Creation: The Mirror of God's Triune Glory

GOD IS NOT HIDDEN OR SILENT - BUT RATHER, REVEALED!

Over the decades I have spent engaged in creation/evolution apologetics, the single most important thing I have come to appreciate is the absolute centrality of the Christ of Holy Scripture to this entire sphere. Please indulge me as I share with you some of my favourite quotations with regard to this topic, and try to unpack them for a general readership. 

First, as Dr. Geerhardus Vos wrote in his famous volume ‘Biblical Theology’:

‘To take Christ at all, He must be taken as the centre of a movement of revelation organized around Him, and winding up the whole process of revelation.’            

Of course, this statement is equally true, whether we are considering special or natural revelation – both of which obviously reveal the same Creator! So as Prof. Edgar Andrews once put it:

‘We cannot have a truly biblical perspective on the cosmos without recognizing the absolute centrality of Christ.’ 

Indeed, all divine revelation is focused upon the person of our Lord Jesus Christ; the revealed knowledge of God is mediated through him. This is what the Scriptures teach. God is there, God is Light. And He has spoken with power and finality through His only begotten Son! And so, human knowledge is only possible because of one particular person, and one particular being. And the study of being is known in philosophy as ontology.

To speak of ontology is to introduce the idea that creation itself possesses a special language, precisely because it has been created by the Being of the Triune God.

Now one of the core tenets of postmodernism is summed up by Richard Rorty in the following pithy quotation: ‘The world does not speak. Only we do.’

Yet this statement is culpable nonsense, since we know from the Psalmist of Israel in Psalm 19 that: ‘The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. No speech nor language without their voice heard. Their rule is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.’

As the 19^th century preacher Charles Spurgeon warned: ‘Men who never heard the gospel can see God in his works if they open their eyes. There is written upon the face of nature enough to condemn men if they do not turn to God. There is a gospel of the sea, and of the heavens, of the stars, and of the sun; and if men will not read it, they are guilty…’

Let’s think about this point in a little more depth. Romans 1:20 indicates that God’s eternal power and divinity are understood through the ‘things that are made’. As philosopher Willard Quine suggests, language and ontology have intimate connections. His thesis is that the use of a particular language system commits one to the existence of certain things. If so, a universal language seen and heard by all (as that of the Triune God in creation itself) should commit one to the existence of an Absolute Being – i.e. the Triune God. But sin causes such blindness and deafness that this cannot be admitted! The natural person is truly dead to it. They simply ‘will not have this man [Christ] to rule over them’. As Van Til put it: ‘Absolute personality implies that all of man’s life is under authority and judgment. This is the offense of the Trinity.’

Dr. Henry Morris wrote concerning the witness of God in Christ: ‘According to this remarkable verse [Romans 1:20], there is a clear witness to the God of creation to be seen in the created cosmos. Thus there is no difference; every man who has ever lived has been confronted with this testimony of creation to the nature of the God who made it. Whether or not he ever opens the pages of Holy Scripture, or whether he believes what he reads therein, he cannot escape confrontation with the Christ of creation! He is without excuse. But how can this be? “No man hath seen God at any time” (John 1:18). How is it possible that the ‘invisible things’ of God can be made visible so that they are ‘clearly seen’? These “invisible things”, according to Romans 1:20, are summed up in two great concepts, those of His “eternal power” and His “Godhead”. Or, one might say, His work and His person. That He is a God of infinite and eternal omnipotence, one of “eternal power”, is revealed plainly, according to this verse, in the created universe. Furthermore, His very nature, His “Godhead” is also revealed in creation. And this means that Christ is revealed in creation, for the very essence of the Godhead is found in Jesus Christ. “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”. (Col 2:9). The very Godhead that is clearly revealed in nature by the “things that are made” (Greek poiēma, the word from which we transliterate our English word “poem”, thus signifying His “poetic handiwork”, a word only used elsewhere in Scripture in Ephesians 2:10, where it is said that we who are redeemed by his grace are similarly His “workmanship”) is that summed up in all its fullness in the Lord Jesus Christ. There can therefore be no question that Christ has been revealed in the creation. He is Himself the Creator (John 1:3, Col 1:16). He now sustains and upholds the creation by the word of his power (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17), and He is the light that “lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” (John 1:9…). It should be recognized that no man could recognize and receive Christ through this witness of creation unless the Holy Spirit so draws him.’

ON THE HOLY TRINITY, COVENANT AND CREATION EVANGELISM

How is all this relevant to our apologetics and evangelism? It is only Christ, and the Spirit of Christ, who gives light – whether that be in the first natural light of cosmic creation, or in the first spiritual light of somebody’s deceived and darkened heart whom you might speak to in witness.

In A Survey of Christian Epistemology, among other works, Prof. Cornelius Van Til noted that: ‘God exists as triune. He is therefore self-complete. Yet he created the world. This world has meaning not in spite of, but of, the self-completeness of the ontological Trinity. This God is the foundation of the created universe and therefore is far above it.’

Again, he unpacked this a little more:

‘The foundation of the representational principle among men is the fact that the Trinity exists in the form of a mutually exhaustive representation of the three Persons that constitute it. The emphasis should be placed upon the idea of exhaustion. This is important because it brings out the point of the complete equality as far as ultimacy is concerned of the principle of unity and of diversity. […] Hence the problem of the one and the many, of the universal and the particular, of being and becoming, of analytical and synthetic reasoning, of the a priori and the a posteriori must be solved by an exclusive reference to the Trinity.’

‘The problem of the one and the many relates to questions about the relationship of change and stability, chance and determinism, facts and laws, love and logic — which means that an apologetic which emphasizes the problem of the one and the many actually has a broad range. It is not at all limited to issues of ultimate metaphysical import…It was upon this foundation of a truly Trinitarian concept that Calvin built his conception of covenant theology.’

God is a covenantal Being, who now lives fully and bodily in the man Christ Jesus. And covenant can be found right at the very beginning of Scripture. As Van Til further wrote:

‘Since the whole being of God, if we may in all reverence say so, is built upon the representational plan, it was impossible for God to create except upon the representational plan.’

Indeed, Dr. Nathan Wood explained this back in 1932: ‘The fabric of space, matter and time presents a universal and exact confirmation of that Tri-unity in God. For the one vital and conclusive proof which the physical universe can give of that Tri-unity is that the universe should reflect it’… ‘…things in the physical universe happen or take place or exist in three tri-unities, - space, matter and time, - and in one great tri-unity of those three combined, - and…these three universal tri-unities, and their combined all-inclusive tri-unity, are the absolute image in every possible way of the supreme Tri-unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.’

This representational plan is even discernable in the first chapter of the Bible, if one looks closely! 

It is very subtle, but it is indeed there! As I wrote elsewhere: ‘…from Genesis 1:3-2:3 there follows a series of royal words, royal works and royal seals. Note then that who God is in eternity is reflected by how he acts in creation. Martin Luther wrote of this pattern:

“These three expressions therefore, ‘said,’ ‘made,’ ‘saw;’ are spoken by Moses, in a beautiful and appropriate manner, as attributively to the THREE DIVINE Persons: that we might, by these three expressions, the more distinctly understand that great Article of faith, the Holy Trinity!”

