Original Premise

Middle Ground
A place where Science and Creation can coexist
Prologue
There is a debate in America over the subject of evolution. This debate has been occurring for nearly one-hundred-fifty years, since the book “Origin of the Species” was first published by naturalist Charles Darwin in 1859. As modern science made more discoveries, and as Darwin’s theory has matured, the debate has become more heated, and could probably now be called a war. From the fight over attaching stickers to science textbooks in Cobb county Georgia, to the Ohio State Board of Education, there is fierce debate over this issue. Not being a world traveler, I cannot say if this debate is world-wide or not. I think that among modern nations, societies that are not merely struggling to survive, it probably is.
The opponents of this war are not difficult to identify, at least on one side. They would be the “church” versus science.
The church, who I would identify with, and who this book is mostly directed towards, is the collection of believers and organized church leadership who stand opposed to “evolution”. Though we are not well organized, we are mostly united in our opposition to “evolution”. I have not seen any church belief statements that embrace evolution, and most state explicitly that God is the sole Creator.
Science would represent the other side of the battle. However, science does not have an organized front. Apart from a few vocal individuals, scientists do not have an agenda, nor do they have a unified front in opposition to the church. Science is merely freely investigating all of God’s wonderful creation, publishing what it finds.
I think the church is making a mistake when it opposes science. Science is just a logical and effective way to satisfy man’s natural curiosity. It is good to be curious, it is good to examine God’s creation. By learning about how God made things, how He organized this universe, we can learn a great deal about God Himself. I am constantly amazed, humbled, and awestruck with the genius revealed in His creation. There is elegance, simplicity, logic, beauty, complexity, order, chaos, immense sizes and infinitesimal particles. The world is so complex, that to imagine organizing even the tiniest part of it staggers the mind. A human is such a rare, wonderfully made, impossibly complex being, it motivates one to waste not a moment, to utter not a harsh word, to not view anyone as less than a god. As a Christian and a scientist, I can say without hesitation that science greatly enhances my faith and love for God.
We should be thankful that we live in an age where science can examine God’s creation. It takes a free society, with ample resources, to do the expensive and difficult work needed to figure out how God put this universe together. We are lucky to live in a time where this is common, but it has not always been so, and this condition is fragile and possibly fleeting. Most of human history reveals that our “natural” state is one of misery, despair, ignorance, death. There are a few shining examples (Greece, Egypt, Rome) where mankind has risen above this swamp of despair, but they were brief moments, enjoyed by a tiny minority. In fact, the church is largely responsible for science. We have created this step-child, and we should be proud of her.
I should clarify some definitions before I go much further. My use of the word “evolution” in this discussion has a very specific meaning. I am referring to how living organisms have progressed from simple to complex. There is little doubt that, concerning life on the earth, things changed from rather simple organisms to the final coup de grâce: man. Genesis and the fossil record both agree on this. Man is the ultimate end of the process, the most complex, and the purpose of God’s creative effort in the first place.
The modern theory of evolution states that “random processes” caused life to come to its present state. It does not mention a Creator, nor does it need to. However, I do not agree in the slightest that God had no part in our creation. I do not think that “random processes” determined the outcome of the steps in our creation. But evolution is a very useful word to describe how things have progressed from simple to complex. I will use the word evolution when I refer to the theory, and when I refer to the unarguable fact of biological progression through time.
I DO NOT use the word evolution to refer to the modern understanding: that biology progressed from simple to complex without any involvement from a “superior being” or – God.
Often a discussion of the age of the earth is part of the evolution debate. It will help matters to split the discussion on evolution into two parts: a discussion about the age of the earth and the universe, and a discussion about biological change. As will be shown, there is more anxiety in Christian circles about the biological process than there is about the age of the earth.
My use of the word creationism or creationist in this discussion refers to that small body of believers who think that God created the world in six (literal) days (144 hours). I will sometimes identify myself as part of this group, but my allegiance is only to their unshakable belief that God was the designer and author of it all. I part with them most strenuously when they begin to discuss “science.” As C. S. Lewis would say (and I paraphrase), leave science to the scientists, and theology to the theologians.
Once Christianity discards its creationism stance, it can again take the lead it once held in the sciences. It could show the world how creative and imaginative our God is. It can point out how the steps God took to create man were complex, difficult and incredibly rare. With this fresh perspective, mankind would get new hope and a new reverence for our creator. This is a step the Church must make, and is long overdue.

The Battle
Modern American Christianity is fighting a losing battle in the Creation/Evolution debate.
I call it a losing battle for two reasons. First, it is because the “Christian” position, that evolution did not happen and that the world is only 6000 or so years old, is not supported by any physical evidence. And as time goes on, there is more and more evidence contrary to the “Christian” position.
But the second and more important reason I call this a losing battle, is because the “Christian” position in this debate is causing most to view Christianity as a religion of brainless sheep. Though I admire steadfastness as a virtue, in this case, sticking to an unreasonable position (I’m using reason here in the literal sense as one who uses reason/thought) is not steadfastness, it is ignorance. Most people are aware of this blind rigidity, and view it as a refusal to face facts, and thus are repulsed by those in the church (and thus the Church) who take this stance.
I am a born-again Christian, a bible-toting fundamentalist with right-wing credentials. But I am also a scientist. I am well-versed in many of the “Christian” attempts to explain scientific discoveries concerning our origins, and frankly, the explanations are an embarrassment. Despite creating their own “branch” of research (creationism), and their own Journal (CRS Quarterly), the “Christian” position will never be taken seriously, because the logic and scholarship is so sub-par.
I am sympathetic with the “Christian” position. Creationists are desperate to protect the church from what they view is an attack from godless heathenism. Their defense is understandable and honorable, but in the process they are losing validity and relevance. In their bid to maintain a haven for the lost and searching, they are actually creating a fortress that is neither inviting nor attractive. I am not saying the church should liberalize and adopt the ways of the world, no, that is also the path to irrelevance and destruction. However, in this case, their ridiculous and irrational clutching to creationism is driving people away.
The average American believes in God, but they have also seen the tremendous strides made technologically because of scientific discoveries. They are very confident in the capabilities of the scientific community. The average American wants to believe in God and evolution, but has trouble taking sides. They reject the creationist side because of the creationists dogmatic and arrogant stance. They have seen how the Jim Bakers and Jim Joneses of the world have misled many. But they also reject the godless purely scientific approach, because they know there is a God, and they really have no hope without Him. The average American wants a middle ground.
There is a middle ground.

Definitions: evolution (two parts: old age, and biological advancement)
There are really two parts to the evolution question that should best be separated. There is the age-of-the-universe question, and there is the “biological advancement” question. By far the most controversial is the biological advancement question.
If the argument was only about the age of the earth, I don’t think there would be much of a battle. B.B. Warfield and other Princeton scholars at the turn of the century accepted the fact of an old earth. These were the church leaders of the time. If it was only an issue of the age of the Earth, there would be fringe groups who would fight this, but, in the main, the issue of age would be moot. It would become part of common knowledge, and would eventually be accepted by all – similar to the general acceptance of atoms, bacteria and electricity. It is not an issue that ruffles people’s feathers as much as biological evolution.
The issue of biological change, however, does ruffle feathers. And because it is interwoven with age issues, they are often debated together. They should be debated separately. It is the issue of biological change that has generated the greatest controversy. This paper will focus exclusively on this topic.

