dust on the earth’s surface, but present rates of influx
of such dust from space would produce a layer %
inch thick all over the earth in a million years and
a layer 54 feet thick in 5 billion years. The comets
of the solar system are disintegrating so rapidly that
they could only have come into existence less than
a few million years ago at most. The earth’s magnetic
field is decaying so rapidly that its origin cannot have
been more than about 10,000 years ago.
The rate of uranium influx into the ocean indicates
a maximum age for the oceans of about one million
years. Sodium influx indicates perhaps 100 million
years, but chlorine, sulfates and other materials give
much less. Helium influx to the atmosphere shows
the maximum age of the atmosphere to be about
12,000 years.
As far as human history is concerned, trends of
population statistics show the most probable date for
the beginning of human populations to be about 4,000
years ago. Radiocarbon dating, if rightly understood
in terms of a non-equilibrium dating equation (instead
of the steady-state model which is commonly used
despite strong evidence that about 25% more radio-

92
carbon is being formed in the atmosphere than is
decaying in the biosphere) will show that the maxi-
mum age of the atmosphere and of any archaeological
site is about 7,000 years.
The above calculations are all based on uniformi-
tarian assumptions and, therefore, in most cases give
ages that are too large. However, they are all at
least as accurate and reliable as the various uranium
and potassium dates that suggest an age of several
billion years for the earth.
Aside from this question of arbitrary screening of
dates and dating methods, however, how is it that
some processes do at least fairly consistently give such
great ages?
The answer probably lies in a fuller comprehension
of the effects of Creation on the earth’s structure and
the Flood on the earth’s processes. The Apostle Peter
suggests this in his great farewell chapter, II Peter 3.
He first predicted that the present attitude of
intellectuals in the last days would be that of evolu-
tionary naturalism, as expressed succinctly in their
dogma of uniformitarianism: “All things continue as
they were from the beginning of the creation.”
He then charges that his philosophy is based on
a deliberate rejection of the fact of a primeval special
creation and a later world-destroying deluge (II Peter
3:5,6). The fact of an initial complete creation means
that all the earth’s components (including mineral
systems) were created in a fully-developed, balanced,
harmonious complex, perfectly integrated and dis-
tributed through the earth in accordance with God’s
own purposes. The fact of a subsequent global cata-
clysm means that the continuity of all natural proc-
esses was drastically interrupted and, in many cases,
the process rates vastly accelerated during the Flood
epoch.

93
 Wherever radioactive minerals were placed in the
primeval earth, therefore, they were probably also
placed in association with their “daughter” elements
in equilibrium and concordant amounts. Their “ap-
parent age” at the completion of creation was a func-
tion of the processes of their creation, not of decay
processes inaugurated after the creation. There is no
way we can examine these creative processes scien-
tifically, since “God rested,’ and such processes no
longer exist.
The initial “apparent age” of all such systems, has,
of course, been affected by the earth’s subsequent
history, especially the Curse and the Flood. During
and after the Flood, there were great magmatic flows,
great earth movements, great volcanic eruptions,
great atmospheric disturbances, and other phenom-
ena which catastrophically changed all previous rela-
tionships. Since most uranium, rubidium, and potas-
sium minerals as used for dating are found in igneous
intrusives, volcanic basalts, or transported sedimen-
tary rocks, it is no wonder that most such minerals
give such an array of discordant and anomalous ages
as they do. The few that give concordant results may
represent exceptional instances of undisturbed trans-
portation and redisposition during the cataclysmic
upheavals of the Flood epoch.
In any case, it is evident that application of a
uniformitarian calculation to such systems can yield
no information whatever about their true age, even
though it may be possible occasionally to get an
approximate indication of their initially created “ap-
parent age.” The only way we can determine the true
age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And
since He has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scrip-
tures that it is several thousand years in age, and
no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of
terrestrial chronology.

OA
 The Apostle Peter has another word in this connec-
tion: “Beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that
one day is with the Lord as a thousand years” (II
Peter 3:8). In context, he is saying: “Remember that
God is not limited in the accomplishment of His work
by uniformitarian rates, as naturalistic scoffers have
assumed. God can do in one day what might seem
to men to require a thousand years.” Therefore do
not be impressed by the “apparent age” of prehistoric
formations. The “true age” is what God says it is,
and there is no other way of determining it.
Then he interjects a sober warning and admonition:
“They that are unlearned and unstable (that is, in
the doctrinal understanding of God’s Word) wrest . : .
the Scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye, there-
fore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before,
beware, lest ye also, being led away with the error
of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness” (II
Peter 3:16,17).
Instead of such a dreary strategy of continual re-
treat and reinterpretation and apostasy, he concludes:
“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be glory both now
and forever. Amen” (II Peter 3:18).