There are precisely nine commands introduced by the expression “and God said…” (wayyomer elohim). This fact is noted by Jordan: “The refrain “and God said” occurs nine times in the passage” together with Hebrew scholar Jacques Doukhan: “…each creation work…[a total of] nine…is introduced by the same stylistic expression… [the] …imperfect verb wayyomer”.

As Jordan highlights in his book ‘Creation in Six Days’, these nine refrains are wonderfully arranged in a Hebrew literary device known as a chiasmus:

“Genesis 1 is not concerned only with structuring and filling, but also with light. […] …Genesis 1 is…a full chiasm. The passage is focused on the idea of day/light, with each day moving from evening to morning, so that the work of each day is an expansion of God’s original work of light-bringing.…”

Note well that ‘…the final Word from God “Behold, I have given you…” relates to humans viewing God’s exhaustive pre-temporal Self-Image in the light of a Christophany (cf. Proverbs 8:31). Thus…we move, organically, from the Spirit of Christ in verse 3, towards the embodied Christ in Eden, visibly robed in the first light of creation (verse 29).

So the Christ of the Covenants is Christ the Creator! He is the Logos! He is the Divine Rationality – both Creator and Redeemer. Jeremiah 33:20-21 is especially significant:

“Thus saith the LORD; if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne…”.

As Robertson highlights: “An argument basically of the same construction appears in Jeremiah 31:35f.:

Thus says the Lord,

Who gives the sun for light by day,

And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,

If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the Lord,

Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease,

From being a nation before me forever.”

Robertson argues convincingly that this cannot refer to God’s covenant with Noah in Genesis 8:22 because:

“…the reference to the sun and moon specifically as light-bearers for day and night is found in the creation narrative but not in the narrative describing God’s covenant with Noah. Furthermore, the narrative of the creation-activity of the third day [sic] refers to the stars as well as to the moon (Gen. 1:16), as does Jeremiah 31:35. The record of God’s covenant with Noah makes no mention of the stars. For these reasons, it seems likely that Jeremiah 31 alludes to the Genesis narrative of creation rather than to the establishment of God’s covenant with Noah. […] Because of the closeness of the parallelism of the two chapters, it would seem that Jeremiah 33, which uses the term “covenant,” also refers to the creational orderings of Genesis 1. If this is the case, then the term “covenant” would be applied to the orderings of creation.”

J.V. Fesko agrees with this application, further pointing out:

“Nowhere in Genesis 1 does the reader have any indication that God has established a covenant with the day and night, yet Jeremiah clearly states this is the case. When God creates, it is covenantal.”

Upon verses 20-21 of Jeremiah 33, the famous commentator Matthew Henry remarked:

“There is a covenant of nature, by which the common course of providence is settled, and on which it is founded, here called a covenant of the day and the night, (v. 20, 25.) because that is one of the articles of it - that there shall be day and night in their season, according to the distinction put between them in the creation, when God divided between the light and the darkness, and established their mutual succession, and a government to each, that the sun should rule by day, and the moon and stars by night… - which establishment was renewed after the flood…and has continued ever since….”

Creation in covenant also sheds light on why, when Adam and Eve fell into sin, the whole creation was subject to the bondage of corruption and death (Romans 8:22), rather than just Adam and Eve themselves. Furthermore, since Christ has a covenant with creation, as Golding points out: “…it means that covenant grace includes the created order, which makes it unthinkable that the faithful creator will drop the temporarily cursed earth from his covenant purpose…”. To be sure, then, the entire creation (having been subject to futility through Adam’s disobedience) will one day be completely renewed and glorified through Christ’s obedience (cf. Revelation 22).

OUR APPLICATION TO SCIENCE AND FAITH ISSUES

How should we use this knowledge as Christians? Immanuel Kant asked the question: “Under what conditions is it possible, or what would also need to be true in order for it to be possible, to make sense of one’s experience of the world? The only answer, according to Van Til, is that Christianity MUST be true! The ontological Trinity is there, and He is not silent!

As Thomas Brooks wrote:

‘What are the heavens, the earth, the sea, but a sheet of royal paper, written all over with the wisdom and power of God?’

The mathematical physicist Stephen Hawking once asked: ‘What breathes fire into the equations?’

We may be fully and courageously confident in the Christian answer: ‘Christ does!’

---

References (alphabetical):

Doukhan, J. B. (2004). The Genesis creation story: Text, issues, and truth. Origins, 55, p.16.

Fesko, J.V. (2007). Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology. Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, p.82.

Golding (2004). Covenant Theology: The Key of Theology in Reformed Thought and Tradition. Scotland: (Mentor) Christian Focus Publications, p.193.

Henry, M. (1890). A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Volume IV, New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, p.1009.

Jordan, J.B. (1999). Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One. Moscow: Canon Press, p.221.

Jordan, J.B. (1999). Op. cit. p.175.

Jordan, J.B. (1999). Op. cit. p.215-16.

Luther, M. (1544). Translated by Cole, H. (1858). The Creation: A Commentary on the First Five Chapters of the Book of Genesis. London: Hamilton, Adams and Company. p.74.

Robertson, O.P. (1980). The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, p.20-21.

Van Til, C. (1946). Nature and Scripture. In: The Infallible Word: A Symposium. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Guardian Publishing Corporation. Online PDF available at: [WWW]

http://www.wtsbooks.com/common/pdf_links/Nature%20And%20Scripture%20by%20Van%20Til.pdf

Archaeology and the paradigm shift from Antiquity to Deep Time

    “Half a century ago, man’s past was supposed to include less than six thousand years; now the story is seen to stretch back hundreds of thousands of years.” So wrote the early 20^th century historian James Robinson about a perceived ‘paradigm shift’ in universal history and archaeology. A ‘paradigm’ is an explanatory framework that makes sense of a given set of observations, and that is founded upon certain basic assumptions.  This article has three main objectives:

• To describe the paradigm behind early-phase archaeology
• To explain the 19^th-20^th century shift in western historical tradition
• To critically evaluate the dominant 21^st century paradigm

  

THE DAWN OF EUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGY

   Archaeology has been a popular pastime among art collectors for many thousands of years, but it was not until the 16^th and 17^th centuries that a standard scientific methodology was developed in Europe. The archaeologist of today is a historian who is not limited to the written word but goes further and carefully digs out evidence of the remains and relics of ancient peoples to prepare them for scientific publication.

   The early 16^th century saw a resurgence of interest arise in ancient artefacts and manuscripts as part of the wider European Renaissance and Reformation. The Vatican began collecting artefacts in AD 1505, whilst antiquaries such as John Leland and William Camden began surveying megalithic monuments for publication. Historians of the age based their conclusions regarding the human past upon a significant corpus of over one thousand texts written by approximately eighty authors from classical and ancient times. These included authorities such as Pliny and Isidore of Seville. Others were geographers, for example Pomponius Mela and Ptolemy, whose knowledge of ancient place names could be used to discover the founding ancestors of cities. Still others were focused upon recounting historical events to as far remote (in some cases) as 2100 BC. These included early historians such as Livy, Plutarch, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Berosus, Diodorus Siculus, Sanchoniathon, Appian, Herodotus, Sallust, Josephus, Eusebius, Valerius Maximus and Rufus. All these well respected authorities took centre-stage within a long-established academic tradition, together with one special source – the Judeo-Christian Tanakh (Old Testament) – widely regarded as sacred.  (Smail, 2008 and Stringer, 2006).

