Thoughts on Creation vs Other Theories

From the beginning of man’s existence, there has always been the desire by man to break down his environment to a level that will correspond to his intellectual capabilities. Man’s inherent curiosity in his surroundings yields a central focus that pulls him inexorably into his thoughts about his world and all of the fundamental parts around him: animals, plants, sun, moon, and stars. He ponders these entities and their existence as well as their creation. How did these things come to be? Deep inside he also ponders his own existence. As he looks inside himself for this answer, he sees that there are parts of himself that also begs the question: What was his reason for existing? How did he come into being? Moreover, who or what brought him into being?

Before the 18th century, mankind looked to the Judeo-Christian God as the answer for all of his questions. By the mid-18th century philosophers attempted to answer these questions through their own thought processes, introducing theories of existence and purpose. This was the beginning of the Enlightenment. These philosophers developed theories that often relied on secular humanism, essentially representing mankind as a stand-alone being with no acknowledgment of the God his predecessors looked to and worshipped. These theories frequently left gaps that required assumptions to fill, so they did not answer these questions satisfactorily.

The infallible answer to the focal point of our creation and also the creation of the world around us can be found by returning to the concept of a Supreme Being. We could not have created ourselves or our surroundings. This had to come about by something with the ability to do so unsolicited. What created us and what proof do we have that this is what actually occurred? The answer is all around us in the form of the same animals, plants, sun, moon, and stars. The answer to our existence, consciousness, emotions, memories, and thoughts can also be found in the form of ourselves. How?

God talks to us in two main modes of communication, General Revelation and Special Revelation. Special revelation is the direct communication from God to the receiver and can take the form of visions, dreams, Scripture and even actual speech. General revelation on the other hand is a subtler communication pointing to the natural world around us. An example of this is part of a story in Acts 14:15 where Barnabas and Paul proclaimed: “…to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything in them”. Many of these proofs of God’s existence can be seen in general revelation; they are not hidden and are actually quite sublime. One just has to step back and look at them.

Theological Position

First off, the definition of general revelation is all that God has revealed through the world around us. This includes things on the earth, under the earth and in the sky as well. A believer can look at these things and see the divine beauty in a butterfly, waterfall, a sparrow and even a blobfish. To the non-believer, these things don’t necessarily shout out, ‘God made me’. The key to seeing God in the natural world is by looking at the relationships between the objects in the natural world.

When I was in 7th grade science in 1977, the teacher, Mr. Carmody, made a statement that has stayed with me ever since. He said, ‘Look at the fact that the animals breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. The plants breathe in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. If this doesn’t point to the existence of God, I don’t know what will.’ This statement was so simple yet it was not only true but mind-bogglingly profound. The two major taxonomic kingdoms are unavoidably intertwined and incapable of existing without the other. What human mind could have devised such a plan? Only a Supreme Being with a Supreme Design could have come up with such a scheme. And the simplicity of the interdependent relationship is both humbling and transcendent. All living animals require oxygen in some form to survive. All plants need carbon dioxide to survive. What opinion can be considered other than a Divine Design?

Another consideration would be in the existence of mankind itself. The premise that God created man is found in Gen 1:27, So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female. In so doing, God created the concept of the Imago Dei, where man was made in God’s image. It is in this image that more general revelation can be found and certain aspects of God can be seen in our being. This points to the concept of the soul, which is frequently referred to as every vital aspect of the physical being, i.e. hunger, fear, pain, pleasure, etc. As in the OT the soul can denote not only the vital aspect of the person on the physical level, but it can also connote one’s emotional energies. It denotes man himself, the seat of his emotions, man in his inmost being.

It is the emotional aspect of man that is at the crux of the Imago Dei. The emotional make-up of man contains love, hate, envy and so on. These emotions can also be viewed in whole as the morality of the individual. In looking at these, C.S. Lewis concluded that each human was imbued with Cardinal Virtues of prudence (practical common sense), temperance (moderation in all things pleasurable), justice (fairness and honesty) and fortitude (courage or bravery). These values he considered inherent with all mankind. You can also define these ideals as an internal or natural law. The internal settings are influenced by outside forces and can change accordingly. However, we are also a flawed being and through those flaws our ‘moral compass’ is adjusted. It is because of that we have seen atrocities, violence, and crime. The starting point of these virtues could not have been set at such levels where we consider aberrant behavior to be acceptable. We all know it had to have been influenced by something because early on we all have internal indicators of what is right and wrong. If we are only a biological creature, why do we have a sense of morality? We cannot possibly set up true standards of justice or values on our own, without God. Everyone knows innately that taking from someone else without permission is wrong, as well as harming or killing others. With mankind being predisposed to negative behavior, we could not have possibly set our own internal compasses to knowing right and wrong because we know that when we find we are doing something wrong, we inherently know it to be wrong, instead of right. The only explanation is that our compasses were set by something with a sense of the difference between right and wrong. Since we have counted out mankind, that leaves the Supreme Being or Supreme Creator.