95
 APPENDIX A-1
BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS FOR A
WORLDWIDE FLOOD
Genesis Text Argument
Se 7, Water above the atmosphere must have been
global in extent.
Ph AAS No rain upon the earth must have been worldwide
condition.
3.) 2:6 Earth mist watered the whole face of the ground.
4, 2:10-14 Edenic geography no longer in existence.
OR as22 High civilization at dawn of history not continuous
with present world.
6. 5:5, etc Longevity of antediluvian patriarchs indicates
distinctive biosphere.
I Gul Man had multiplied on the face of the earth.
Gh ie” Demonic-human unions coextensive with mankind.
oy Hs Universal evil inexplicable in post-diluvian society.
10. 6:6, 7 Repentance of God extended to the whole animal
creation.
LOT Earth was filled with violence and corruption |
before God. |
125 “G22 All flesh was corrupted (possibly including |
animals). |

96 |
6:13 God decided to destroy both man and the earth.
Ark too large for regional fauna.
Everything with the breath of life to die.
Purpose of ark was to keep two of every sort alive.
Animals of all kinds migrated to the ark.
All kinds of edible food taken on the ark.
Every living substance on the ground to be
destroyed.
“The fleod” (Hebrew mabbul) applies solely to
Noah’s flood.
All the fountains of the great deep cleaved open in
one day.
The “sluiceways from the floodgates” of heaven
were opened.
Rain poured continuously for forty days and forty
nights.
The waters prevailed and increased greatly.
High hills under the whole heaven were covered.
Waters fifteen cubits above highest mountains.
Every man died on the earth.
All flesh with the breath of life in the dry land
died.
Every living substance destroyed off the face of
the ground.
Waters at maximum height for five months.
Fountains of deep open for five months.
Windows of heaven open for five months.
Ark floated over 17,000 ft. mountains for five
months.
Water receded 2% months before mountain tops
seen.
Dove found no suitable ground even after four
months of recession.
Plants began budding after nine months of the
flood.
Occupants were in the ark over a year.
All kinds of present non-marine animals came
from the ark.
God smote all things living only once.
Present uniformity of nature dates from the end of
the flood.
Earth was to be filled with descendants of Noah.
Changed relation between man and animals
followed the flood.
Man permitted animal food after flood.
Institution of human government dates from flood.
God’s covenant made with every living creature.
The flood promised by God never to come again
on the earth.

a1
 9:13 Rainbow placed in sky after the flood.
9:19 Whole earth overspread of the sons of Noah.
aleat Whole earth of one language after the flood.
11:9 All men lived in one place after the flood.

Other Texts
Job 12:15 The waters overturned the earth.
Psalm 29:10 The flood testified God as eternal king.
Psalm 104:8 Flood terminated by crustal tectonics.
Isaiah 55:9 Waters of Noah went over the earth.
Matthew 24:37 The days of Noah like those when Christ comes.
Matthew 24:39 The flood took them all away.
Luke 17:27 The flood destroyed them all.
Hebrews 11:7 Noah warned of things never seen before.
Hebrews 11:7 Noah condemned the world by his faith.
—SS
CDN
SV
SOC
aEINI Peter 3:20 Only eight souls saved on the ark through the
flood.
II Peter 2:5 God spared not the old world (Greek kosmos).
II Peter 2:5 God brought the flood on the world of the
ungodly.
13. II Peter 2:5 The “flood” (Greek kataklusmos) applied solely to
Noah’s flood.
14. II Peter 3:6 The world that then was perished by the watery
cataclysm.