   Geologically, the paradigm of early historians and archaeologists included a universal cataclysm which had destroyed almost all traces of world civilization at some point in the mid-third millennium B.C. Historically, since then, there had been five distinct ages within recorded memory. The Greek scholar Hesiod classified these ‘ages’ under the headings: golden (~2600 – 1680 B.C.), silver (~1680 – 1350 B.C.), bronze (~1350 – 1130 B.C.), heroic (~1130 – 810 B.C.) and iron (~810 B.C. onwards). Sociologically and biogeographically, the paradigm incorporated a West-Asian radiation model of just one patristic people group from the hills of south-eastern Turkey. This diffusionist model presented the rapid stratification of surviving humanity by cultural elites (chosen monarchs) distinguished via their birthrights and territorial inheritance from the earliest period of their burgeoning civilizations. These elites acted as the privileged repositories, guardians and purveyors of knowledge, skills, resources and social justice.

   The validity of such manuscripts formed the basic assumption of the earliest paradigm and although primarily a monastic European phenomenon, it was by no means exclusively so. The written past held real authority across international boundaries. Yet between the years 1500-1700 overly critical methods of analysis (a humanistic genre which Grafton (2012) terms the Ars Historica) severely undermined their authority.

  

BACKGROUND TO THE SHIFT

   The first rumblings of discontent with the early-phase paradigm can be traced back to the early 16^th century in the writings of Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) and Girolamo Fracastoro (1483-1553). Within his notebooks of 1508-1518, Leonardo abandoned many authoritative accounts of a cataclysmic flood when instead he jotted regarding seashells found at high altitude: “Since things are far more ancient than letters, it is not to be wondered at if in our days there exists no record of how the aforesaid seas extended over so many countries” [emphasis mine]. The adequacy of past written records was again radically challenged at a chronological level with the publication of a text called New Work of Correcting Chronology by Joseph Scaliger in 1583. His terse criticism seriously undermined former universal histories: “See what happens when authority is preferred to truth; everyone who reads this thinks it must be true, since it comes from Eusebius” he fumed. A controversial antiquarian named Giovanni Nanni suffered even greater castigation from Scaliger’s quill; yet in reality Scaliger was just one ‘cog’ within a larger continental ‘machine’ of humanists discontented with Moses (c.f. Powell, 2012). Throughout the next three centuries many fields underwent a paradigm shift just as radical as in chronology. In geo-theory for instance, building upon the pioneering work of Nicolaus Steno, later catastrophist theorists such as George Cuvier and William Buckland began to dissociate earth history from human history by advocating multiple localised catastrophes followed by successive acts of creation. Human beings, it was argued, were only present during the last of these diluvian upheavals – whereas the fossilised remains of various extinct mammals found unassociated with any tools indicated they must be from an ‘antediluvian age’ significantly older than humans. Unwittingly, these catastrophists had introduced a ‘fudge factor’ which archaeology would soon explode.

   The biblical ‘West-Asian radiation’ model of human universal history only faced direct criticism, however, when the paradigm crisis in geo-theory had matured. An early sign of disquiet occurred in the year 1655, when Sir William Dugdale in his History of Warwickshire reiterated Michele Mercati’s argument that shaped flints were “weapons used…before the art of making arms of brass or iron was known”. This simplistic association of time period with ‘cognitive sophistication’ introduced the radical and enduring notion of a stone age. This novelty completely up-ended the golden age of humanity recounted by Hesiod and others, which presumed cognitive stasis (even degeneration) in human intellect over time. Within a century, even the greatest authorities were downtrodden in the name of ‘progress’. Jean Astruc’s 1753 treatise on the first book of the Torah (B’resheet) marked the beginning of higher critical methodology as applied to the Judeo-Christian Tanakh. The crisis had finally reached hallowed ground and the special place afforded to humankind was fast evaporating.

THE TIPPING POINT IN EUROPE

   Serious signs that the crisis was boiling over began in the year 1797 with an unorthodox study of the stone ‘hand-axe’ cache of Hoxne in Suffolk by John Frere. He went so far as to suggest that the cache might be significantly older than six thousand years. Similar thoughts were soon entertained by the Danish historian Vedel-Simonsen. In 1813 he claimed that Scandinavian civilization could be divided successively into an age of stone and wood, then an age of copper and finally an age of iron. By 1820 this ‘prehistoric’ scheme was already being used to arrange museum collections in Europe and by 1825 a Catholic priest named John MacEnery was empirically challenging Buckland’s dogged insistence that extinct mammal remains were never to be found associated with human tools. Maintaining a recent West-Asian radiation model began to look increasingly fraught with ad hoc explanations. Buckland’s ‘fudge factor’ had failed.

   This crisis reached a critical point in the year 1859. Further interpretations of axes from the river gravels of the Somme, near Abbeville in France, had allowed British luminaries to correlate these axes with faunal content and geological strata. Striking whilst the iron was hot, Joseph Prestwich presented a paper to the Royal Society and John Evans introduced ‘deep history’ to the Society of Antiquaries (Renfrew, 1976 pg. 23). Their argument for the great antiquity of humans was accepted almost immediately by the British establishment. This had profound ramifications for all subsequent research. As Stringer (2006:18) notes in a tone of jubilation: “The year 1859 was…critical for our understanding of human prehistory. Despite a few waverers and doubters, the tide finally turned in favour of the concept of humans as part of an ancient world inhabited by distinct and extinct faunas, and the floodgates were opening”. At least two weighty tomes, Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man (1863) by Charles Lyell together with Prehistoric Times (1865) by the archaeologist John Lubbock, quickly added nails to the coffin. A slew of archaeological publications founded upon the inherently racist assumptions of social Darwinism followed, so as to swamp serious opposition with empirical examples of ‘lesser stone-age intellect’ among so-called ‘foreign savages’. There was no turning back.

TWEAKS AND REFINEMENTS

   True to Thomas Kuhn’s (1962) tenets, however, the paradigm shift of mid-19^th century archaeology still needed to build momentum before it could dominate both the intellectual and popular landscape. In 1856, Johann Fuhlrott found the bones of what became Homo neanderthalensis in a cave in Germany. Neanderthal people were soon portrayed as dull, hairy, lumbering hunch-backs in the popular press. Later that same century, archaeologists challenged the assumption of Louis Agassiz that there had been just one major ice age. In 1909, Eduard Bruckner and Albrecht Penck set out to show (from glacial mounds of debris) that there had been four distinct ice-ages in the Alps. This idea was superseded by a more complex model of over 20 cycles of ice sheet advances followed by interglacials.  Minor tweaks to the new orthodoxy became a preoccupation of the career-motivated, whereas dissenters lost tenure or were simply ignored.