There are a number of fronts in this battle, and I will address the primary ones.
What is the battle about?
There are two sides: the creationist side and the evolutionist side.
Creationists are opposed to evolutionists. Creationists believe that evolution teaches there is no God, and life on earth came about by random impersonal forces. Based on this definition, they come to the logical conclusion that if evolution is true, that proves there is no God. If there is no God, there is no hope for us: there is no heaven, no purpose for living, no future glory and happiness. And if evolution does not prove there is no God, at the very least, it poses a strong motivation for men to doubt Gods existence, and to pursue their own selfish aims. This produces very strong motivations for creationists to oppose evolution.
Evolutionists are opposed to creationists. Evolutionists believe that the Church is trying to promote ignorance and censorship. They object to anyone trying to force their morality and beliefs down their throats.
Both positions have valid points, but they are both misguided about their opponents. I believe that there is a position in the center that will eventually win out. I think it is inevitable, I just hope it happens sooner rather than later.
First of all, creationists need to realize that Evolutionists are not trying to prove there is no God. I admit there may be some radicals who want to use evolution as a tool to promote their godless agenda, but in the main, evolutionists are merely scientists who want to find out how things work. When creationists attack evolution as bad science, they will lose, because it is not bad science. It is good science, with incontrovertible facts and evidence. Creationists are correct, however, to attack the notion that evolution proves there is no God. Evolution does not prove that. The real battle creationists should be fighting is removing the connection between evolution and atheism. There is a thin connection, and it can easily be broken. As long as we stick to that battle, we will win. If we attack the science, we will lose.
Secondly, scientists need to be sensitive to the fact that most people believe in God. They need to know that there is suspicion about science’s goals among people of faith, and scientists need to sometimes take a less dogmatic approach. Vast strides have been made in technology because of scientific contributions, but this does not make scientific research and discovery any more important than theology and faith.
Scientists deliberately leave references to God out of all published journals. There is a reason for this. Science is an investigation of what can be seen and measured. Scientists rightly separate their religious opinions from the facts-only world of discovery and analysis. This is only reasonable. A chef will not write a recipe for two cups flour and “let-the-Spirit-lead-you” teaspoons of baking powder. A carpenter will not toss nails in the air and let God decide whether or not they will be driven deeply into the wood. Science is a precise, logical, highly organized and methodical investigation of how things work.
That is not to say that faith cannot guide science. In many cases, faith does just that. Many scientists are men and women of faith, and I can speak for them when I say that their discoveries enhance and strengthen their faith. But even religious scientists leave references to God out of their published work. It does not mean that they don’t believe in God. It is only a professional approach to a highly technical field.

Why the outcome of this battle is important
The crux of the matter is described nicely by Mark A. Noll in “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” (1994):
[T]here is a theological dimension to the scandal of the evangelical mind. For an entire Christian community to neglect, generation after generation, serious attention to the mind, nature, society, the arts -- all spheres created by God and sustained for his own Glory -- may be, in fact, sinful. Os Guinness has recently called attention to this dimension in a memorable passage worth quoting at length:
Evangelicals have been deeply sinful in being anti-intellectual ever since the 1820s and 1830s. For the longest time we didn't pay the cultural price for that because we had the numbers, the social zeal, and the spiritual passion for the gospel. But today we are beginning to pay the cultural price. And you can see that most evangelicals simply don't think. For example, there has been no serious evangelical public philosophy in this century... It has always been a sin not to love the Lord our God with our minds as well as our hearts and souls... We have excused this with a degree of pietism and pretend[ing] that this is something other than what it is -- that is, sin... Evangelicals need to repent of their refusal to think Christianly and to develop the mind of Christ.
The Church is losing touch with its culture. We have taken a unyielding stance on an issue that does not warrant or merit such a stance. We should be the best and the brightest, but are becoming the dullest and the most stubborn.
This commentary by Chuck Colson also serves to illuminate the controversy:
Flat Earthers: The Columbus Myth
"It's about time someone stood up to the Flat-Earthers who want to push their beliefs in the schools."
The comment came from "Kansas City Star" columnist Mike Hendricks, and he was letting the world know what he thought about the decision by the Kansas State School Board to let local public schools decide how much to teach of Darwinian evolution.
It wasn't the first time Christians have been called Flat Earthers, and it won't be the last. The phrase is intended to suggest that Christian beliefs are behind the times, out of touch with modern science and rationality. After all, didn't medieval Christians cling to the idea that the Earth was flat? Didn't it take the voyage of Christopher Columbus to convince backward Christians that the earth is spherical?
Actually, the answer is "no"--and the history of this phrase reveals how far secularists will go to discredit Christianity.
Consider Augustine, perhaps the greatest of the church fathers who lived about a thousand years before Columbus. Augustine knew that the earth was round, not flat. And in the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas, the most profound and prolific of the medieval theologians, observed that the spherical shape of the earth can be empirically demonstrated. His proofs were both mathematical and physical. For example, he suggested that the spherical shape of the earth could be inferred from lunar eclipses. Aquinas gave us classic examples of the scientific method as he understood it. And the findings of modern science confirm that he understood it exceptionally well!
Throughout the centuries, many other Church Fathers taught that the earth is spherical, and not flat. So where do people get the idea that Christians were "Flat-Earthers?"
It turns out it was a fable cooked up by Enlightenment propagandists.
In a book entitled Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and the Modern Historians, Jeffrey Burton Russell explains that the myth that medieval Christians taught a flat earth was invented in the early 19th century by Enlightenment thinkers bent on discrediting the church. It was essentially a calumny--indeed, a libel--designed to discredit the Christian heritage of the Middle Ages.
Of course, medieval Christians did not have all the vast information that has since been revealed by modern science. But these men were not fools, and they were certainly not anti-intellectual. On the contrary, men like Augustine and Aquinas helped put into place the tradition of careful, dispassionate inquiry in the quest for truth--a tradition that is one of the great glories of Western civilization. Modern scholarship--including modern science--would not have emerged without them.
Today the term "Flat Earthers" is still in vogue. Hundreds of years after the Enlightenment, it seems that our opponents still prefer to fight with insults instead of facts.
As we observe Columbus Day today, we need to make sure our children and friends know the truth about why Columbus believed the Earth was round--he was following in the tradition of Christians like Augustine and Aquinas. And the next time you hear people dismissing the arguments of Christians by calling us "Flat Earthers," make sure your kids understand that the phrase was invented by the elites hundreds of years ago--people who were just as afraid of Christian arguments as the elites of today.
Copyright (c) 1999 Breakpoint Ministries
I greatly admire Chuck Colson. He continues to use his brilliant mind to further God’s kingdom. But this commentary saddens me.
He praises two of the greatest minds in Christendom (Aquinas and Augustine), and correctly identifies how they are the root of modern scientific thought. But he does not encourage the church to emulate them. Rather, he only uses their names as a weapon to attack the bigotry of the unchurched.
The intellectual elites of today are afraid of Christian arguments, but not for the reasons Mr. Colson indicates. Most elites do not like debating Christians because there is no common ground for a logical debate. Elites are nervous about anyone who is dogmatic rather than rational. Augustine and Aquinas were anything but dogmatic. They used persuasive logic to give unassailable apologetics. In fact, their logic was so impeccable that it became the foundation for the scientific method that has proven so successful.
The Church needs to, once again, use all the resources available to us and take the lead in logical thought. We don’t hold a monopoly on reason—God allows the unchurched to reason as well. But we have a great advantage: we are closer to God’s mind. And this advantage can and should install us as the philosophers and great thinkers of this age. Sadly, it has not.

Evolutionary processes that creationists accept
In order to come to a middle ground, the church will have to take a big stride. There is nothing wrong with taking big strides. In fact, the church must take strides to keep up with culture. It is not an abandonment of principles to keep up with culture. Picture culture as a mass of people walking down the highway. The church is among that mass of people, a group of people carrying a bible, or more accurately, a lamp. If the people carrying the lamp stop and refuse to stay with the mass of un-lamped people, there is great danger that they will get hurt when night falls. We, the lamp carriers, must keep up with the culture. They need us. If we refuse to go where they go, we are not effective, and the culture will surely get hurt.
Our culture is departing from us in this area. We offer them hope, but they will not listen when we turn a blind prejudiced eye to what science has discovered.
But there is hope that the church can make this stride, and I identify here many types of evolution that the church has already accepted:
1) Our religion has “evolved.” We have come very slowly from Abraham, and his belief in one God, to modern Christianity and our belief in peace and eternal life. We have come from Abraham’s tribal warfare and sacrifices to a sophisticated and mature love of our fellow man and servanthood.
2) Our lives “evolve.” When we are babies, we saw the world through baby eyes. Our thoughts and desires were simple: eat, sleep. Eventually we evolved to a point where we were aware of our existence, and could make moral choices.
3) Our bodies “evolve.” We start out as a single cell. We end up as an amazing collection of differentiated and specialized organs, all working together.
4) Civilizations “evolve.” Granted, sometimes we seem to Devolve (as in the dark ages or this country’s current moral free-fall), but over the course of time, civilization has come from idol worship, human sacrifice and stone tools to Christianity, space flight and computers.
5) The cosmos “evolves.” At the beginning of time there was only hydrogen and helium. Now there are all the elements, all kinds of structure, beauty and order.
If the church can accept these examples of “evolution,” then it should also be able to accept biological evolution.