98
 APPENDIX A-2
NON-BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS
FOR WORLDWIDE FLOOD
. Worldwide distribution of flood traditions.
Origin of civilization near Ararat-Babylon region in post-flood time.
. Convergence of population growth statistics on date of flood.
. Dating of oldest living things at post-flood time.
Worldwide occurrence of water-laid sediments and sedimentary rocks.
. Recent uplift of major mountain ranges.
. Marine fossils on crests of mountains.
. Evidence of former worldwide warm climate.
»
OD. Necessity of catastrophic
CONAAR burial and rapid lithification of fossil
deposits.
. Recent origin of many datable geological processes.
. Worldwide distribution of all types of fossils.
. Uniform
eS=)
Se physical appearance of rocks from different “ages”.
. Frequent mixing of fossils from different “ages”.
. Near-random deposition of formational sequences.
Se®.
ee
oO
Cw Equivalence of total organic material in present world and fossil
world.

og
16. Wide distribution of recent volcanic rocks.
7h Evidence of recent water bodies in present desert areas.
18. Worldwide occurrence of raised shore lines and river terraces.
IG), Evidence of recent drastic rise in sea level.
20. Universal occurrence of rivers in valleys too large for the present
stream.
21, Sudden extinction of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals.
22: Rapid onset of glacial period.
23. Existence of polystrate fossils.
24. Preservation of tracks and other ephemeral markings throughout
geologic column.
25. Worldwide occurrence of sedimentary fossil “graveyards” in rocks of
all “ages”.
26. Absence of any physical evidence of chronologic boundary between
rocks of successive “ages’’.
ile Occurrence of all rock types (shale, limestone, granite, etc.) in all
“ages”.

28. Parallel of supposed evolutionary sequence through different “ages”

with modern ecological zonation in the one present age.
29: Lack of correlation of most radiometric “ages” with assumed
paleontologic “ages”.
30. Absence of meteorites in geologic column.
31. Absence of hail imprirts in geologic column, despite abundance of
fossil ripple-marks and raindrop imprints.
32. Evidence of man’s existence during earliest of geologic “ages” (e.g.,
human footprints in Cambrian, Carboniferous, and Cretaceous
formations).

100
 APPENDIX B
NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES
TO GENESIS 1-11
New Testament Reference Topic Genesis Reference
1. Matthew 19:4 Created male and female eZ
2. Matthew 19:5, 6 Cleave unto his wife 2:24
3. Matthew 23:35 Righteous Abel 4:4
4. Matthew 24:37-39 Days of Noah 6:3-5
5. Mark 10:6 God made them Ay, 227)
6. Mark 10:7-9 One flesh 2:24
7. Mark 13:19 Creation which God created 2:4
8. Luke 1:70 Prophets since the world began 4:26
9. Luke 3:34-36 Son of Thara.. . Son of Sem 11:10-24
10. Luke 3:36-38 Son of Noe... Son of Adam 5:3-29
11. Luke 11:50-51 Blood of Abel 4:8-11
12. Luke 17:26-27 The Flood came and destroyed them
all 7:10-23
13. John 1:1-3 In the beginning God 1:1
14. John 1:10 World made by Him De
15. John 8:44 Father of lies 3:4, 5
6s Actsies:21 Restoration of all things 5:29

101
Acts 4:25 All that in them is
Acts 14:15 Fruitful seasons
Acts 17:24 God made all things
Acts 17:26 All nations on face of the earth
Romans 1:20 Things that were made
Romans 5:12 Death by sin
Romans 5:14-19 Death reigned from Adam
Romans 8:20-22 Bondage of corruption
Romans 16:20 Satan bruised under foot
| Corinthians 6:16 One flesh
| Corinthians 11:3 Head of the woman
| Corinthians 11:7 In the image of God
| Corinthians 11:8, 9 Woman of the man
| Corinthians 15:21, 22 By man came death
| Corinthians 15:38, 39 Every seed his own body 1:11, 21, 24
| Corinthians 15:45 Adam a living soul Ja |
| Corinthians 15:47 Man of the earth
Il Corinthians 4:6 Light out of darkness
I! Corinthians 11:3 Serpent beguiled Eve through
subtlety
Galatians 4:4 His Son, made of a woman
Galatians 4:26 Mother of us all
Ephesians 3:9 Created all things
Ephesians 5:30, 31 Bone of His bone
Colossians 1:16 All things created
Colossians 3:10 Created in His image
| Timothy 2:13-15 Bone of His bone
Hebrews 1:10 Earth and heavens in the beginning
Hebrews All things in subjection under Him
Hebrews 4:3 Words were finished
Hebrews 4:4 Rest on the seventh day
Hebrews Ceased from His works
Hebrews 11:4 Abel a more excellent sacrifice
Hebrews 11:5 Enoch translated
Hebrews 11:7 Noah saved his house
Hebrews 12:24 Blood of Abel
James 3:9 Men in the similitude of God
| Peter 3:20 Preparing of the ark
Il Peter 2:4 Angels that sinned
Il Peter 2:5 God spared not the old world
ll Peter 3:4, 5 Out of the water and in the water
Il Peter 3:6 Overflowed with water
| John 3:8 Devil sinneth from the beginning
| John 3:12 Cain slew his brother