For a simpler test, consider the morals of the individual. Where did he get them? From his parents is the standard reply. Where did they get their morals and ethics? From their parents. Keep following this train of thought and you run out of parents. Where did the ‘original’ parents get their morals and ethics? From whatever created them? That would again be the Supreme Creator, a/k/a, God.

Objections

One of the biggest objections to the existence of God’s creation of the universe is based on a secular theory, defined as ‘any theory if the origin of the universe that does not see an infinite-personal God as responsible for creating the universe by intelligent design'. In this case we are referring to the Theory of Evolution as introduced by Charles Darwin. In this argument, the premise is that all of the existing and past species evolved from a single-celled organism. This organism randomly evolved over millions (or billions) of years with a myriad of branches changing into the various taxonomic categories we see today. However, when looking at the Evolution theory from a critical standpoint, gaps will appear that can only be filled by assumptions. In order to refute the theory as a whole, one only needs to take down one part to show the whole theory being invalidated. For this purpose, it is easy to approach the Evolutionary Theory and the development of modern man.

When I was pursuing my undergraduate degree in 1982, I was required to take an anthropology class. In the class the textbook started out by claiming that Neanderthal Man was a direct link in the chain of evolution that resulted in Homo Sapiens, Modern Man. As the scientific and paleoanthropological methods evolved, the conclusion was made in 2010 that Neanderthal Man was actually a separate species. In looking at the DNA of man and Neanderthals, there was some interbreeding that resulted in fragments of Neanderthal DNA still present in human DNA. What was previously viewed as an ancestor has been relegated to cousin status, resulting in a gap in the chain that is the evolution of man. This chain continues to lengthen and shrink as new fossil finds point to another descendant, but then years later those same descendants are removed from the lineage. At this time, the current evolutionary theory of Modern Man has the Australopithecus genus evolving into the Homo genus, but paleoanthropologists can’t seem to determine which species from this genus directly linked the Australopithecus to the Homo genus. And while the genus Homo contains many different species, there currently is not one species in this genus that they have determined to directly link to Homo Sapiens. Currently the latest candidate insertion into the chain is Homo Heidelbergensis.

To further illustrate the weaknesses of Evolution Theory, the assumption is that all of the changes and modifications had to have happened and stuck for approximately 3 – 5 billion years (or 3-5 million years for humans, based on the fossil finds that paleoanthropologists supporting the evolution of man from ancestral simian to Modern Man). However, the problem with this is that the extent of the changes from the single-celled organism into the complex multi-organed creatures could not have possibly evolved in that short amount of time, especially with the wide diversity of systems in the species that occupy the world today. This would require multiple evolutionary processes underway simultaneously in each species. However, experiments were performed with various simple organisms to determine the amount of change to the original specimen over artificially sped-up reproduction, but the results showed no remarkable changes after thousands of generations.

Just these two points indicate the insufficiency of the Evolution Theory as an explanation for the world we have today and how it came about. Furthermore, referring back to the example of the interdependent relationship between plants and animals, the possibility of separate or even mutual evolution would not make this possible. Considering that animals need oxygen they could not develop into oxygen-breathers over time while the plant kingdom developed into the carbon dioxide-breathers they needed to be. Both sides of the equation would have died out of asphyxiation long before the two sides established their respective respiratory systems.

How about the development of plants first? With their exhalation of oxygen only, the balance of the atmosphere could have changed over the millions of years and carbon dioxide levels would have been altered. The plant life might not have survived while waiting for the animal kingdom to evolve into oxygen breathers. Animals are needed to exhale the vital carbon dioxide needed for the plants to survive. If one looks at the theory of volcanic eruption providing the CO2, the most prevalent elements of a volcanic eruption are water vapor. Yes, there is also carbon dioxide present, but also sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and hydrogen halides that can also be emitted from volcanoes. Depending on their concentrations, these gases are all potentially hazardous to people, animals, agriculture, and property. This shows the disparate kingdoms could only have developed instantaneously and concurrently. How could this have happened at the same time?