   A second minor paradigm refinement spanning the 19-20^th centuries was the extension and further sub-division of the stone age, initially into two periods: old stone age (palaeolithic) and new stone age (neolithic). The old stone age was once again subdivided into lower, middle and upper periods, the former of which was occupied by early tool-makers millions of years old. Radiocarbon dating, meanwhile, became popular in the 1950’s and gradually led to an isolationist model of cultural origins replacing the biblical (diffusionist) West-Asian radiation model. Then during the 1960s, some of the first tool-makers were tentatively identified with African fossils (from the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania) named Homo habilis (handyman) and Homo erectus (upright-man) by Louis and Mary Leakey. Other stone tools such as axes, picks, scrapers, points and flat-edged cleavers were also found in Africa, India and the Near East. These were duly classified into different technological ‘industries’ evolving over hundreds of thousands of years, the empirical evidence being unashamedly manipulated, without fail, into the new ideological framework of deep history.

   In more recent decades, genetic evidences from Allan Wilson and others have appeared to support the ‘recent single origin’ or ‘out of Africa’ hypothesis. This claims that all humans are descended from a single ancestor who lived 100,000 years ago (Oppenheimer, 2004). This is now providing the context for a lively debate about the rise of modern humans.  And so, leaving “prehistory” behind we arrive at the dawn of written history proper with the protoliterate period of Mesopotamia (3750-2900 B.C.) and the dynastic period of Egypt, usually dated 3100 BC in the Early Bronze Age I. Here ancient history may legitimately take up the tale. Or so we are “reliably informed”!

CRITICALLY EVALUATING THE CURRENT PARADIGM

   Many lines of criticism could be levelled at the current paradigm of deep history. Our approach will be to examine just some of the more glaring problems, at the same time showing how they might be better explained through the lens of the original catastrophist paradigm.

GLOBAL SIGNS OF AN ANCESTRAL KOINE

   Let us begin, then, by revisiting the first expressions of dissatisfaction with the original paradigm as articulated by Da Vinci. He jotted down that seashells found at high altitude were far more ancient than any written record of an extinction level event large enough to deposit them at such elevation. He also assumed, in the early 16^th century, that there wasn’t one such record in existence. Yet in this assumption he was quite mistaken, for laying aside Aristotle’s rare ‘winter flood’ (or kataklysmos) in Meteorologica, since Leonardo’s day many such accounts have now been excavated from ancient royal libraries.

Cuneiform tablets from ancient Mesopotamia, including tablet 3 of the Epic of Atrahasis, tablet 11 of the Epic of Gilgamesh and fragment CBM 13532 from the Temple Library at Nippur all record such a universal cataclysm in remarkable detail (c.f. Cooper, 2011, Chen, 2013, Finkel, 2014). The Egyptian Book of the Dead of Anhai, together with Pyramid texts, Coffin texts and Papyrus Leiden 1350 record the same event under the rubric of the Hermopolitan ‘cosmogony’ (far better understood as a ‘rupture’ and re-population story).

   This ‘cosmogony’ – actually the account of a sacred twin-peaked hill upon which human life was reborn with an ogdoad (or octuplet) of ancestors – could constitute part of a codified “cultural koine”, what Marinatos (2010) defines as an international “vocabulary of sacredness, most of which revolved around the sun”.

These sacred ‘twin-peaks’ appear variously expressed on Egyptian temples, Minoan cylinder seals, tablets, ring impressions and even Babylonian/Akkadian artefacts. Such a koine may extend as far as India and beyond, where in the Hindu Rig Veda, Atharva Veda and Satpatha Brahmana we find written reference to a cataclysm survivor named Manu, together with seven other ‘ancestral sages’. Hundreds of similar accounts are now known globally. In this respect, modern archaeology has substantially corroborated the original paradigm it once operated under, leaving the current paradigm to flounder in culpable silence.

      Another way in which the authority of the past has risen phoenix-like from the ashes is that former claims from antiquarians such as Eusebius and Nanni (neglected since Scaliger and others cast them all in such doubt) are also being substantially corroborated. For instance, ancient long distance trade networks known from these traditions were once considered fabulous. Since 1982, however, the varied cargo of the ship-wreck of Uluburun has proven them perfectly reasonable (as have discoveries like the exotic obsidian and amber minerals found at the Jōmon site of Sannai-maruyama in Japan). Who knows? It is quite possible that neglected accounts spanning the five historic ages of Hesiod may yet precipitate further remarkable finds, akin to the discovery of Homer’s Troy by euhemerists Calvert and Schliemann in the 19^th century. The tomb of Sesōstris (the Egyptian Hercules) is one possible avenue of further research. Roman historians such as Pliny believed it to have been built by his famous army upon a circular river island near the city of Lixus in Morocco. Is it mere coincidence then that the largest megalithic stone circle in the world (~1350 B.C.), built in the European style, now stands landlocked just 10 kilometres upriver from Lixus? (c.f. Mavor, 1976:89-122). Ancient records read in the light of 21^st century field studies are revealing an accuracy hitherto thought impossible by the challengers of the early paradigm.

A STONE AGE TURNING TO SAND

   Questions must also be raised over the validity of Mercati and Dugdale’s association of human worked stones with a ‘stone age’ of inchoative hominid intelligence. Obviously, stone is inferior to many materials sourced by humans. However new evidence should give us pause. It is well known, for example, that whilst excavating a trench in Africa, Mary Leakey discovered a circle of stones in Bed 1 of the site Douglas Korongo (DK), at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. It is less well known that she connected this discovery with the Okombambi people of South West Africa, who today build circular shelters of wooden branches by using similar stone walls to hold branches in place (Leakey, 1971:xiii). This was embarrassing because Bed 1 of site DK seemed occupied around 1.75 million years ago – far too early for the paradigm to accommodate modern behaviour! The evidence was consistent with a hut foundation-wall probably built during the Early Bronze IV or even later. Given a lot of head scratching and perspiration it was duly reinterpreted as a natural formation incorporating some bedrock.

   Yet empirical flack remains which the new paradigm cannot hope to absorb, even if we consider a supposedly later campsite such as that found at Bilzingsleben in Thuringia, Germany (Mania et al. 1994). This site, dated to 400,000 before present, was found to contain one circular and two oval concentrations of artefacts, together with large stones and bones which could have been used to build walls. Is it reasonable that humans from the ‘lower old stone-age’, capable of making fire through friction, designing symmetrical tents and carving stone figurines of the goddess Venus, spent some 380,000 years just learning to link stone conurbations into larger cities? Given equal cognitive and aesthetic sophistication apparent in both archaic and modern humans, would not a global maritime civilization have arisen as early as 375,000 years ago within such a scenario? Clearly aware that ‘the Emperor has no clothes’, archaeologists usually fall back on the nebulous argument that climate change, disease, tectonic activity or famine must have retarded the rise of large permanent dwellings for over a million years. Yet what justification is there for this explanation? In short, none at all. If we set Homo erectus (better understood as recent, culturally-isolated aborigines) within the context of their external conditions as navigating pioneers relying on a subsistence-economy, the original paradigm of a West-Asian radiation event in the Early Bronze III appears far more realistic.