102
 60. Jude 6 Angels left their own habitation 6:4
i 61. Jude 11 The way of Cain 4:16
62. Jude 14, 15 Enoch, the seventh from Adam 6:18-24
| 63. Revelation 2:7 Tree of life 2:9
64. Revelation 3:14 Beginning of the creation of God 3:14
65. Revelation 4:11 Created all things 23
66. Revelation 10:6 Created heaven and earth and all
things ZAll
67. Revelation 12:1-4 Seed of the woman 3:15
68. Revelation 12:9 That old serpent 3:14
69. Revelation 12:13-17 — Enmity between thee and the
woman 3:15
70. Revelation 14:7 He that made heaven and earth 2:4
71. Revelation 17:5 Babylon, the mother of abominations 10:8-11
72. Revelation 17:18 That great city 11:4, 5
73. Revelation 20:2 The dragon, that old serpent Sal
74. Revelation 21:1 First heaven and first earth 2:1
75. Revelation 21:4 No more death, or sorrow, or crying,
or pain 3:17-19
76. Revelation 22:2 Fruit of the tree of life 3:22
77. Revelation 22:3 No more curse 3:14-19

NOTE: All New Testament books except Philippians, | and I! Thessalonians, II Timothy,
Titus, Philemon, I] and Ill John have references to Genesis 1-11. Every
chapter of Genesis 1-11 is referred to somewhere in the New Testament.
Every New Testament writer refers to Genesis 1-11. Jesus Christ referred
to Genesis 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

103
 APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED BOOKS FOR
FURTHER READING
Note: All books listed below may be obtained from the
Institute for Creation Research, 2716 Madison Av-
enue, San Diego, California 92116.

Other Books by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

(Director, Institute for Creation Research)
THE GENESIS FLOOD
(co-author John C. Whitcomb, Jr., Th.D.)
1961;15th Printing, 1972) 22.2% Cloth $6.95; Paper $3.95
The standard classic text in the field of scientific Biblical
creationism and catastrophism. Thoroughly documented
treatment of the Biblical and scientific implications of
creation and the flood.
THE TWILIGHT OF EVOLUTION
1963; 13th Printing, 1972 ............ Cloth $2.95; Paper $1.50
Documented study of the origin and implications of evolu-
tion, with a refutation of its supposed evidences. Also
published in German, Dutch, and Chinese.

BIBLICAL COSMOLOGY AND MODERN SCIENCE

1970; 4thePrinting, 19722. welt Cloth $3.95; Paper $2.50
Scientific and Biblical expositions of many aspects of cos-
mology, covering origins, catastrophism, eschatology,
chronology, populations analysis, sedimentary fossiliza-
tion, and thermodynamics. Includes discussion and refuta-
tion of day-age theory, gap theory, and allegorical theory.
THE BIBLE HAS THE ANSWER
fie Sra rnting. 10,2 2 =... _.. Cloth $4.50; Paper $3.25
Scientific, logical and Biblical answers to 100 most frequent
questions on the Bible and science, evolution, supposed
mistakes in Scripture, difficult doctrines, social problems,
and practical Christian living. Complete topical and scrip-
ture indexes. On doctrinal questions, orientation is pre-
millennial and Baptistic; on others, non-denominational.
SCIENCE, SCRIPTURE, AND SALVATION
1965; Revised Ed. 1971 _.... Student $0.95; Teacher $1.00
Biblical, scientific, and devotional exposition of the first
eleven chapters of Genesis. Designed for use in Sunday
Schools, but also useful for other groups and for individual
study.
THE BIBLE AND MODERN SCIENCE
DOD EVEN ISO 21.) LOOS eee ees vs sessed vee Paper $0.50
Evangelistic presentation of evidences for the scientific
validity of the Bible, including historical and prophetic
confirmation. Over a quarter of a million copies in print.
Also available in Spanish and Portuguese.
EVOLUTION AND THE MODERN CHRISTIAN
POGECACH, EXEIULUTITBerek Oit px vader 20 te Be agen enone Paper $1.00
Popular-level exposition of evidence for creation versus
evolution. Especially written for young people.
STUDIES IN THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE
FOGG Ove Tinting, OTE Le i. Paper $1.95
Sixteen studies on special topics, including the Bible as
a scientific textbook, evidence of Christ and the Trinity
in nature, Biblical hydrology, concept of power in Scrip-
ture, scientism in historical geology, and others.
BIBLICAL CATASTROPHISM AND GEOLOGY
1963 32-255 PAAR Fo SO eee es Lee elses. Paper $0.20
A brief summary of the scientific basis for creationism and
catastrophism, as given in a lecture to the Houston Geo-
logical Society.
Books by Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
(Associate Director, Institute for Creation Research)