Creationists think non-creationists have an agenda.
This quote from a popular web site summarizes the basic thought:
as creationists continue to show that evolution still has no scientific merit then "sinners" will look for any other explanation for our origins (rather than Creation - which makes repentance before God the next logical step, after all)
from www.creationism.org
I understand how the lost often try to squirm out of God’s constant persuasion. And there is no doubt that there are some who argue against creationism with a vehemence that reveals their anger and bias towards religion. But there is simply too much evidence from too many varied sources to explain the theory of evolution as some vast fleeing from conviction.
This position the creationists have taken reveals more about their own motivation. Often, they have an attitude of arrogance such as “We know we’re right because God says so.” But I think the main motivation of creationists is a fear that the foundation to their faith is crumbling. As the evidence piles up, the proof of God’s existence seems to be slipping away, and with this goes the hope for future glory and happiness in heaven.
As I will show, there is no danger of losing the solid assurance of God’s promises and love. However, if creationists are basing any of their hope on scientific evidence, they are trusting very flimsy evidence. You can find God’s fingerprint on everything, it’s true, but you will not find God HIMSELF there. God designed things in such a way that you will only find Him if you want to , and the nature of scientific research precludes any search for a creator. That is not to say, however, that scientific research sets out to prove there is no God. No, it only seeks to find out how things are, how things work, how things came to be. It’s stance on God is (or, should be) entirely neutral.
One flimsy argument that the church uses is when it focuses on the word “theory.” As in: the “theory” of evolution. But the fact is, scientists call it a theory also. Does calling it a theory mean that it is wrong? Or that it’s only a wild guess?
Naming an idea a theory does not mean that it is wrong. There are many scientific theories: the atomic theory, the theory of relativity, Newton’s gravitational theory (postulated in 1666). A theory is merely an idea, proposed by a scientist, which is suggested as a way to explain the known observed facts. The best theories will also generate predictions which can then be tested. Theories are not the truth, they only explain the observed facts. If new discoveries disprove parts of the theory, the theory is modified to account for the new data. However, theories are rarely totally disproved. Usually they are adjusted in minor ways to account for new discoveries.
As an example, a theory that was once disproved was the ether theory. It was once thought that light needed a medium through which it propagated, in the way sound needs air. This medium was called “ether.” It was thought that the whole universe was imbedded in this ether. The ether was thought to be very thin (non-viscous), for it allowed planets to twirl through it without apparently slowing down over time. An interferometer was devised to test for the existence of the ether. If the theory was correct, light traveling across ether would go faster than light traveling into the ether, along the direction of the earth’s motion. A beam of light was split in two, directed in two directions ninety degrees apart, and recombined. If the light did not go the same speed along the two paths, it could be detected. The experiment was done, then the whole device, floating on a pool of mercury, was rotated ninety degrees. The experiment was repeated, and the results were published: no ether was found.
The theory was modified a bit, it was thought that maybe the earth “dragged” the ether with it in its orbit, but later experiments using the orbits of the planets themselves finally proved without doubt that there was no ether.
At this point, science had to conclude that light did not need a medium to propagate. So the theory of light had to be changed.
Theories become more and more valid and entrenched as more supporting data arrives. This is where the theory of evolution stands now. The fact that the earth and the universe are old is an accepted fact. The fact that biology progressed from simple stages to complex is an accepted fact. Calling evolution a theory does no more to disprove it than the atomic “theory” disproves the existence of atoms.

Genesis actually supports the theory of evolution.
(I owe much of this next section to groundbreaking work done by Arnold Guyot in the 1884 book “Creation.”) If one examines the text of Genesis in its original language (Hebrew), some interesting and enlightening facts emerge. Genesis describes six creation events: 1) light, 2) earth, 3) sun and moon, 4) life, 5) animal life 6) man. There are two separate words used to describe these six events. For the creation of light, life and man, the word bará (create) is used. For the creation of earth, sun and animal life, the word asáh (make) is used.
Now, the first word (bará) refers to “creation from nothing.” It is “absolute” creation, producing something where there was nothing before. And, this is consistent with science. The creation of matter (light, or the “big bang”) produced all the matter and energy there is in the universe. This is (as far as we know) a fixed quantity, and obeys predictable and observable rules. The creation of life was also a creation from nothingness. There is a definite “leap” or “bridge” from a complex arrangement of DNA and proteins to even the simplest living organism. No one has been able to even come close to replicating this feat in the laboratory. Finally, the creation of man added the ethereal concept of the “soul.” Again, this was a huge leap (from life to the soul) that took the special bará: creation from nothing. “In the entire Bible, where the simple form of bara is used, it is always with reference to a work made by God, but never by man1.”
The other Hebrew word (asáh) refers to “fashioning from existing material.” It is entirely consistent with science that the creation of the earth, sun and moon were created as a “natural” process from the existing material of the universe. Likewise, the evolution from life to complex life, though extremely unlikely and rare, was nonetheless a natural progression from simple life to complex life.
In addition to the language of the original Genesis text, the order of creation roughly matches what is observed in Nature’s textbook. Science knows the order of God’s work: from the creation of matter to the condensing of stars, to the second-generation creation of solid planets, to the creation of simple life in the sea, then the development of complex sea life, then land animals, and finally man. The parallel with Genesis is undeniable.
It should be encouraging to the “creationists” that there is such a parallel between Genesis and observed facts. Even though Moses may have borrowed ideas from the Babylonian creation story, that does not disprove God’s hand in the writing of Genesis. God knew how Moses would write Genesis, and He had perfect control over what influences and inspirations would occur in Moses’ life.

Historical precedence
Fortunately, we have an example from History that mimics the current debate. It is the debate in the seventeenth century over Galileo’s claim that the earth was not the center of the universe. (Actually, Galileo used Copernicus’ writings from the sixteenth century to validate his observations.)
The Church at the time was incensed about this claim. They threatened to burn Galileo at the stake. But eventually the church came around, and in 1992 the pope declared that Galileo was right. His theory of the solar system has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be correct.
It is understandable why the church was nervous about the claims of Copernicus and Galileo. To think that our planet was merely a tiny speck in the universe lowers the relative value of the planet. Measured in human terms, one tiny speck out of trillions would seem to imply that we had low value. Why would God take the time to send a Savior to such an insignificant part of the universe?
It is now accepted without question that we are, indeed, a tiny part of the universe. Yet Christianity still flourishes. The realization that our planet is tiny and insignificant did not destroy the hope we have in a loving God. The truth still remains that we are valuable in God’s sight, and He did take the time and effort to visit and redeem us.
The parallels are numerous: uneasy church, indisputable evidence, biblical proof to the contrary. But the end result is what must happen today. The church accepted the truth as shown by scientific research, and adjusted. The scriptural passages were not removed from the bible, they were just interpreted differently (and correctly).
The same adjustments must be made today if the Christian church is to attract the masses. We must accept the truth that is clearly shown by science, and adjust to the facts. We did evolve from lower life forms, but that is the way God chose to do it. It does not take God out of the picture to accept evolution as fact.
And it will not destroy the church to accept evolution as fact (as accepting the evidence that the earth was a small speck in the universe did not destroy the church.) In fact, I believe that the church will make a quantum leap if and when it finally accepts evolution. I also believe that the church will remain stagnant (at best) until it does accept evolution as fact.

The Middle Ground
The Middle Ground is where we will end up. The question is not if, it is only a matter of when and how.
The fact is, evolution is the way God chose to create us. We must accept this and move on. We must re-interpret the scriptural “proofs” in a more reasonable way. Just as in Galileo’s day, this does not render scripture any less valid. It does not render God less real or important. It just means that we have been interpreting some of scripture in a wrong way. A correct view of these small portions of scripture will help us, and move us into a deeper and closer relation with our creator. Any resistance to this change will only serve to keep us farther from the God we claim to love.
As a church, we can and must make this adjustment.
The change science needs to make will be more difficult (for scientists), but will be equally liberating. Science must go back to their roots and explore God’s creation with the goal of discovering more about God. This will not only lead to greater advancements, but it will also make the scientific community seem more human, more approachable, warmer and less sterile. We must accept the fact that God created everything, and he chose to use a slow “evolutionary” method to do it.
I do not expect science to make this change. The church must be first. However, it is very possible, even probable, that when the church does make this needed change, it will lead a cultural revolution, and science will follow. This is not an absurd prediction, there was a time when most scientists were men of God – I believe it can happen again.