   The current paradigm is equally threadbare when one considers stone tool ‘industries’. Returning to Mary Leakey’s faux pas, we find her admitting of the Kanapoi Valley in Northern Kenya: “…the occurrence of an industry restricted to heavy duty tools of Lower Palaeolithic facies associated with pottery and hut circles, is an anomaly hard to explain. It may be noted, however, that a crude form of stone chopper is used in the present time by the more remote Turkana tribesmen in order to break open the nuts of the doum palm” (Leakey, 1966:581). The following observation of Hartwig-Scherer (1991) is most cogent: “There is growing discussion about the extent to which the type of stone tool depends on external conditions… rather than an evolutionary process or the intelligence of the manufacturer. This also accords with studies of peoples today that have stone cultures: Palaeolithic work places can easily be compared with counterparts today, such as in Australia. The type of tool does not allow one to draw conclusions about the manufacturer’s mental capacity.” Stone tools are indeed used today by isolated tribes in the highlands of New Guinea and in Paraguay, South America. They look remarkably similar to their ‘Acheulean’ counterparts. Therefore the simplistic association of time period with cognitive capacity in tool manufacture has failed spectacularly!

   In 1984, Eileen O’Brien noted that large concentrations of hand-axes were to be found in many European river gravels and ancient dry lakes, often associated with exotic mammal bones. Others were found embedded in the earth in situ (point first). This seemed consistent with a hunting-projectile function, perhaps used to distance-kill semi-aquatic fauna such as hippos. Given the investment of time and skill used to work these stones, losing them underwater seemed the best explanation for why such high concentrations were to be found in localised areas. To test this hunting hypothesis, O’Brien had a 2 kilogram precision replica made of a larger specimen. Its aerodynamic properties were examined via professional discus throwers. Statistically, she discovered that when thrown its aerodynamic properties enabled it to land edge-first 90% of the time and point-first 70% of the time, leaving behind deep lesions in the soil. Samson (2006) has since enlarged O’Brien’s dataset and corroborated these results, as has perhaps the rare discovery of a broken Levallois point found deeply embedded in the backbone of a wild ass (Boëda et al. 1999). Such a discovery is consistent with a heavy, high inertia projectile possessing well over 100 joules of impact energy, striking from a parabolic (thrown) trajectory. Considering external conditions, perhaps vast mobile maritime armies of the mid-second millennium B.C. manufactured such weapons from stone since metal ore mining could not cope with their huge demand.

   Even more remarkable has been the discovery of at least 30 of these stone axes at nine different locations along the coast of Crete – prime territory for a lost civilization led by Jupiter Ammon (Strasser et al. 2010, Menzies, 2012). Revealing an obtuse attitude towards the early paradigm, Boston University archaeologist Curtis Runnels expressed shock: “I was flabbergasted, the idea of finding tools from this very early time period on Crete was about as believable as finding an iPod in King Tut’s tomb”. The extent of cognitive dissonance generated by such ‘very early’ tools on Crete is seen in these axes apparently dating to just 130,000 years before present. Were they found only 200 miles away on the continental mainland, we would venture a date almost ten times that age - yet sophisticated watercraft required to reach Crete cannot be admitted this early! Even so, consternation must stem from the vast gap of 125,000 years between these international mariners and their Bronze Age Egyptian, European, Phoenician and Mesopotamian descendants. Moreover, one of the earliest dugout pine-log canoes, found in Holland, dates to only 8200 B.C. Consistent with the external condition of a lack of wood, petroglyphs (stone paintings) and cuneiform tablets record the earliest watercraft of Egypt and Mesopotamia as large complex reed-ships. Realistically, these ancient works of maritime artistry date to the Early Bronze IV period (2200 BC) - not much earlier. Therefore it is patently absurd to suggest that humans capable of art (such as Neanderthals) were navigating oceans for 125,000 years (25 times the length of recorded history) without leaving any discernible evidence. Within no more than 5,000 years, such evidently cultured and capable ocean mariners would have undoubtedly mapped the currents, explored the entire globe, left ample artwork and built vast stone cities comparable to Thebes, Argos and Babylon!

UNSPINNING THE NEW FAMILY FLINTSTONES

   Considering Neanderthals further to emphasise the extent of this Cretan nightmare, we note that their earlier image as hairy beasts has been transformed so they are now thought of as either humans of great longevity (as found in the Genesis genealogies) or essentially modern humans physiologically adapted to a cold environment. Evidence suggests they ceremonially buried their dead, painted their cave dwellings with considerable talent and also offered flowers as grave offerings. Far more consistent with a global West-Asian radiation event in the Early Bronze III, Trinkaus and Shipman (1993:412) note that the Neanderthals had: “…to the best of our knowledge – the capacity to perform any act normally within the ability of a modern human…[whereas] their bulky trunks and relatively short limbs and digits are designed for conserving metabolic heat in near-arctic conditions”. This perhaps reflects recent archaeological evidence which would place them in caves as far north as the western Ural Mountains near the Arctic Circle. As radiating pioneers braving harsh northern climes with cognitive equality to 21^st century humans, Neanderthals can be correctly located within a more recent historical context.

CONCLUSIONS

   Merely by focusing upon a few of the most obvious problems within the current paradigm of archaeology in literary-essay style, we have found the whole ramshackle edifice unfit to remain standing much longer. Exciting prospects are therefore on the horizon, since once a paradigm crisis brings about a shift in academia, whole new vistas open up for a subsequent generation to explore and develop in detail. The future of archaeology is bright because it’s highly unlikely the darkness of deep history will overshadow empirical evidence forever. Nevertheless, if you are reading this article thinking that the evolutionary paradigm is far superior, then borrowing a few words from T.S. Eliot, we hope that at the end of all your exploring you will have arrived, full circle, where you started - and “know the place for the first time”.

References:

Boëda E., Geneste J.M., Griggo C., Mercier N., Muhesen S., Reyss J.L., Taha A. & Valladas H. (1999). A Levallois point embedded in the vertebra of a wild ass (Equus africanus): Hafting, projectiles and Mousterian hunting. Antiquity 73:394–402.

Chen, Y.S. (2013). The Primeval Flood Catastrophe: Origins and Early Development in Mesopotamian Traditions. Oxford: Oxford U.P.

Cooper, B. (2011). The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis. USA: Creation Science Movement.

Finkel, I. (2014). The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Grafton, A. (2012). What Was History?: The Art of History in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.

Hartwig-Scherer, S. (1991). Paläanthropologie und Archäologie des Paläolithikums. In S. Scherer (ed.), Die Suche nach Eden, Germany: Neuhausen.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. London: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 0226458040.

Leakey, M.D. (1966). Primitive Artifacts from Kanapoi Valley, Nature 5062:581.

Leakey, M.D. (1971). Olduvai Gorge: Volume 3. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.

Mania, D. Mania, U. and Vlcek, E. (1994). Latest finds of skull remains of Homo erectus from Bilzingsleben (Thuringia). Naturwissenschaften 81:123-127.

Marinatos, N. (2010). Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess: A Near Eastern Koine. Urbana, Chicago and Springfield: University of Illinois Press.

Mavor, J. (1976). The Riddle of Mezorah. Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt, Graz; Almogaren, Volume VII.

Menzies, G. (2011). The Lost Empire of Atlantis: History’s Greatest Mystery Revealed. London: Swordfish.