EVOLUTION?—THE FOSSILS SAY NO!

I C R—San Diego, California, 1972 ............. Paper $0.95
A brief and compelling popular summary of evidence from
science, especially the fossil record, demonstrating the
fallacies of evolution and the necessity of special creation.
SPECULATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS RELATED TO
THEORIES ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE: A CRITIQUE
I C R Technical Monograph No. 1, 1972 .... Paper $2.50
A technical monograph on the naturalistic theories of the
origin of life, documenting the biochemical impossibility
for non-living chemicals to evolve into living cells.
Books by Creation Research Society

The Creation Research Society is an association of crea-

tionist scientists, with over 400 scientist members with
post-graduate degrees in a natural science, plus 1,500 other
non-voting members. Annual dues, which include subscrip-
tion to its Quarterly Journal, are $7.00. For information,
write Creation Research Society, 2717 Cranbrook Road,
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104. Although the INSTITUTE
FOR CREATION RESEARCH has no formal affiliation
with the Creation Research Society, it does endorse and
distribute its publications.
BIOLOGY: A SEARCH FOR ORDER IN COMPLEXITY
Ed. by John N. Moore, Ed.D. & Harold S. Slusher, M.S.

106
PoiOpeandshrinting, (197Qe tes: Aw cose
oT eee Cloth $7.95
A modern textbook in biology for use in high schools, fully
illustrated and of high professional quality. Prepared by
a committee of scientists in the Creation Research Society.
The only biology textbook now available that is not biased
in favor of evolution.
WHY NOT CREATION?
Ed. by Walter E. Lammerts, Ph.D. 1971 ...... Cloth $7.50
A classified anthology of articles from the Creation Re-
search Society Quarterly for its first five years, 1964-1969.
Contains 25 articles on cosmogony, entropy, radioactive
dating, sedimentary catastrophism, fossil man, origin of
life, and many other topics.

SCIENTIFIC STUDIES IN SPECIAL CREATION

Ed. by Walter E. Lammerts, Ph.D. 1971 ...... Cloth $6.95
The companion volume to Why Not Creation? More ar-
ticles from the Creation Research Society Quarterly,
1964-1969. Many of these issues are no longer available
and the two books together constitute a permanent collec-
tion of the articles of lasting interest in the Society’s first
five years of publication.
SCIENCE AND CREATION SERIES
SCIENCE AND CREATION:
A HANDBOOK FOR TEACHERS
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., Robert F. Koontz, Ph.D. and
William W. Boardman, Jr., Ph.D., 1971 ...... Paper $3.50
A handbook of scientific information for teachers, pastors,
parents, and others to present creation as a viable scientific
alternative to evolution. Suitable for use in both public
and private schools. Contains an extensive bibliography
of creationist books for school libraries.
SCIENCE AND CREATION SERIES
Edited by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. and Jimmy F. Phelps,
Ph.D., 1971. Set of 8 Student Books and 8 Teacher Books,
plus the Handbook for Teachers ...................----.---- $28.00
A series of supplementary unit topical study books to