The second prominent theory of the development of the world is a relatively new idea based on the ‘argument from design’, a teleological theory formulated in the 17th and 18th centuries. This theory was modernized and it re-established itself by the 1990’s. Intelligent design is defined as ‘the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence’. One of the biggest arguments about intelligent design (ID) is based on the assumption that certain organic systems are too complex to have evolved, they had to have been ‘made’. The most famous example is the components of bacterial flagellum. Numerous scientists have determined that the complexity of the components involved in the flagellum system could not have developed over time based on the interdependency of the parts. As such they determined that the system required a Designer and could not have occurred through the happenstance of evolution.

At the same time, the reference to an intelligent designer was not put at the feet of the Judeo-Christian God. Intelligent Design proponents did not declare or identify the Designer, but merely said that ID was the answer to the question of how we got here. If that is the case, what other options of Designer could there be? By definition, the Designer would have control over the created, and since ID did not go into detail about the origins of the Designer, the assumption is that the Designer was Supreme with all the characteristics of a divine being. Who other than the Judeo-Christian God could it be?

Today’s religions have stories about the creation of earth, but they don’t correspond well with ID and the Supreme Designer theory. For instance, Islam and their various sects believe in a variety of theories ranging from theistic evolution all the way through creationism. The Sunni version stated that the earth was inhabited by intelligent species before mankind and doesn’t go into detail about how they got there, but also says that Allah “made out of water every living thing, as only water has the properties necessary for the emergence and development of life.”

Hinduism is handicapped by the fact that there is a wide diversity of Hinduism, each sect having its own theory of how the world began. It would also make things problematic since there are over 300 million deities in Hinduism, so in the scheme of ID, to which god or gods are we referring? Also in Baha’I, the creation myth taught by Bahá'u'lláh, the Bahá'í Faith founder, the universe has "neither beginning nor ending," and that the component elements of the material world have always existed and will always exist.

With these active theistic religions there is no clear-cut indication where the deity of Supreme Designer fits the circumstances described in their respective creation scenarios. The Judeo-Christian deity, the Living God, fits the parameters laid out for ID, but whether that is coincidence due to Western Thought’s connection to Judeo-Christian religion is not clear.

Integration

Just on the strength of general revelation alone, there is no other logical conclusion about the existence of the Living God. Based on the properties of nature and mankind, it would seem that the Creation Theory would stand up to scrutiny. By pointing out the inconsistencies the other theories have, the Creation Theory would in essence be the last theory standing. This is in no way a clear concise persuasive argument about the proofs of God’s existence because there are portions of the Creation Theory that are not clear arguments either. For Christians, however their faith and the introduction of the Holy Spirit provides a better lens for viewing the argument. Through guidance from the Holy Spirit, prickly arguments are resolved through the Bible. For example: Explain the dinosaurs? Look at Gen 1:20-25, Job 40:15 – 41:34 or Isaiah 27:1. Explain the fossil record of all of these ape-like ‘ancestors’? Look at Gen 1:24. The point is, Christians have a wealth of knowledge to explain the development of the earth and mankind. The critiques that oppose this are coming from those who typically maintain secular beliefs, their vision obscured by their state of sin, incapable of seeing the Truth that lies all around.

Acknowledging the existence of God is just the beginning. Once you have accepted this, the Bible will open up more avenues for thought. Reading both the Old Testament and the New Testament will point you in the direction that God wants you to go. There you will learn more from the second half of God’s communication to us, Special Revelation, which is God speaking to us through Scripture. If God exists then the Bible has to be true since the Bible is the word of God and thus is incapable of being in error (being inerrant). So, if the Bible isn’t wrong then by extension everything in the Bible has to be correct, so Jesus had to exist. As such, the Gospel as proclaimed by Jesus has to be right as well. Therefore, Jesus was (and still is) the Son of God who died at the cross to atone for our sins, allowing all who believe in him to have everlasting life.

Conclusion

Being a skeptic makes theology more of a proofing exercise than anything else. This skepticism drives me to build a case to support or refute a theory along the same lines as an attorney in front of a judge and jury. When I look over an argument, I immediately take a Doubting Thomas perspective, looking for inconsistencies and irregularities in my belief and what I would need to make that position withstand scrutiny. Any position I take goes through the proverbial wringer and thus I can present with confidence and assuredness.

It is not that I am discovering new proofs or arguments but I have now gone through the validity and veracity of my exegesis and can now approach the podium fully attuned to the truth and message of the passage that I am presenting. In this instance, making a logical argument for the existence of God is important for approaching non-believers. Many times, the non-believing individuals I speak to about the Gospel tune out once Scripture is presented. If they don’t already believe in God, they won’t believe in Scripture, either. Sometimes when I quote Scripture, they discredit its validity using the arguments of Scripture’s errancy and inconsistency or as no longer being relevant. General revelation on the other hand, cannot be ignored because it is all around us and doesn’t require Scripture, making it a solid apologetic for non-believers to see the existence of God outside the Scriptures. Once they accept that position, then they can see what Scripture says about Jesus and the Gospel. C.S. Lewis took a similar approach in Mere Christianity. He starts from a position of showing and explaining Natural Law, builds the argument progressively through the practical conclusion of affirming God’s existence and then Jesus’s role as the atonement for our sins. This is not to say Scripture is not important as it is the Word, but as society becomes more polarized, I have found citing the Bible when first approaching secular humanists not constructive in many instances.