O’Brien, E. (1984). ‘What Was the Acheulean Hand Ax?’, Natural History, July:20-23.

Oppenheimer, S. (2004). Out of Eden. London: Constable and Robinson Ltd.

Powell, J. (2012). Ancient History Revisited. [WWW]

http://gen-e-sisone.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/ancient-history-revisited.html (Accessed 22/04/15).

Renfrew, C. (1976). Before Civilization. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.

Smail, D.L. (2008). On Deep History and the Brain. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Strasser et al. (2010). Stone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean, Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Crete, Hesperia 79:145-190

Stringer, C. (2006). Homo Britannicus: The Incredible Story of Human Life in Britain. London: Pelican Books.

Trinkaus, E. and Shipman, P. (1993). The Neanderthals: Changing the Image of Mankind. London: Pimlico.

Creation or Evolution: Do we Have to Choose? Book Review

Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose?

New Edition: Revised and Expanded. £14.99. (2014).

ISBN: 9780857215789.

Author: Denis Alexander

Reviewed by J. Charles Lee Powell

   During three addresses at the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students’ Conference in 1971, the well known evangelical Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones soberly warned hearers of a number of subtle yet serious shifts in commitment to the biblical gospel which were causing him (and other evangelicals) deep concern. The volume under scrutiny in this review, Creation or Evolution, is simply a number of these terribly dangerous shifts repackaged in a slick presentation – written in a very readable style – yet now representing, even more so than it did back in 1971, a “radical” departure “from the true position of the evangelical” (Lloyd-Jones, 1992)[1].

   The purpose of this review is not to exhaustively critique Dr Alexander’s work in earnestly contending for the historic evangelical faith. Much superb and detailed rebuttal of the first edition has already been provided by a compilation of authors edited by Professor Norman Nevin and also by David Anderson in his valuable little book ‘Creation or Evolution: why we must choose’ (together with a review posted online) (Nevin, (2009) and Anderson, (2009)). Rather, this briefer assessment will focus on just a few select claims which are fairly representative of the quality and/or veracity of the expanded edition as a whole. This is not intended as some trite ‘points scoring’ exercise, but simply as a reflective warning to readers that ‘nothing significant has changed’ in this second edition; it remains utterly unacceptable to the true evangelical believer in God’s Holy Word[2].

   One of the first disturbing claims occurs rather abruptly in chapter 2, on page 48, where we are confidently informed that Scripture is silent about the ‘miraculous aspect’ of God’s creative activity. This same claim crops up again in chapter 8 - on page 221-222 where it is argued that attributing miracles to Genesis 1 is going beyond what the text actually says. Yet is it not written in Scripture (Psalm 33): “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made […] let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him […] For he spake, and it was…; he commanded, and it stood fast”? Who else but God can create mass-energy instantaneously merely by speaking? Therefore to assert that the Scriptures are silent on the fact of miraculous creation is an extraordinary oversight. As the American evangelical R.B. Kuiper once ironically commented to hammer home this point: “The creation of heaven and earth was a miracle. It is flatly denied. The theory of evolution is substituted… So the Bible begins with a lie. But that is a bad beginning. A book that starts with a lie is quite sure to contain lots of them” (Kuiper, 1919 and 2010).

   A second claim occurs in Chapter 4, pages 90-91, where we are told that genetic code ‘redundancy’ (in the triplet codon to amino acid mapping) means that in many instances it makes no difference to a protein if a mutation substitutes certain nucleotides for others (i.e. the code is ‘degenerate’ as we’ve all been taught). However, a paper published soon after Dr Alexander’s expanded edition was released may compel him to think again. Writing in the journal ‘Frontiers in Genetics’ under the title ‘Redundancy of the genetic code enables translational pausing’, authors D'Onofrio and Abel (2014) have found that mutations in codons can alter another rule-based code which governs the rate at which amino acids are folded into proteins within ribosomes (something like how ink-jet printers specify intentional pauses in their paper throughput to allow the wet ink time to dry). This discovery of logic-based pausing code must surely have important implications for the theory of ‘neutral evolution’ and ‘genetic drift’ (covered in this volume on pp. 96-97). Yet my point is that code ‘degeneracy’ and not another layer of ‘ontological prescriptive information’ is what evolutionists would expect to find if genomes are just cobbled together from co-opted strings of acids. In reality and to the contrary, complex, multi-dimensional, multi-layered coding is characteristic of both genotypes and ribotypes. To his credit, Dr Alexander notes that in genomics “…there will almost certainly be many more surprises to come”, however one begins to wonder why they should be considered counter-intuitive ‘surprises’ if an omniscient Intelligence is behind them.

   A conclusion (and witticism) soon arrives in chapter 5 (p.123): “Adam was commanded by God in Genesis 2:19-20 to name all the animals, but we have a long way to go in finally fulfilling that command!” A quick glance at the referenced Scripture passage indicates that the former assertion is simply false. The only animals mentioned are all cattle (b^ehema), flying things (‘ôp) and every beast (hayyat ha’sadeh). Significantly, this excludes all the many swimming swarmers (šereṣ) and creeping things (remes – e.g. flightless insects) from Adam’s task. Therefore this conclusion is quite incorrect, despite the statement seemingly meaning to invoke wonder at the breadth of biodiversity; we have no reason to doubt that Adam had ample time to name those creatures that God brought to him on the sixth day.