This is how God does things
I have no trouble accepting evolution as fact. Beyond the incontrovertible evidence, there is this compelling logic: it is how God does things. It has His characteristic fingerprint.
Scripture says that God hides things. Jesus told parables so that only those who wanted to see could see. God revealed himself to a small race of people (the Jews), rather than to the world at large. Jesus performed miracles only to those who wanted to believe.
In the same way, He created the universe in a way that appears “natural”, without any blatant supernatural evidence.
Of course, it is easy for believers to see the Supernatural Artist at work. Only an infinite intelligence and creative force could have made such a vast and amazing universe. But for those who don’t believe, it is easy to think that everything has a “natural” explanation. God has given them an “out.”
This is entirely in God’s character. Theologians will tell you that God will only reveal Himself to you if you want to see Him. So my point is this: Why would He operate any differently in the realm of creation?
God’s fingerprint can be seen in every realm. Take the Bible for example. God did not deliver it to us pre-written, stamped on gold tablets in triplicate with multiple translations. No, He took a far more circuitous route. First, He had people write it. Inspired people, true -- but emotional, flawed sometimes illogical people, nonetheless. Then, it was written over a long time span (1500 years). It contains multiple styles of writing, in multiple languages, colored by multiple cultures. It was copied and recopied. Then, He even let people decide what books would be included in it (Council of Carthage, 397 A.D.).
This was not done neatly and cleanly. It seems ambiguous and arbitrary. We want God to leave little doubt about His authorship, but He simply has not done it that way.
The same ambiguity surrounds His kingdom. We want the tenets to be clear, but they are not. There are questions about baptism: submersion or sprinkling? Is it necessary at all? There are questions about salvation: can you earn it, can you lose it? Questions about sacraments, end-times, homosexuality, gender roles, unity, sin, predestination… the list goes on and on and on. He simply has not given us clear-cut unambiguous answers.
That is not to say that the answers to these issues is not defined. Hardly. But, God chose to present them to us in a way that requires us to be actively engaged. He wants us to study, question, debate. It requires our entire heart, soul and mind to embrace a God this big.
Here is one more example – in the realm of science, which I know a bit about. Is space empty? At first glance, the answer would seem to be “of course, that’s the definition of space.” But let’s look closer. First of all, even between galaxies where there is the least matter, there are still occasional protons and electrons whizzing through a given cubic meter of space. But there is more. Electromagnetic radiation pierces all of space. There are photons, gamma rays and neutrinos constantly zipping through. Space is part of the “fabric” of the universe, so it is full of magnetic fields, gravity and time. It has a temperature. And it is full of “virtual” particles that are created and annihilated so rapidly that they can hardly be detected. Then there is dark matter and dark energy that are known to exist but have not been identified as yet.
It seems that even empty space is not as unambiguous as we would like. God’s fingerprint is seen even there. And this is true of every aspect of science.
And so I repeat, if God has not made anything as simple as we would like, why would He make creation as simple as some think?

The Fall
If we regard the first part of Genesis as myth, then what does that do to the doctrine of the fall? If there was no Garden of Eden and Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, does that mean that we can also toss out the doctrine of Original Sin?
The answer, of course, is no. The doctrine of Original sin is echoed throughout all of Scripture, so cannot just be abandoned. Also, human nature itself it more than ample proof of our fallen nature. If we are downplaying the technical accuracy of Genesis, it does not mean that we should also downplay its moral and theological authority.
We are dealing with cause and effect. But an event does not have to precede another in time in order to be its cause. The moon causes tides, but does so merely by its presence. The allegory of the tree and our disobedience to God is a beautiful and meaningful description of how we are rebels against God. There is not a one of us who is not infected with this propensity for sin and disobedience. The story may be symbolic, but the moral truths behind it are real.
If we wonder how man’s sin can effect all of time, there is a way to understand that as well. Just as Christ’s death allowed those who lived before Him to enter heaven, so did man’s sin effect all of time. There is ample evidence that dinosaurs ate meat, had diseases (including cancer), and suffered tremendous cataclysms. This would seem to fly in the face of a perfect world that was spoiled by Adam’s sin. But, in a broader sense, it was Satan himself that infected the perfect design that God intended, and his curse has tainted all of history. In spite of Satan’s destructive influence on Nature, God still managed to produce man, and still allowed us the option of choosing Him. God’s plans and his victory over Satan are displayed for all to see in Nature and History.

Taking early Genesis as a myth solves one problem: who did Cane marry?
I went to a private parochial school, taught by nuns. Being a curious lad, I asked a lot of questions, often to the consternation of these gentle ladies. One question that caused some anguish was this one: who did Cane marry?
Genesis Chapter four mentions many marriages, it even states that Cane was “building a city (4:17).” Who lived in the city? How did the offspring of Adam and Eve multiply so rapidly?
And, what are we to make of Genesis 6:2 “the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.” Who are the “daughters of men” and how are they distinguished from the “sons of God?”
Again, Genesis 3:22 has God musing “The people have become as we are, knowing everything, both good and evil.” Who are the people? Genesis only records two at this time: Adam and Eve. Why did he call them “the people?”
And what are we to make of this reference to giants (Gen 6:4):
In those days, and even afterward, giants (Nephilim) lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with human women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes mentioned in legends of old.
These questions have a simple solution – if we were to take that part of Genesis less literally. But thorny issues arise if Genesis is understood as a literal chronology.
A pastor once asked me, “does this mean that Adam was a myth?” Well, yes and no. There must have been a first man. There were many humans on the earth, and at a given point in time, when God brought their development to the point where they were ready for their destiny, He put a soul into man. The details are unknown, but the details do not matter. He could have done this to an infant or a man. He could have done it to one man or many. Perhaps it was a single man, and his name was Adam. My guess is, and this is only a guess, but since this event mirrors the Incarnation, I think that God filled this first man with a soul at conception. But, the point is that the actual process and history is not crucial to our salvation or spiritual life. God did not intend it to be.