Also, using the General Revelation argument would also be helpful for shoring up the faith of those who are new or have a weakened faith. This allows the individual to be reminded of God’s goodness and grace by looking all around and seeing God’s work in action. It is also valuable for those suffering depression or hardship as they can see how wonderful God’s creation is and how we are at the apex of his love.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

Beitzel, Barry J. and Walter A. Elwell, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Book House, 1988. (2 pgs)

Enns, Paul, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Chicago IL, Moody Press, 1989. (3 pgs)

Erickson, Millard J. Introducing Christian Theology, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids MI, Baker Academic, 2015. (352 pgs)

Geisler, Norman, Systematic Theology in One Volume, Minneapolis MN, Bethany House, 2011. (2 pgs)

Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan Press, 2000. (2 pgs)

Keathley, Kenneth D. and Mark Rooker, 40 Questions about Creation and Evolution, Grand Rapids MI, Kregel Publications, 2014. (15 pgs)

Lewis, Clive Staples, Mere Christianity, New York NY, Harper Collins, 2001. (172 pgs)

McDowell, Josh, The Best of Josh McDowell: A Ready Defense, Nashville TN, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1993. (464 pgs)

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth , Chicago IL, Moody Press, 1999. (1 pg)

The Holy Bible: Holman Christian Standard Version. , Nashville TN, Holman Bible Publishers, 2009. (<1 pg)

ARTICLES:

Anonymous, “Volcanic gases can be harmful to health, vegetation and infrastructure.” May 10, 2017, https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas.html. (2 pgs)

“Definition of Intelligent Design”, Accessed 7/10/18, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligent%20design. (1 pg)

LePage, Michael, “Evolution Myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex”. April 16, 2008, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex/. (2 pgs)

Pataniak, Devdutt, “How did the world come into being according to Hinduism?”, September 15, 2017, https://www.dailyo.in/variety/hindusim-world-creation-universe-brahma-vishu-shiva/story/1/19522.html , (2 pgs)

Stringer, Chris, “The origin and evolution of Homo Sapiens.” July 5, 2016, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4920294/ . (17 pgs)

[1] The Holy Bible: Holman Christian Standard Version. (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2009), Ac 14:15.

[2] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 31.

[3] The Holy Bible: Holman Christian Standard Version. (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2009), Ge 1:27.

[4] Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Soul,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 1987–1988.

[5] - C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Harper Collins, 2001), 76

[6] - Millard J. Erickson, Introducing Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 35

[7] - Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, (Chicago, The Moody Press, 1989) 184

[8] - Josh McDowell, The Best of Josh McDowell: A Ready Defense, (Nashville TN: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1993), 317

[9] - Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Press, 2000), 275

[10] - “The origin and evolution of Homo Sapiens.” Accessed 7/08/2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4920294/

[11] - Ibid

[12] - Kenneth D. Keathley and Mark Rooker, 40 Questions about Creation and Evolution, (Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications, 2014), 370

[13] - “Volcanic gases can be harmful to health, vegetation and infrastructure.” Accessed 7/9/2018, https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas.html

[14] - “Definition of Intelligent Design”. Accessed 7/10/18, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligent%20design

[15] - “Evolution Myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex”. Accessed 7/10/2018, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex/

[16] - Tubanur Yesilhark Ozkan, A Muslim Response to Evil: Said Nursi on the Theodicy, (London, Routledge Books, 2015), 141

[17] - Asad, Muhammad, The Message of the Qu'rán, (Gibraltar, Spain: Dar al-Andalus Limited., 1984) p. 677

[18] - “How did the world come into being according to Hinduism?” Accessed 7/11/2018 https://www.dailyo.in/variety/hindusim-world-creation-universe-brahma-vishu-shiva/story/1/19522.html

[19] - `Abdu'l-Bahá [Originally published 1922–1925]. Compiled by Howard MacNutt (2nd ed.). The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Talks Delivered by `Abdu'l-Bahá during His Visit to the United States and Canada in 1912. (Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust., 1982)

[20] - Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology in One Volume, (Minneapolis, Bethany House, 2011), 183

[21] - C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 3-8

[22] - Ibid, 53

[23] - Ibid, 60