   Chapter 7 favourably outlines a ‘Form and Fullness’ or ‘Creation Kingdoms and Creature Kings’ structure for Genesis 1:1-2:3, which was conclusively proven false by Professor E.J. Young back in 1964 and again by Professor Todd Beall in 2008 (Young, 1964; Mortenson and Ury, 2008). ‘Figurative interpretation’ is subsequently given the ‘proverbial nod’ through church fathers of the allegorical ‘Alexandrian School’ (Philo, Origen and Augustine) who were influenced by Greek Hellenistic thought and were actually some of the only fathers to take exception to a literal-day interpretation (c.f. Rose, 2000; Sarfati, 2004). All this leads on to a discussion of how Ancient Near Eastern creation epics contrast with Genesis, ending with the curious observation: “…the gods continue to act like a murderous bunch of thugs in these accounts, sending vicious plagues onto mankind for trivial offences like making too much noise...” What? Has Dr Alexander forgotten that judging by his own distorted theodicy, his “deity” created human beings through multiple mass-extinctions, plagues and a blood-bath of the most heinous animal cruelty spanning over 500 million years? And are we really meant to accept the claim that this “wondrous” process was a “robust expression of God’s omnipotence” since “We are all part of that long food chain without which the biosphere cannot function”? Such wholly diminished conceptions of a holy, sublime Creator, who creates oblivious to all the primal horror screams of lifeblood spilling around him as he joyfully frolics with such said omnipotence, are frankly disgusting. If this is to pass for modern evangelicalism then we really have lost the gospel! The Lord Jesus metaphorically called himself ‘The good shepherd’. Yet in Alexander’s Machiavellian worldview this same Jesus (before his incarnation) was indiscriminately slaughtering countless generations of real sheep before they were justly cursed on account of the serpent’s usurping role in Adam’s sin (i.e. in Genesis 3:14); thus a glorious biblical metaphor is rendered squalid and inappropriate through his misinterpretation of Scripture! The (impossible) challenge for Dr Alexander is to square God’s revealed nature (i.e. gracious, loving and compassionate, even toward animals – cf. Exodus 23:12, Proverbs 12:10, Isaiah 11:8-9 and 65:25) with his unbiblical, non-lapsarian theodicy of physical death, suffering and natural evil.
   So let’s examine his theodicy in more detail. One notable conclusion which Dr Alexander reaches is that physical death is not a consequence of human sin. He reasons that the New Testament does not appear to link Christ’s sacrificial death to the physical death resulting from Adam’s sin – and we need not do so either. Yet on page 337 Dr Alexander writes that: “The use of animals for […] sacrifice is closely linked as the Genesis text progresses. It was God who provided Adam and Eve with garments made from animal skin after the fall.” Are these two sentences meant to be logically connected in Dr Alexander’s Theology? It is clear from the context of the passage alluded to here, coming just after the spiritual death of Adam and Eve (and God’s subsequent ‘proto-evangelium’ of Genesis 3:15), that God physically killed animals in order to make such skin tunics as allegorical atonement coverings for them (c.f. the ‘garments of salvation/robe of righteousness’ allegory in Isaiah 61:10). Now, behind these symbolic coverings, as Dr Alexander appears to acknowledge elsewhere, “the death of the animal powerfully symbolises the forgiveness of sin and salvation from the consequent penalty of death that the sinner really deserved” (p. 352). Yet he discounts his own ‘sacrifice/animal-skin garment’ logic just shortly before this when he writes: “The very first sacrifice that we find in the Old Testament comes in Genesis 8 when Noah sacrifices burnt offerings…” (p.351). Is this really consistent? Not as such, for we may safely make a logical inference (as with the vast majority of evangelical commentators) that because atonement for sin is always associated with the physical death of an animal through the shedding of its life-blood, Genesis 3:21 is actually the first sacrifice. As Theodore Epp wrote in 1972: “[God’s] love and mercy were manifested in that He arranged that this death penalty could be taken by Another and that man could be delivered from condemnation. This is seen in type in Genesis 3 when it is recorded that God made “coats of skins” (v. 21), which involved the shedding of innocent blood. This type was fulfilled in Jesus Christ when He came to earth to shed His innocent blood on the cross for the sins of the world.” Why then does Dr Alexander decide to discount his own logic?
    Quite simply, should Dr Alexander admit that Genesis 3:21 really was a sacrifice, the resulting typological connection would deeply compromise his other claim! For Hebrews 9:12 links the insufficient animal life-blood (inferentially shed from Genesis 3:21 onwards) with the sufficient sacrificial life-blood of Christ (shed on the Cross of Calvary). And Hebrews 10:3-10 teaches the necessity of this physical link - because the shadow had to be offered repeatedly throughout Old Testament history and could not take away sin, whereas the reality (i.e. the life-blood of Jesus) cleanses us from all sin once and forever. Hence the New Testament does by typology and logical inference link these two deaths together - and the reality (fulfilled in Christ’s physical death) is the reason we will see Adam and Eve physically resurrected as part of the new earth community! Furthermore, besides this typological argument, should the Apostle Paul have wanted to distinguish between Adam’s spiritual and physical death in his New Testament letters, he could easily and perspicuously have just added the qualifying Greek word ‘pneumatikon’ (spiritual) before his word for ‘death’, yet he never so much as hints that this artificial demarcation is appropriate for the first man… (Greek: anthropos) …Adam.

   Although there might be many more claims to critique, the last for our purposes occurs on page 381. There we read: “…page after page of the Old Testament remind us of God’s delight in all the creatures of his creation. For nearly all of our planet’s history, only God was around to enjoy their presence on the earth.” Presumably these temporary ‘sandcastles’ were an even greater joy for Alexander’s “deity” to divinely demolish - because as he explains elsewhere: “More than 99% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet are now extinct.” Indeed! So what are we to make of this ‘deep time doctrine’ in light of Holy Scripture and the historic evangelical faith? To begin with, Proverbs 8:24-31 makes it clear that when God created the earth, it was then his delights were with the sons of men – not some 4,566 million years later! Secondly, it wilfully overlooks the Lord Jesus’ own teaching on the age of the earth around A.D. 30 (Mark 10:6, Mark 13:19-20 and Luke 11:50-51); the majority of the church fathers (who also taught a youthful cosmos); Peter Lombard (d. AD 1164), Hugo of St. Victor (AD 1097-1141), Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225-1274) and Giacomo da Bergamo (AD 1434-1520) during the Middle Ages; together with Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, several major ‘Confessions of Faith’ and innumerable modern theologians and scientists around the world. The last word must surely go to Calvin, who noted that: “…if men wish to cling to their knowledge and judgement, it will be incredible to them that the world was created six thousand years ago. For what was God doing from all eternity? In fact, shallow and imaginative people will never understand what the Holy Spirit gives witness to because they will always have their own answers (Calvin, 2009).” Those who call themselves evangelicals, including this author, must pray earnestly that Dr Alexander would miraculously relinquish his own fallacious answers, in favour of those really found in God’s Holy Word, before that great and terrible Day of Judgment arrives.

References:

Anderson, D. (2009). Creation or Evolution: choose wisely! [WWW] http://creation.com/review-creation-or-evolution-david-anderson (Accessed on 24/01/15).

Beall, T. (2008). ‘Contemporary Hermeneutical Approaches to Genesis 1-11’ In: Mortenson, T. and Ury, T. (eds.). (2008). Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth, USA: Master Books. p. 156-158.

Calvin, J. (2009). Sermons on Genesis, Volume 1: Chapters 1-11. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust.

D’Onofrio, D.J. and Abel, D.L. (2014). Redundancy of the genetic code enables translational pausing. Front. Genet., 20 May 2014 | doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00140
Epp, T. (1972). The God of Creation. Back to the Bible, p.195-197.

Kuiper, R.B. (1919 and 2010). While the Bridegroom Tarries. The Banner of Truth Trust, p. 33.

Lloyd-Jones, M. (1992). What is an Evangelical? Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, p. 79

Nevin, N.C. (2009). Should Christians Embrace Evolution? Biblical and Scientific responses. Inter-Varsity Press, UK

Rose, S. (2000). Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Version. Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood.

Sarfati, J. (2004). Refuting Compromise… USA. Master Books. p. 121

Young, E.J. (1964). Studies in Genesis One. USA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. pp. 68-73.

---

[1]. Note that Dr Lloyd-Jones rightly located the issue of “Creation not Evolution” and a ‘global’ not ‘local’ flood under truths ‘essential and foundational’ to the evangelical faith. Dr Alexander, on the other hand, states that he does not regard these issues as foundational, and he appears to consider his evolutionary position to be historically orthodox because some I.F.E.S. leaders in the latter decades of the 20^th century advocated it!

[2] Although Dr Alexander is no doubt aware of the detailed critiques just cited, he has chosen to dismiss them as significantly "inaccurate" – yet his short, selective responses and studied ignorance of key Scriptural texts actually display a pseudo-intellectual opposition to God's Word. 