We are still rare and unique even if God did use evolution
Our existence here is so remotely impossible, it still shows clearly that we are the only creatures in the universe, and, by extension, very valuable to God.
The universe is about 13 billion years old, and the earth about 4 billion. It took God 9 billion years to create life. It took Him more time to progress from atoms to life than it did to go from life to man. This is understandable. The more we discover about cells, the more complex we realize they are. There is a larger difference in “complexity” (mathematically speaking) between a molecule and a single cell than there is between a single cell and a full-sized creature. The jump from a organic soup to a replicating cell is enormous. It is inconceivably enormous.
I pose this thought experiment: You are an engineer. Your task is to design a machine with the following capabilities.
1) Can transport loads fifty times its own weight.
2) Can cross all types of terrain, even vertical grades.
3) Is water-proof and virtually corrosion resistant.
4) Can withstand a fall from 5000 feet.
5) Can make minor repairs to itself.
6) Can locate its own fuel supply.
7) Can replicate itself.
8) Is smaller than ¼ inch.
Impossible you may say? I have just described an ant. A task that would be impossible to us was easy for God. And he created so many ants that we have no problem squishing them by the thousands. If you look carefully at one, however, you will realize the immense complexity.
The same if true for a single cell. It can repair breaks in its DNA. It can find its own food and convert it into power. It can move on its own. It can replicate. I believe that the odds of this happening are so remote that there is only one place in the universe that it actually did happen.
There are many other unique facts about our existence that show how special we are:
· The large outer planets.These play a crucial role in keeping most life-killing asteroids from striking earth. The earth has been shielded from much meteor bombardment, thanks mostly to the presence of Jupiter. If the earth had been bombarded more than it has, there is little chance that life would have purchased a good foothold. Look at how the infrequent large meteor impacts have affected life, how they have caused great extinctions. The earth could not have survived many more.
· The single, large moon.At its current orbit, it was crucial in nurturing life. There is ample evidence that the moon and the resulting tides, night-time illumination, and shielding effect, have nurtured life. In addition, the moon has stabilized the earths tilt, which has regulated weather and prevented extremes that would have extinguished life.
· The circular orbit of the earth at the correct distance from the sun.If the earth had an elliptical orbit, as most extra-solar planets do, then the earth would freeze solid during half of the year when it was far from the sun, and the oceans would boil during the other half of the year when it was close to the sun.If it had a circular orbit, but was too close to the sun, or too far, we would have the situation that we see on Venus (too close) or Mars (too far). Neither scenario could support life.
· The slight tilt of the earth’s axis.The tilt of the axis causes the seasons, and helps smooth-out weather patterns. If there was no tilt, the poles would be much colder, and weather would be much more violent. If the earth was tilted more, weather changes would be more extreme. Either case would have detrimental effects on life.
· The correct size of the earth to generate enough gravity to hold an atmosphere, but not crush life.A too-big earth would have hindered upward-growing life, and held too much atmosphere, possibly creating a runaway greenhouse effect. A too-small earth would have allowed the oceans to evaporate, and earth would have been very much like Mars.
· A large ocean to moderate temperatures and regulate the atmosphere.
· An ocean that did not have a pH that would prevent the genesis of life.Life is very fragile, and needs a nearly neutral pH to survive in water. If the pH of the ocean was too basic or too acidic, life would have been very different, if not impossible. But the ocean has had a stable pH for its vast history, mainly because it has been buffered (like our blood). This is a very fortunate “accident.”
· A very stable sun.The sun is a “typical” medium-sized yellow star. Stars of this size have very long lives, with a particularly stable mid-life. For most of the earth’s history, the sun has been stable and calm. A violent or unstable sun would have been disastrous to life.
· Enough large-asteroid impacts (but not too many) to hasten biological diversity.
· A liquid earth core.This liquid core generates a magnetic field to protect us from most extraterrestrial radiation.
· A liquid earth core to allow for shifting continents.This promoted and hastened biological diversity. It recycled crucial elements to sustain life.
· A good supply of light-crust material to shield us from the radioactive and hot core.
· A steady supply of comets to keep the oceans viable.
· Just the right amount of water to allow for continents that were not too big nor too small.Too much land would produce violent weather extremes, too little land would not have allowed enough biological diversity.
· A perfect mix of elements to foster life.This solar system could have easily been richer in any other element (such as iron or silicon or nitrogen) which would have prevented the flourishing of life.
· Photosynthesis.The correct catalyst imbedded in chlorophyll that splits water into oxygen and hydrogen, and converts light to food. This led to an oxygen atmosphere which provided a medium for efficient metabolism and land-based life.
· A large and stable galaxy.The solar system is safely orbiting in a galaxy that has not seen a lot of “action.” Most galaxies are violent places, but our Milky Way has had a fairly benign life. And we are not too close to the galaxy’s center to be in danger of frequent encounters with other stars.
· A stable, relatively inactive position in a large, stable galaxy.This allowed for a very long period of calm and stability for us fragile life forms to develop.
The above list only gives an idea of the unique incubator-oasis God has created for us in this corner of the universe. There is a similar list that shows how God designed the universe uniquely for human life:
· The unique properties of water.It is less dense in its solid state than in its liquid. This allows seas to cover and insulate the liquid portion from cold winters, enabling sea life to survive.It is ionic, allowing for dissolved salts and regulated Ph. Without a buffered Ph, the seas would quickly turn acidic, killing all life.It has a low enough vapor pressure to allow for the formation of clouds and rain. Clouds protect the atmosphere and the land from harmful solar radiation. Rain cleans the land, distributes minerals, washes the air.
· Carbon’s unique ability to form into complex organic compounds.Carbon chains are the basis of all life. If God had not created an element that had four bonding sites, with the molecular weight and physical properties of this unique element, there would have been no life anywhere.
· Oxygen’s unique properties.It is responsible for some of the energy produced by the sun (carbon-nitrogen cycle),It is necessary for combustion and respiration,It reacts readily with many other elements, enabling life to create the energy needed for locomotion, protein synthesis, damage repair.In its tri-atomic gaseous molecular state, ozone protects the earth’s surface from UV light.
The fact remains that every detail of the observable universe was specifically tailored to ensure that human life “came to be.” Change any property of any chemical, change any known physical constant in the slightest, and you have eliminated the possibility of life on this planet, and probably in the universe.
These items are only the physical properties of our unique planet that give strong proof of God and his creative hand. There are many other areas (that are not part of the scope of this book) that point to God (e.g. mathematics, love, thought). I only wanted to point out that we do not need to be proven right about creationism to still enjoy our unique stance as God’s special creatures. Nor do we need to be right about creationism to have many proofs that God created us.

I will explore some of the areas where creationists and science part ways…

The Drake Equation
Solutions to the Drake equation (below) are very far off on items fl (fraction of Earth-like planets that hold life), and fi (fraction of life that becomes an intelligent civilization). These numbers should be about 10e-30 smaller than scientists propose. This is the real reason we have not contacted “ET” yet: there is no ET out there. We are alone. Science should stop wasting time and money on this fruitless venture (SETI for example). (However, I do believe that we will find evidence of life on Mars and possibly some moons of the outer planets.)

The Drake Equation:
N = [R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc] L where:
N = number of possible civilizations to communicate with
R* = is the rate at which stars capable of sustaining like are formed
fp = the fraction of these stars which have planets
ne = the number of planets similar to Earth in the planetary system
fl = the fraction of the Earth-like planets that hold life
fi = the fraction of life that becomes an intelligent civilization
fc = the fraction intelligent civilizations that attempt to communicate
L= the number of years the civilization remains able to communicate

My reasoning for the smaller estimates are as follows. For fl (the fraction of the Earth-like planets that hold life), we must include another limiting factor: the fraction of planets that are earth-like. The equation assumes that ne is an integer greater than one. Present research indicates that, though most stars may have planets, the fraction that may be “earth-like” is vanishingly small. The factor ne should be replaced with fe (fraction of planets similar to Earth in the planetary system).
And, even if other earth-like planets exist, the chance that they would harbor life is also vanishingly small. There is evidence that life flourished on this planet as early as possible: immediately after the period of “heavy bombardment” ceased. Once the earth was no longer hammered by meteoric rainfall, once the era of repeated planet-wide catastrophes ended, the life that was already here could gain a foothold. I would add a factor, called fb, the fraction of planets that have life.
Because life was on this planet from the very earliest possible time, scientists assume that it was a fairly simple step to progress from a “organic soup” to simple life. However, I maintain that the step from complex organic compounds to even the simplest bacterium is a gain in complexity comparable to, or perhaps even greater than, the progression from bacteria to animal life. The complex machinery in even the simplest cell is a wonder to behold, a finely tuned, stable, complex system, that required the most carefully controlled conditions to produce.
In chemistry, when a scientist is trying to synthesize a compound, he must carefully control the area where the reaction is to occur. He will have to balance the ratios of reactants, the temperature, the solvent, the pressure. Often products need to be actively removed during the reaction. Then, when the first step of the process is complete, the resulting compound has to be used in another set of conditions to produce the next compound. For very complex molecules, like those routinely produced in the pharmaceutical industry, there are dozens of steps, each requiring extremely carefully controlled conditions.
I believe that for God to create life, He had to start simple, and build up to simple bacteria in this fashion. Did He need a peptide-rich environment, at 20 degrees for 500 million years? Then He created it. Look at the extremely varied collection of moons and planets in our tiny part of the universe. Rather than our solar system being a homogeneous collection of debris that coalesced from the initial proto-planetary disk, it is a widely varied eclectic mixture. If such a variety can be observed right here in our own back yard, just imagine the possibilities elsewhere. Any laboratory condition that can be imagined is available to be part of the long domino-chain needed to create life. Perhaps there was a planetoid (with or without a sun) that was perfect for creation of cell walls. Later, this planet was driven into another system where it collided with another planet that was rich in nucleic acids. A series of collisions and mergers can be imagined that would eventually lead to a living bacterium.
But conditions on this “bacterium planet” were not adequate for progression beyond that state. So eventually, when life was deposited on this planet, things could finally progress to conditions we now enjoy.
The reason that I believe we will find evidence for life on Mars and elsewhere in the solar system is because of the mechanism that occurred to get life on this planet would have also delivered it to other bodies in this planetary system.
Now, just as fl has been under-estimated, so the estimate of fi (fraction of life that becomes an intelligent civilization) should be adjusted upwards. Just because we have seen on this planet a progression from simple life to complex, does not mean that it would always happen. There are far too many “coincidences” and evolutionary “quantum leaps” to assume that life would naturally or easily evolve from simple to intelligent.
I have listed above some of the unique situations that were essential for intelligent life: oxygen atmosphere, adequate land cover, development of the shoulder, eyes that focus, nerves, memory, cell division, cell repair, skeletal system, etc. The list goes on and on and on.