107
present science in terms of creation to children in both
public and Christian schools. One student book and ac-
companying teacher book for each of grades 1-8, all ref-
erenced to the Handbook for Teachers described above.
For Christian schools this book, The Remarkable Birth
of the Earth, may be used concurrently, since the eight
books of the Series correspond directly to the eight
chapters of this book. The Series was prepared by a team
of nine Ph.D. scientists and eighteen school teachers and
covers a different topic in origins in each grade, as well
as introducing all the major concepts and disciplines of
science. The book may also be ordered individually at $1.75
for each book.
OTHER BOOKS
THE EARLY EARTH
By John © Whitcomb, Jr. (Uh. D2 1972... Paper $1.50
Studies in special topics relating to the Genesis record of
creation, including the origin and nature of man, critical
analysis of the gap theory, and others. Illustrated.
THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
By John C. Whitcomb, Jr., Th.D., 1964 _.... Paper $0.75
Scientific fallacies of the various evolutionary theories of
the origin of the earth and the solar system. Exposition
of the Biblical record of special creation of all things and
the fallacies of the double-revelation theory.
SHOULD EVOLUTION BE TAUGHT?
Bysdohn: N; -MooresEd.Ds 2st) 2a Paper $0.15
Discussion of the general and special theories of evolution
and their philosophic and scientific character, respectively:
Demonstration that the scientific creation model is better
supported by facts than the evolution model.

108
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURES
Genesis
81,82 40,41
2,36,60,67 17,26,65,88
26,60,68,85 82,89
59,84 16,18,26,60,65
16,26
16,26,36,72

; _ —_

pea
ee
Lge
Or
Me
el
ol

32,36,40,42
42
32,40,42.72
40,45
36,40,45

109
 Oral
9:4
9:6
9:11
9:13
9:18,19
9:24
9:25
9:26
9:27
1021-32
10:6 51
46,81,83
52,53
81

Exodus Isaiah
20:8-11 14:13
AAV ata 14:15
BlEG 4():6-7
AS LED Ff 40:12
SLATS} 40:26
43:20
Leviticus 51:6
ee Dil 54:9
55:9
Numbers
OS 66 Jeremiah
lst ae
Deuteronomy Bot oe
4:19 60
32:8 54,81 Ezekiel
14:14,20
Judges 28:14
5:20 66 28:17

Daniel
10:5
OS RAR
10:20

Matthew
40:15-24 5 :38,39
41:1-34 7:18
 Philippians
3:21

Colossians
1:16,17 15

I Thessalonians
AAG. 64

I Timothy
78 es}

Hebrews
e273)

4]

73

2,58 II Peter
79 PS) 25
24 ,26,38,77 3:3,4 93
15
24,30,78,93

17,65
I Corinthians
14:33
14:40
Neal
ey
15:38,39
Revelation
15:40,41
6:13
15:44
8:10
15:45,47
12:4
15:51-53
Wed
VERS
Ephesians
22:3
22

TEL
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Abiogenesis 32 Chronology,
Adam 18,26,45,62,82 Geological 22,27-30,76-79,83-95
Age of the Earth 80-95 Coal Beds 30
Ages, Geologic 22,27-30 Code for Evolution 20
Angels 61,63-67 Code, Genetic 43
Animals, Creation of 36-38,44 Comets 92
Animals, Extinct PMS OS Consciousness 36-39
Apparent Age 62,94-95 Conservation of Energy 14-17,72
Ararat 25,47,89 Creation, Animal 32,33,36-39
Ark of Noah 24-25 Creation, Completed 15-17,61-62,
Astrology 53,67 72,94
Atheism 2-3 Creation, Conserved 14-16,72
Ayala, Francisco, J. 6 Creation, Life 34-37
Babel 52-54 Creation, Man 36-40,45 62
Behemoth 32 Creation, Universe 36,56-62,67-69
Canaan, Noahic Prophecy 48-52 Curse,
Canopy of Vapor 29 Edenic 15-18,26,51,65,74,77-79,88
Capital Punishment 47 Curse, Hamitic 48-52
Cataclysm, Pre-Adamic _26,85-87 Darwin, Charles 6
Catastrophism 27-30 Dating, Geologic 89-94
Cause-and-Effect 2-4,11,36 Day-Age Theory 83-85
Cave-Men 46 Death 23,24 ,26,38,77-79,88
Chronology, Biblical 46,61 Decay, Principle of 14-20,74,88

