You are on page 1of 5

Howard Todd 1

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (New International Version Genesis
1:1). This is the very first verse of the bible. The Bible has proven to be a reliable source of history. explains that
The Bible has become a significant source book for secular archaeology, helping to
identify such ancient figures as Sargon (Isaiah 20:1); Sennacherib (Isaiah 37:37); Horam
of Gazer (Joshua 10:33); Hazar (Joshua 15:27); and the nation of the Hittites (Genesis
15:20). The biblical record, unlike other scriptures, is historically set, opening itself up
for testing and verification.
Why should the first verse not be as true as any other?
I am here to argue for creationism-or in some cases, intelligent design theory; they are the same
for the most part. My argument will also be against evolution, especially Darwinism. In evolution
animals adapt with natural selection like with birds that are the same breed but have different beak
shapes. That in and of itself means microevolution (small changes and adaptations) and is happening
all the time, but the evolution I am referring to is that of unobservable macroevolution (molecules-toman evolution). Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scalewhat we see when we look at the
over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction ( Some
other points I would like to touch on are: the idea that there is overwhelming evidence in all fields of
science that supports evolution, natural selection, junk DNA, and the age of the earth.
For centuries prior to Darwins publication of On the Origin of Species, the majority of
scientists found the opposite to be true: the evidence supported creation. What changed? Not
the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed (i.e., moving from the Bible, Gods Word, to
mans word). Creationists continue to see everything in light of Gods Word and all evidence as
supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no neutral starting point; everyone

Howard Todd 2
whether they acknowledge it or notinterprets the facts according to a particular way of
thinking (i.e., worldview) (Ham, chapter 2)

What Ken Ham says has a lot of truth; there is no middle ground. Both creationism and
Darwinism are theories. Even so, creationism is a theory based on a historical account (the Bible) and
Darwinism from finches with different beaks. All of us: creationist, evolutionist, believer, non-believer,
have the same earth, fossils, animals, and stars to observe. It is up to each of us to interpret these facts,
and we interpret them in different ways because we start with different assumptions. Some birds with
adapted or, in other words, microevolved beaks and habits, is not much to base a scientific theory on.
The same could be said about the Bible, except the Bible has been proven right more than once on
many accounts.
The only thing Darwin's research proved is natural selection. Natural selection is an observable
process that is often purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable molecules-to-man
evolution. The concepts are indeed different, though some mistakenly interchange the two. (Dr.
Purdom, chapter 22) Those who believe in evolution often say that natural selection is the driving
force behind evolution. This cannot be the case; natural selection has not, cannot, and will not change
one species to another. On the other hand, macroevolution in theory is the big changes of one kind to
another, but there is no record held by man or nature. We do not see any indication of macroevolution
in the fossil records only one kind of animal or another not half and half. In addition the Cambrian
explosion shows simple and complex creatures fossilized at the same time, which means they lived at
the same time.
It is just that, an excuse; with the millions of animals around the world you would expect to see
some sign of one kind of animal changing in to another (adaptation, microevolution, and natural
selection) happen all the time, but we have yet to see even the smallest amount of new genetic
information. All we see is the great mount of genetic diversity God gave his creation so they might
adapt as they have, even as we have! What I have said above is supported by

Howard Todd 3
The first systematic analysis of a significant portion of the human genome was
published in June, 2007. The analysis attempted to determine the function of entire regions of
DNA. The results showed that, although only a small amount of the genome codes for protein,
most of the rest is still transcribed into RNA, which functions in ways not described before. As
more is learned about the structure of the human genome, it is apparent that most (if not all) of
the non-coding regions of DNA are required for the proper functioning of the DNA (Rich
Deem is there any 'junk').
I personally do not know much about how DNA or genomes work. However, I do know that it is very

far fetched to say the greatest minds and technology of our time have yet to understand an accident. An
accident that broke a fundamental rule of the universe (something can't come from nothing). You
might be able to convince me all life came from a few chemicals, and I stress might, if and only if
you can tell me where those chemicals came from. You cannot! It is simple: nothing is nothing, not
something. Unless, of course, a being that is not bound by the laws of our universe makes it so.
Millions and billions of years or a few thousand. You can choose what you believe but not what
happened, there is no one who can tell you how old the earth is. Same as no one can honestly tell you
Columbus sailed from England to American in 1492. I am not saying did not do so, but that we have to
look at history to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did. If we are to say anything has happened in
history, then we must give the same treatment to all of history. This includes how old the earth is, and
the best reference we have is the Bible. Of course, the Bible doesnt say explicitly anywhere, 'The
earth is 6,000 years old.' Good thing it doesnt; otherwise it would be out of date the following year.
But we wouldnt expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake.
God gave us something better. In essence, He gave us a 'birth certificate.'(Hodge chapter 4)
We are going to do a quick math lesson. Secular and Christian scholars alike agree that
Abraham (the Abraham of the Bible) lived about 4,000 years ago. Using the genealogies from the bible
between Adam (the first man) and Abraham we have about 2,000 years. When we add these together

Howard Todd 4
we have about 6,000 years, plus the five days before man was made. This is still just a ball park
number; there are other chronologists who have dated the earth differently by the biblical account. The
results range from 5501 B.C. to about 3836 B.C. The reason for the difference is that the bible is
difficult to translate and some translations may have this number or that number mixed up.
In conclusion, Macroevolution (molecules-to-man) has never been seen, but microevolution
(natural selection) are small changes and adaptations that cannot and will not change one spices to
another. The evidence for creationism and evolution is the same, but our assumptions have changed.
The Bible is a historical text as well as a holy book. Something cannot come from nothing and we need
to give how old the earth is the same rights as the rest of history.

Howard Todd 5
Works Cited
Dr. Georgia Purdom Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution? chapter 22 February 9, 2009 n.d. web. September 29 2015
"Tracking SARS back to its source." Understanding Evolution. University of California Museum of
Paleontology. August 22, 2008 n.d. web. September 29 2015
Rich Deem is there any 'junk' June 15, 2007 n.d. web. September 29 2015
Bodie Hodg How Old Is the Earth? chapter 4 February 21, 2009 n.d. web.
September 29 2015