Book Review: An insidious assault upon biblical origins

Book Review: 

How I Changed my Mind about Evolution: Evangelicals reflect on faith and science

Editors: Applegate, K. and Stump, J.B.

Publisher: Monarch Books (Lion Hudson plc), Oxford, 2016.

Pages: 196.  Price: £10.99

This book is a collection of twenty five short autobiographies by people who claim to be evangelicals, yet have accepted “evolutionary creation” (aka theistic evolution) as an explanation for origins. This position involves a rejection of Scriptural authority and Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones summed up such claimants:

“…instead of submitting themselves to the Scripture, they turn to science, to philosophy, or to one of a number of other disciplines, and their position is determined by these things. They allow reason to determine what they believe instead of how they believe and how they think.”[i]

Some of the authors apparently accepted the biblical position on creation until in their higher education they encountered compromising Christian theologians. An uncritical attitude towards these theologians and a mistaken notion that they represent the historic Reformed tradition swayed their worldview towards theistic evolution.[ii] John Calvin’s name is used to buttress old earth creation (page 26), although in reality he was strongly opposed to those who questioned the timeframe that Genesis provides, noting that the Spirit Himself testifies against them:

 “…if men wish to cling to their knowledge and judgement, it will be incredible to them that the world was created six thousand years ago. For what was God doing from all eternity? In fact, shallow and imaginative people will never understand what the Holy Spirit gives witness to because they will always have their own answers.”[iii]

The grammatical-historical interpretation of Genesis, which necessarily entails a young cosmos, is dismissed as an “utter novelty” (page 25) based on Ronald Number’s biased and selective history.[iv] Many creationists have ably demonstrated that Genesis 1-11 is a historical narrative[v], and from the second century A.D. Christians were refuting the notion that our cosmos is extremely ancient (or even eternal) when countering Greek philosophers.

Other authors in the book argue that Genesis chapter 1 employs simple, “ancient science”, which they say is now known to be just plain wrong. However, there is a vast difference between simplification and fabrication! Whilst it is important not to neglect Hebrew idiom and culture, this can easily be taken too far. There is no “ancient science” in Genesis one. Rather, the infinite, timeless Author is accommodating his timeless truth to us in every age. Many early cosmogonies, such as those from Egypt, are probably pagan corruptions of the Genesis Flood narrative. One author writes: “it is fair to say that no human knows what the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2 was precisely intended to be.” (page 73) Such statements directly contradict the doctrine of Scriptural perspicuity and ultimately end in scepticism concerning special revelation as a whole. Bear in mind that even the Lord Jesus Christ himself, Scripture's ultimate Author, would fall foul of this glib assertion, because he is fully human as well as fully divine!

Some of the authors felt that by maintaining a young cosmos against the tide of scholarship and peer pressure they were interpreting Scripture subjectively. However, the Holy Spirit is our interpreter, and being God-breathed, the Scriptures are our sole and final authority in all matters which they touch upon. Aberrant and novel interpretations of Scripture, which are motivated more by extra-biblical speculations than by careful exegetical and historical study, should not be accepted. Returning to Dr Lloyd-Jones’ neglected warnings:

[Such people] “…are saying that there are, as it were, two great authorities and two means of revelation: one of them is Scripture and the other is nature…so you go to the Scriptures for matters concerning your soul, but you do not go to them to seek God’s other revelation of Himself in nature. For that, you go to science. You are familiar with this view which, it seems to me, is not only extremely dangerous, but tends to undermine our whole [evangelical] position. We have got to contest it, and contest it very strongly.”[vi]

Origins science, unlike operational science, is not demonstrable in a laboratory and some of the authors appear naïve in accepting what are merely fallible, changing opinions and assumptions. Many unprovable, tacit assumptions and speculations are thoroughly unbiblical. Spiritual discernment is required and those evangelicals critical of biblical creationism should at least inform themselves about what creationists actually believe regarding the limits of biological variation (pp. 37-38), the origins of entropy (p. 126), and the identity of Cain’s wife! (p. 139).

Commendably, throughout the book we are encouraged to give God glory and praise for his wonderful and awe-inspiring world. Yet in the worldview of ‘evolutionary creation’ the Fall had very little effect on animals and although evolution by natural selection is described as “profound”, “beautiful” and “elegant”, its mechanism involves death, disease, bloodshed and untold animal suffering as part of the creative process. How such monstrous cruelty could be attributed to the loving Creator of the Bible, who gave His divine stamp of approval no less than seven times in Genesis one, is left unanswered.

Most of the authors were once biblical creationists and describe their former approach (or that of their mentors) in very critical terms: “selective” (p.23), “quite aberrant” and “narrow” (p.26), “afraid” (p.33), “scared to death” (p.36), “growing” yet “at war with science” (p.65), “unworkable” “wishful thinking” (p.66), “declaring personal infallibility” (p.67), displaying “misinformed religious fervour” (p.74), “bad science, shoddy thinking, false claims and misguided ideas” and “…a wrong interpretation of the Bible” (p.93), “intellectual slackers” (p.95), “uncritical” (p.99), “risk-averse” (p.104), “spoon-fed” (p.105), “flawed” (p.110), “gerrymandering” (p.117), “nervous” (p.120), “increasingly absurd” (p.140), “rigid” (p.156), “a fabrication of religionists” (p.174), “a caricature” which  we will “face judgement for” and “our own subculture of alternative science” (p.175). In short, generally “hung up” (p.192).

Other authors contradict these negative jibes and put-downs. One author writes that “many have lost their faith over evolution. It is quite understandable that many churches are worried about their young people studying biology in secular universities.” Another author states: “…Christians who are uncomfortable with any version of evolution – even evolutionary creationism – are not necessarily unintelligent, naïve or obstinate.” For a book full of unpleasant remarks about those who profess true doctrine, this is an interesting admission!

A battle is raging for the hearts and minds of our young people and sadly many who are being led astray and have abandoned Scriptural authority may welcome this book as it will seemingly confirm them in their errors. If Bible-believing evangelicals read the book, they should do so with great caution.

---

[i] Lloyd-Jones, D.M. (1992). What is an Evangelical? The Banner of Truth Trust, p.49.

[ii] Chapters 1-3 of Coming to Grips with Genesis by Mortenson and Ury contain a helpful rebuttal of this pseudo-historical idea. Also cf. Sarfati, J. (2004). Refuting Compromise. USA: Master Books.

[iii] Calvin, J. (1559), translated by McGregor, R.R. (2009). Sermons on Genesis: Chapters 1-11. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust.

[iv] Numbers, R. (2006). The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. Harvard University Press.

[v] See, for instance: Beeke, J.R. (2013). What Did the Reformers Believe about the Age of the Earth? In: Ham, K. (Ed.) The New Answers Book 4, Master Books, pp.101-110; Peet, J.H.J. (2013). Does the Bible require a belief in ‘special creation’? DayOne Publications, pp.43-55; Patrick, J. (2013). The Genre and Goals of Genesis 1-11, Origins #57 [Part 1, pp.14-17] and Origins #58 [Part 2, pp.8-11]. Journal of The Biblical Creation Society.

[vi] Lloyd-Jones, D.M. Op. Cit. p.73