The earth and the universe is very old
It was once calculated that the earth was created 4004 BC. That would make the earth no more than 6000 years old, if it were true. Now, unless God deliberately made the earth look older to “test” us, there is ample evidence to prove that the earth is older, much older than that. This is actually easy to prove. If someone had said that the earth was, say, a billion years old, they would have grounds for a solid argument. But to claim it is only 6000 is childishly simple to refute.
One way to prove this is by examining layers of snow. In Greenland, there is a huge ice-cap where one can monitor the passage of time by digging into the ice. Each year is built up by a layer of snow (in the winter) and a layer of dust (in the summer). This is going on even now, and one can glean quite a bit of information from this layering. (For example, the amount and type of pollen indicates the foliage and wind directions, the thickness of the winter layer indicates the amount of snow that winter, etc.) If one takes a core from the top to the bottom, there are over 130,000 years of snow.
In Antarctica, there are even more layers. Studies of earth’s past ice ages has produced cores going back more than 740,000 years.
Another way to prove that the earth is old is to look at layers of sediment.
Looking at distant stars is still another way to determine the age of the universe. The closest stars are thousands of light years away, with our galaxy holding stars as far as 100,000 light years away. But that is minute compared to the distance to other galaxies which can be seen up to 12 billion light years away.
The moon is literally covered with millions upon millions of impact craters. If the world was only 6000 years old, and intelligent humans have been around for the entire history of the earth, then why is there no written record of these collisions? Presumably, if Genesis is literally and scientifically accurate, then all of the impacts would have occurred on Day 3. If this was so, then the resulting dust and debris would have been visible for years. Orbital mechanics shows that rocks and dust would eventually form a disk around the earth, and the night sky would be a blaze of meteors for thousands of years. Certainly this astronomical phenomenon would have been remembered in some fashion?
Here are some other examples from the web site: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/bradley/docs/trustworthiness.html:
a. Radiometric Age Dating: Mathematical analysis of data from uranium/lead systems as found in meteorites gives their age as 4.5 billion years. This age has been independently confirmed by potassium/ argon and rubidium/strontium dating of stony meteorites. This is the time since meteorites were differentiated, and it can be plausibly equated with the time of planet formation in the solar system. Earth rocks are dated to be on the order of 3.5 billion years old, which would be the time that the earth had cooled sufficiently to allow crystallization to occur. These results are considered to be in good agreement with the results from meteorites.10
b. Sea Floor Spreading: Molten matter is emanating from the mid-oceanic ridges, moving outward to the east and west toward the continents. As the molten matter cools, the direction of the magnetic field at that time is preserved in the rock. Magnetic surveys reveal a series of reversals in the magnetic field. The pattern is the same on each side of the oceanic ridges. Thus, the rocks are like recording tape making a record of the earth’s magnetic field as a function of time. It is estimated that the sea floor spreading has moved the continents .o their current locations in the last 200 million years.11
c. Coral Growth Rates: Some modern coral reefs are found to be over 4600 feet thick; e.g., the fastest rate of upward growth has been measured to be about 8mm/year.12 Therefore, it would have taken at least 175,000 years to produce the Eniwetok atoll reef. An interesting sidelight here is that band structure in coral that is quite old (345 405 millions years) shows 400 daily bands between the annual bands, indicating a faster earth’s rotation about its axis in the past than that which we observe at present.13 The spacing of the rings also indicates that the ancient rate of growth was very similar to the rates observed today. Calculations by astronomers have shown that the rate of rotation of the earth is decreasing but that the period of the earth’s revolution about the sun is essentially constant. Therefore, the age of the coral can be determined from the rate of decrease in the number of days per year. This allows the radiometric and fossil dating of the corals to be independently confirmed. The growth bands that have been observed on certain ancient bivalve mollusk shells are in essential agreement with the findings in corals.14
d. Sea Floor Sediments: Deep core drilling in the oceans have revealed deposits of calcium carbonate thousands of feet thick. These deposits accumulate from shells of living organisms. The current rate of deposition of these sediments rarely exceeds 20mm/1000 years.15 Over thirty million years would be required to form only 2000 feet of such deposits. Very large areas of 2000’ thick calcium carbonate-anhydrite couplets are found in New Mexico. Such formations result from the evaporation of salt water which brings the mineral and/or salt content to a level of concentration that causes precipitation to occur. In the 2000 feet deposits are found over 200,000 alternating layers, indicating major changes in the sea water chemistry took place at least that many times.16 Furthermore, each precipitation event had to occur in quiet water to allow the mineral to settle to the bottom and form a thin, uniform layer.
e. Age of Universe Estimates from Astronomy and Astrophysics: The age of the universe may be estimated in at least three ways from astronomy and astrophysics.17 First, the "big bang" theory suggests that the universe was born in a fiery explosion in the past. By noting the current rates of expansion of various galaxies and noting the distance traveled from the common focal point of the universe, the time since this "traumatic" birth may be estimated to be ten to twenty billion years. A second approach is to determine the size of the universe that we can observe at present and then use this information in conjunction with the speed of light to suggest a minimum age of the universe; i.e., the time it took the light to travel from distant stars to earth. An age of ten billion years is suggested. A third estimate is obtained through the modeling of the birth, maturing and finally the death of stars. This approach gives an estimated age for our sun of five to ten billion years. Note these ages are in good agreement with the earlier radiometric dates of 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth, moon, and meteorites.

What scripture will have to be interpreted differently?
There is only one area that some Christians will have to “bend” in: We will have to accept the fact that the creation story in Genesis is not scientifically accurate. There is no way around it. But -- THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT GENESIS IS NOT GOD INSPIRED. There is even debate among Christians as to how to interpret this section. If Christians can’t agree, wouldn’t it be better to just accept the fact that the story is an allegory and not scientific fact? If the sun was not created until the third day, how could the first two have been measured? The scriptures say that one day to God is like a thousand years to us. Though we all agree that this is not literal, the implication is that measuring time is not a very useful way for us to judge the value of something. And the other implication is that the word “day” in the first part of Genesis is not a literal day.
We have no trouble taking other parts of scripture in a non-literal way. Why the difficulty here?
Regarding parts of Scripture as fable does not in any way diminish the fact that it's inspired (Hebrews 11:3). It is commonly accepted that the story of Job is fable... does that make it a worthless piece of writing? By no means. It is full of insight into Gods character. I think that Gods Spirit can and does speak to us in all that we read, but especially in scripture.
Most Christians agree that to understand scripture properly, it has to be studied. It has to be analyzed and thought about. We get into trouble if we take all we read literally. I know of very few who take every word in the Bible literally. There are many who SAY they do, but very few who, in fact, actually do.
For one example, let’s go directly to Genesis 1. The first day of creation is described, then the statement “And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.” In order for there to be an evening and a morning, there has to be an earth, and it has to be next to a star, and they have to be in motion so that an evening and morning occurs. In our case, this is accomplished by orbital mechanics and classical physics. Our earth orbits our sun, and our earth spins on its axis. But, there can be little doubt that the evening and morning referred to in this passage is an evening and a morning on this earth. If someone wants to say that this refers to some OTHER evening and morning, then they are making a scriptural interpretation, and therefore they are not taking the words literally. To those who want to take the first part of Genesis literally, they must be consistent and take ALL the words literally.
Now, on the second day, we find a similar line: “And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.” Likewise on the third day: “And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.” But it is not until the fourth day that God creates the sun:
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.
So the question is: how can there be an evening and morning without the sun? If one wants to take scripture literally, then there cannot be any fancy footwork to try and “interpret” this difficulty. Why is it more important that the earth be created in six days? Why should it not be more important that we solve the riddle of sunsets and sunrises that occur without a sun?
But this is only one example. The Bible is full of difficult passages that MUST be interpreted. Anyone who takes all of what they read literally is in danger of being deceived, and has neglected their Christian duty to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (emphasis mine). Scripture exhorts us to “Test everything. Hold on to the good. (I Thes 5:21). There are thousands of books printed annually that discuss the Christian life. Jesus himself met with the church scholars of his time to analyze and discuss the scriptures. We attend church services weekly where our pastor gives his interpretation of what the Christian life should be like, based on his interpretation of scripture.
I could list several books that have excellent analysis of difficult Bible passages, but let me discuss just a few more.
There is a controversy occurring between my wife and a Lutheran friend. My wife says that Christian churches should be united, offering as her authority the scripture:
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. (I Cor 1:10)
My wife’s friend says that Jesus sanctions division in the church, and says that we should not be united with other churches. Her authority is the following scripture:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' “ (Matt 10:34-36)
Who is right? How do we decide? Do not think that I do not have an opinion, I do. This only serves as an example of how there can be confusion in Scripture.
Psalm 137:8-9 has this line:
O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us --
he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
If I were to take that literally, I would try my best to find out who the daughter of Babylon is, and bash her baby’s head against a rock. But fortunately, I don’t take that literally.
Psalm 109 has some more interesting passages. This is what the psalmist says about an acquaintance of his:
Appoint an evil man to oppose him; let an accuser stand at his right hand. When he is tried, let him be found guilty, and may his prayers condemn him. May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership. May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes. May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor. May no one extend kindness to him or take pity on his fatherless children. May his descendants be cut off, their names blotted out from the next generation. May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD; may the sin of his mother never be blotted out. May their sins always remain before the LORD, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
If the Old Testament began with these lines, is there any doubt that Christianity and Judaism would have a different flavor? Fortunately, these verses are buried deep in the Psalms. But unfortunately, they are not restricted to a few choice areas that can be discreetly ignored.