112
 Deluge, Noachian 23-30,94-95 Ice Age 30
Design, Evidence of 1-12 Idolatry 35
Dinosaurs 30-33,73 Image of God 36,40,45,69
D.N.A. 43 Japheth, Noahic Prophecy
Dragons 31,32 Concerning 48
Ecologic Zones of Fossils 28 Jesus Christ, Acceptance
Energy, Conservation of 14-17,72 of Genesis by 25,82
Energy, Conversion of 20 Kinds, Created 41-43,72-73
Entropy 14,74,78 Language, Origin of 53,54
Ethics and Evolution 74-75 Leviathan 32
Eve, Creation of 45 Life, Origin of 34-38
Evolution, Criteria for Light 59-62
Open System for Evolution 19,20 Literal Interpretation 83,84 ,89
Evolution, Cruelty of 73-74 Longevity of Patriarchs 2)
Evolution, Fossil Magnetic Field, Decay of 92
Evidence of 21,22 ,27-30,76 Man, Creation of 36-40,44-46,55,83
Evolution, Inefficient 73 Man, Nature of 36-40,44-46
Evolution, Mathematical Man, Sin of 24,26
Impossibility of 4-11 Mathematical Impossibility
Evolution, of Evolution 4-11
Process of 16-20,41-43,74 Matter 68
Evolution, Mechanism of Evolution 20
Reasons for Rejecting vii-1x Meteoritic Dust 92
Evolution, Stellar 57-58 Motion 60
Evolution, Theistic 45,71-75 Mutation 6-11,41-43,73
Extinct Animals 22°30=338 Nations, Origin of 53-54
Firmament 61,85 Natural Selection 6-11,43,74
First Cause 2-4,11 Neanderthal Man 46,77
First Law of Nimrod 52
Thermodynamics 14-16,18 Noah 24,4751
Flood, Noahic 23-30,94 Oil 30
Footprints, Fossil 31 Ordered Systems 56,4-11
Fossils 21-33,76-79,86,88 Overthrust 23
Fountains of the Deep 28 Planets 63,65
Gap Theory 26,85-87 Plants 38
Gaps, in Fossil Record 22,42 Population Growth 92
Gaps, in Genesis Genealogies 81,82 Potassium-Argon Dating 90
Genealogies 81,82 Pre-Adamic Cataclysm 26,85-87
Genesis, Authority of 80-82 Pre-Adamite Men 45
Genetic Code 43 Probability of
Geologic Ages 22,27-30,76-79,83-89 Chance Development 4-11
God, Existence of 2,6,11,68 Processes, Natural 13-20,91-92
Greenhouse Effect 29 Progressive Creation 75-76
Ham, Noahic Prophecy Quotations from Genesis 81-82
Concerning 48-52 Races, Origin of 54-55
Heaven 60,64-67 Radiocarbon Dating 92
Helium, Atmospheric 92 Radiometric Dating 90-94
Host of Heaven 60,66,67 Rain, Absence of 29
Huxley, Sir Julian 6 Ramm, Bernard 83

113
Salvation 18,79
Satan 53,65,66,88
Scientists 13-14,57
Second Law of
Thermodynamics 14-20
Sedimentary Rocks 21,23,28,86,87
Sedimentation Rates 92
Shem, Noahic Prophecy
Concerning 47-48
Sin 18,24,26,38,65,78,79,88
Sodium, Oceanic 92
Sons of Noah 47-52
Soul 36-39,49
Space 60,68
Spirit 37-39
Spirits 39,63-67
Spontaneous Generation 32
Stars, Origin of 56-62
Stars, Purpose of 63-66
Sun, Creation of 59-62 ,84
Technology, Hamitic Origin 49-50
Teleology 6
Theistic Evolution 45,71-75
Thermodynamics,
Laws of 14-20
Time, Creation of 68
WHR OS 67
Uniformitarianism 23,91 ,93,95
Universe, Origin of 36,56-62,67-69
Uranium Dating 90,91,92
Variation, Biologic 41-43,72
Velikovsky, Immanuel 67
Volcanism Rates 92
Waters above the
Firmament 28,85

114
 HENRY M, MORRIS is Director
of the Institute for Creation
Research and Academic Vice-
President of Christian Heritage
College, San Diego, Califor-
nia. He attended the Univer-
sity of Minnesota (M. S.;Ph.D.)
and Rice University (B. S.).
He was Head of the Civil En-
gineering Department at South-
westem Louisiana University; Assistant Professor
of Civil Engineering at University of Minnesota;
Instructor of Civil Engineering at Rice Univer-
sity; Junior Engineer to Assistant Hydraulic En-
gineer, International Boundary and Water Com-
mission; and Professor of Hydraulic Engineering
and Head of the Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, for thirteen
years.
Dr. Morris has authored more than 25 books and
monographs, with over one-half million copies
in print. His extensive speaking schedule takes
him across the country to colleges, universities,
and churches. He is recognized as one of
America's greatest authorities on scientific
creationism.

ICR150