The ultimate goal of the examples above is not to make you doubt scripture or to question my salvation. It is to show that a proper understanding of scripture requires that we think critically. We cannot, must not and should not take all passages literally, especially those that are difficult to understand or that are controversial among scholars.
I’m sure one reason for the rigid adherence to this part of Genesis is because of its familiarity. It is the very first part of the Bible, it is a simple beautiful story, it is easy to read, and most of us are very familiar with it. It is difficult to accept a different way of looking at something that is familiar to us. When a child grows up believing in Santa Claus, it is difficult to accept the truth when they get older. When I believed that infant baptism saved me, it was difficult to accept the truth that I had to be spiritually “born again.” When I believed that “falling in love” would lead to a happy marriage, it was difficult to accept the truth that only selfless devotion and commitment was actually the way to a happy marriage. When I believed that stars were tiny points of light in the sky, it was difficult to accept the truth that they are actually giant suns very far away.
God used the “messy” path of using actual people to write Scripture, with actual words over a long range of times and cultures. He chose to do it this way. I would have preferred that He sent a lightning bolt and write scriptures permanently etched in diamond, but He did not do it that way. The mere fact that He used words is difficult to accept. Words can be misinterpreted, mistranslated, misunderstood. You need to use your brain to understand words. We desire more. Ultimately, He did do more, by sending His Son into the world. But this was messy, too. The words and actions of Jesus are so controversial. So open to confusion and manipulation.
But, part of maturing in our faith requires that we grow. We evolve, if you will. The person who does not grow till his dying day is a person who has wasted part of their gift from God.

Conclusion
There is a chasm between the world of Believers and the world of the unbelievers. This is not something new or unusual. But this chasm needs to be bridged, if for no other reason than it is our purpose in life. However, the division within the church over evolution and creation can be bridged. This book shows us how. If the Church can begin to take steps along this path, it will not only bridge the rift in the church, but it will propel us along the path to greater maturity and wisdom. As Augustine declared in the 5th century,
(insert quote about how God uses History to teach us more about him)
The current chasm between the secular world and the church needs to be bridged with logic, reason and persuasion. Trying to do it by politics and power will only deepen the rift and enhance resentment.



Future sections:
· The big bang theory supports the Christian view. It was once thought that the universe was always here.
· How science is a child of the Church.
Francis Bacon is a key figure in the era of modern science. He is one of the “giants” that current scientists are standing on the shoulders. What happened in history that finally allowed science to “get off the ground?” Why did not the Greeks have an explosion in science that we see today? They had Aristotle and great minds. They seemed to have all the necessary ingredients. They had a thinking class with ample time and resources. Likewise the Persians. They had access to all of the Greek texts, and their incorporation of Aristotle’s ideas into their culture was thorough. Why didn’t science start with the Persians? What was it about 15th century Europe that ignited the scientific revolution?
The key ingredient that was missing in all of the other cultures was the idea that came from Christianity: the idea that God could be understood more deeply by studying His creation. A cousin to this idea was also necessary: that God was consistent, and therefore His creation would be as well. If water boiled at 212 degrees today, it would boil at 212 degrees tomorrow, and it would boil at 212 degrees on the moon. So, the combination of Aristotelian logic, a society that was stable and did not have to worry daily about invasions and food, and the Christian belief in a knowable and consistent God, finally combined to ignite the fires of modern science that are still ablaze.
The fire is still burning, but the Church is sitting far away from it. We need to get over our stubborn pride and get beyond the evolution issue. There is a lot at stake.
Appendix 1:
Some “evidence” of a young earth from the web site http://www.leaderu.com/offices/bradley/docs/trustworthiness.html, followed by my refutation:
a. Decay of the Earth’s Magnetic Field. Measurements of the earth’s magnetic field over the past 130 years indicate that the strength of the field is decreasing. Assuming the decay follows an exponential decay pattern and that an upper limit to the magnetic field exists, the earth is estimated to be 6000 to 7000 years old.4

Both assumptions are valid, but there is another assumption that is not mentioned. The writer assumes that the change of the magnetic field is linear rather than cyclical. The fact is that the earth’s magnetic field actually reverses every 200,000 years on average (although the last reversal was 780,000 years ago). This reversal has been recorded in the solidified rocks of the Atlantic ocean, and is actually proof that the earth is much older than 6000 years.

b. Missing Mass in the Universe. Clusters of galaxies can be observed throughout the universe. Random motion should have long ago dispersed these clusters: that is, only 2 to 14 percent of the mass necessary to hold these clusters close together has been observed. If they should have dispersed (due to insufficient gravitational attraction) and yet have not, it must be because of insufficient time for dispersion to have occurred; i.e., the universe is quite young.5

It is true that there are clusters of galaxies in the universe, most far beyond the 6000 light-year boundary that young-earth scientists would pose as the upper limit. But ignoring that conundrum, what are the assumptions that are being made? The writer assumes that large galaxies behave “randomly” (observing Brownian motion, I assume), and that because of this the galaxies should by now be evenly distributed throughout the universe.
But how does the writer know that galaxies move randomly? Where is the proof? Perhaps they are all moving towards each other. Perhaps they are all stationary. Perhaps the gravitational attraction between them exceeds any supposed “random motion.” Perhaps God grouped them together for a reason. And finally, the apparent motion of a galaxy 600 million light years away would be undetectable in so short a time frame as 6000 years. Andromeda, for example, is 2.2 million light-years from earth, yet is coming toward us at the rate of 68 km per second. At this rate it will collide with us in about ten billion years. If we were to observe it 6000 years from now, it will appear virtually indistinguishable from how it appears now. Six thousand years is a blink of an eye in the cosmological scheme of things.
It is true that physicists are intrigued by “missing mass” which is termed “dark matter,” but they are studying it because it is observed. It has been detected in the flight of the Voyager spacecraft, and it is observed in the fact that rotating galaxies do not fly apart. The difficulty is not in observing it, as the writer states, but in figuring out what it is.

c. Poynting-Robertson Effect. The solar drag force exerted upon micrometeoroids in the solar system causes the particles to spiral into the sun. This solar drag results from absorption and reradiation of photons (from the sun) by the dust particles, resulting in a net loss of energy and an unstable orbit that spirals in toward the sun. Original estimates suggest dust particles of a typical size would be swept into the sun in about 10,000 years. However, many dust particles do currently exist in our solar system; thus, these particles must have originated very recently.6

Many assumptions are being made by the writer. Solar drag is an observable and measurable effect. But is it the only force applied to dust in space? There is solar wind which actually pushes dust away from the sun, counteracting the solar drag. Which force is greater? There are also electrostatic forces, gravitational forces, atmospheric drag, even cosmic rays that affect dust particles in space.
The writer also assumes that there is no new dust being generated. However, new dust is being generated within the solar system, and dust constantly enters our solar system from extra-solar origins (from outside our solar system).

d. Quantity of Dust on the Moon. Strong ultra-violet light and X-rays can destroy the surface layers of exposed rock and reduce them to dust at the rate of a few ten-thousands of an inch per year.7 Hans Pettersson of the Swedish Oceanographic Institute calculated meteoritic dust settles to the earth at the rate of about 0.33"/106 years.8 From these two sources, one would expect to-find at least several hundred feet of dust on the surface of the moon. Yet, only 1/8" to 3" of moon dust is actually found. Given the rapid rates of accumulation and the small total amount observed, the moon must be of recent origin, and therefore, the earth must be quite recent as well.

Again, what are the assumptions? The writer assumes a constant, linear accumulation of dust. The writer assumes dust will act on the moon as it does on the earth. He assumes that several hundred feet of dust will be homogeneous from top to bottom. And he assumes that only 1/8” to 3” of dust was found on the moon. Finally, what does he mean by dust? What sized particles constitute dust? Is the dust we find on earth all from extra-terrestrial origin?
If dust did build up on the earth, undisturbed, for 6000 years, would it be twenty inches deep, as the writer claims? Would it pile up like snow? Or, would the top be powdery and the bottom be compacted? If earth had no atmosphere, would the dust still pile up loosely? Would all the particles of dust be the same size?
When spacecraft landed on the moon, the force of the landing rockets was only strong enough to disturb the smallest and loosest material on the surface. When the astronauts stepped out, they were still able to kick up “dust” that had not blown away. This dust was cohesive and fine-grained, yet the landing rockets did not disturb it. Astronauts were able to drill many feet into the surface of the moon. They did not hit bedrock. The fact is, they drilled into many feet of compacted dust.
Dust on the earth is not the same as dust on the moon. Earth dust is not all extra-terrestrial. By the time dust gets to the surface of the earth, it is vastly different from what it was in space. As observed on the moon, material from space that impacts the moon builds up and compacts itself. It is also very cohesive because it is very dry and electro-static.
Finally, dust accumulation has not been constant throughout time. It was much heavier in the early part of the solar system’s history. It is relatively light now. And it has probably fluctuated throughout time due to extra-solar events.

e. Cooling Rate of the Earth. Lord Kevin in 1911 estimated the earth to be only twenty-four million years old based on rate of cooling coupled with estimated initial temperature distribution and the present temperature distribution.9

First of all, 24 million years is a good bit more than six thousand years. This is a poor argument to use if you wanted to show that the earth was only a few thousand years old.
However, Lord Kelvin made an incorrect assumption. He assumed that no additional heat is generated in the earth’s interior. We know that, in fact, the earth is generating heat internally by radioactive decay. This rate is sufficient to keep the earth at a reasonably steady state for most of its long history. We can be grateful for God’s providence in this matter, for without a living earth, and a sliding mantle, life here would be impossible.

Appendix 2:
Potential research areas
1) Everything has a purpose. Just as God used supernovas to create the heavier elements from which we are made, he also used the galaxies that are impossibly far from us to influence the creation of our part of the universe. Asteroids and mass-extinctions were crucial steps in our creation. The moon and Jupiter play essential parts in keeping our earth a safe oasis. How did these more distant bodies (beyond our galaxy) influence the creation of this oasis in the Milky Way?

2) It took a lot of time to generate mammals from the single-celled creatures that existed on the young earth (about 3 billion years). But the universe has been around for much longer than the earth (the big bang occurred about 9 billion years before the earth was made). God used this time to go from elements and molecules to single-cells and DNA. He did not construct these complex molecules here. I believe that life was created before it was delivered to earth. What kind of mechanism did He use to create the first cells and get them to our young earth?

3) Were there enough comets to supply our planet with the water it needs for life? Or did this water always exist here? Or are our oceans a combination of comet and hydrated terrestrial material?

Appendix 3:
Supporting Quotes
1) Intelligent design, by contrast, teaches that biological complexity is not exclusively the result of material mechanisms but also requires intelligence, where the intelligence in question is not reducible to such mechanisms. The central issue, therefore, is not the relatedness of all organisms, or what typically is called common descent. Indeed, intelligent design is perfectly compatible with common descent. Rather, the central issue is how biological complexity emerged and whether intelligence played a pivotal role in its emergence. – From “Skepticism's Prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design - Throwing down the Gauntlet” By William A. Dembski, June 24, 2002, posted on BreakPoint website www.pfm.org
2) In science, unlike in common usage, a successful “theory” is an overarching explanation that accounts for all known facts, hypotheses, and observations. It is a fact, supported by millions of observations over at least 150 years that life has evolved on this planet. This fact of evolution did not have a scientifically satisfactory overarching explanation — a theory — until Charles Darwin developed his complex ideas. His explanation rapidly convinced the scientific minds of his own age and of every generation since then. No scientifically supported theory of why life on this planet evolved rivals basic Darwinian theory. If there was a legitimate alternative, scientists would go to great lengths to win prestige by testing and developing the alternative. – From “Yes, Evolution is a Theory. It's Religion and Politics that are the Problems” By Ed Buckner, February 18, 2005, posted on www.livescience.com and “The Skeptical Inquirer” website www.csicop.org.
3) We’re now just beginning to investigate the metallicity threshold for planet formation, so it’s hard to say when exactly the window for life opened. We owe our existence in a very direct way to all the stars whose life and death preceded the formation of our Sun. And this process began right after the Big Bang with the very first stars. – From Volker Bromm of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/life_began_040112.html

References:
1. Arnold Guyot, LL.D. Creation: The Biblical Cosmology in the Light of Modern Science, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884), p 31.
2. Noll, Mark A. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994).
3. Chang, Curtis; Engaging Unbelief (Downers Grove, Illinois; InterVarsity Press, 2000).
4. T. G. Barnes, Creation Research Society quarterly Vol. 9, No. 4, (March, 1973), p. 222.
5. Harold S. Slusher, Age of the Cosmos, Institute of Creation Research Technical Monograph No. 9 (San Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1980).
6. Harold Slusher, Science and Scripture (Sept.-Oct., 1971), p. 26.
7. Raymond Arthur Lyttleton, The Modern Universe (Harper Publishers, 1956), p. 72.
8. Hans Pettersson, Scientific American, Vol. 202 (Feb., 1960), p. 132.
9. Frank Press and Raymond Siever, Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company, 1974), p. 66.
10. Frank Press and Raymond Siever, Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company, 1974), p. 68.
11. W. C. Pitman 111 and M. Talwani. "Sea Floor Spreading in the North Atlantic," Geo. Soc. Amer, Bull., Vol. 83 (1972), pp. 619-45.
12. A. G. Mayor, "Growth Rate of Samoan Corals," in papers from the Department of Marine Biology of the Carnegie Institute of Washington, Vol. 19 (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institute Pub. No. 340), pp. 51-72.
13. W. B. N. Berry and R. M. Barker, Nature, Vol. 217 (1968), pp. 938-39.
14. S. K. Runeorn, "Corals as Paleontological clocks Scientific American Vol. 215, pp. 26-33.
15. Dan Wonderly, Cod’s Time-Records in Ancient Sediments (Crystal Press 1977), pp. 157, 162. (Taken from Harry E. Cook, "North American Stratigraphic Principles as applied to Deep-Sea Sediments," American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, Vol. 59 (1975), p. 824.
16. R. Y. Anderson, W. E. Dean, Jr., D. W. Kirkland, and H. 1. Snider "Permian Castile Varied Evaporite Sequence," (West Texas and New Mexico Geo. Soc. Amer. Bull., Vol. 83, pp. 59-86.
17. Roben C. Newman and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr.. Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth, (Downer Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1977), pp. 15-30.