CREATION SPEAKS
HAROLD W. CLARK
A Study of the Scientific Aspects of the Genesis Record of Creation and the Flood.
1947
9. Paganism or Literal Creationism
Preface
This book is for the layman, not for the scientist. It is intended to be non technical and non-argumentative, for the author is convinced that the fundamental principles regarding science and the Bible can be expressed in ordinary everyday language. Its purpose is to present the viewpoint of a creationist with respect to scientific problems involved in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
It is a good thing for a writer on a controversial subject such as this to state his fundamental philosophy at the beginning. Accordingly it may be said that the basic assumptions upon which this treatise is built are these:
1. The Bible is the inspired word of God from Genesis to Revelation.
2. The Genesis record of the creation and early days of this earth is not allegorical or of the nature of myth or folklore, but is an inspired historical record.
3. Any true scientific theory regarding the origin and early history of the earth and its life must agree with a plain, simple, obvious rendering of that record.
Clear distinction must be made between the facts of science and theories by which scientific data are interpreted. To all men the facts must be the same, because facts cannot be changed; on the other hand, the interpretation of the facts may vary according to one’s background of training and experience.
Hence we should ever be careful to separate scientific facts from theories which, while they may aid in the search for truth, should not be confused with the’ truth itself.
Belief in evolution or creation, either one, is based upon certain assumptions. The evolutionist must assume that the earth is very ancient, with its age reckoned in billions of years. The forces of nature are assumed to have been at work in a more or less uniform manner throughout the long ages of geological time. And finally, those forces are assumed to have been resident in nature.
Whether resident forces are inherent from all eternity, that is, automatically present, without the intervention of any supreme being, or whether endowed by the power of God at some vaguely distant “beginning,” makes little difference. The presence of resident forces, by which nature behaves as a self-operating mechanism, is an essential part of the evolutionary philosophy.
The creationist, on the other hand, if he accepts the Genesis record literally, is committed to a short chronology. This does not imply that Ussher’s chronology is necessarily correct in every detail. However, the history of the earth is to be reckoned in terms of thousands rather than millions or billions of years.
Such a viewpoint must of necessity involve faith in supernaturalism as opposed to the acceptance of naturalism by the evolutionist. And, instead of nature’s being a self-running mechanism, it is understood by the creationist to be under the direct and continuous control of the power of an infinite God.
Heretofore nearly all the discussions of the evolution-creation question by creationists have been of a negative character, that is, devoted largely to an attempt to disprove evolution. This has been due to the belief that if evolution were to be disproved, the creationist interpretation would be left as the only alternative.
Such a method is not to be condemned; nevertheless, it fails to give an understanding of the place which a great wealth of facts occupies in the creationist interpretation. These facts have been so assiduously applied to the evolutionary scheme that unless one gets the positive view of the question, he is liable to feel that the majority of the facts, after all, support the theory of evolution. There are not a few creationists who think that they must cling to their faith in creation in spite of the facts actually or seemingly arrayed against them.
The purpose of this presentation is to approach the problem from the positive side. Accepting the Genesis record as historically accurate, we shall discuss the scientific aspects of creation and the early history of the earth, and show how the facts of science support a literal interpretation of Genesis.
HAROLD W. CLARK
Angwin, California.
1. What Do These Things Mean?
NOT long ago a released internee from a prison camp in the Orient brought to America several fragments of human skulls and teeth discovered in various parts of China. Upon examination these were observed to differ considerably from corresponding parts in modern man, being more massive, somewhat different in shape, and, in case of the teeth, much larger. Thereupon the experts proceeded to reconstruct three new races of primitive men, dating them back farther than any other specimens.
Naturally we wonder upon what basis such reconstruction could be made, and where the line between fact and theory is to be drawn. The person who is skeptical of all such methods is inclined to ridicule the whole procedure as a deliberate attempt to perpetuate an unfounded theory. On the other hand, there are some facts that are a bit puzzling. For instance-
In the Scientific Monthly of October, 1946, Dr. Krogman of the University of Chicago tells of a test case devised by him to check on the accuracy of such reconstruction. Selecting a specimen from the dissecting tables of the anatomy laboratories, he carefully measured and photographed the head and face.
Then he allowed its dissection to proceed, after which the skull was cleaned. The skull was turned over to a sculptress with instructions to make a lifelike reconstruction. As to the results, Dr. Krogman says: “The measurements [of the reconstructed head] agreed astoundingly. With but one exception all measurements agreed to within 1 millimeter. [A millimeter is 1/25 of an inch.] Most important of all, the restoration was recognizable as that of the subject drawn.” - Page P6.
Going back to the other side of the question again, one can readily ask what this really proves. Suppose the anthropologist can reconstruct a head, or even a whole body accurately, what does that prove as to the time when that individual lived? Because a skull may have large, apelike teeth, does it prove the individual to be a primitive apelike ancestor who lived half a million years ago? And even if he might have been “primitive” (or degenerate) in appearance, does that indicate an evolutionary background for the human race? Many questions might be raised. Such a case demands careful study before hasty conclusions are reached.
EVOLUTION OR CREATION
One day a student stopped at my desk at the close of a lecture on the evolution question. “How is it,” he asked, “that anyone can raise such questions regarding evolution when all the great scientists are agreed on it?” A fair question this was, we cannot deny. Why should there be any controversy? Is not evolution proved by sound scientific facts, well-authenticated? To read popular textbooks one would be led to this conclusion. If it is not true, where are the flaws in the proofs?
H. G. Wells, in his book The Science of Life, accuses creationists of being dishonest and muddleheaded and holding out stubbornly against evolution when it has been “proved up to the hilt.” He cites line after line of evidence upon which the evolution theory has been built. Let us take a brief review of his proofs, as they will give as clear a grasp of the problem as one can find anywhere.
First, there is the evidence from the rocks. Invariably, when faced with the problem of creation versus evolution, the scientist will say: “But what about the geological record?” The fundamental principle, we are told, is simple. It is said that the different layers of rocks were laid down in order. Therefore all we have to do is to examine these layers and to read from them the past history of the earth.
Surprisingly simple, we admit, is this method. There is one serious question, however. Do the rocks tell a story of slow and uniform deposit, or might they have been laid down rapidly? Such a possibility makes it necessary for us to reserve judgment on the geological theory and investigate the problem more fully before we draw final conclusions.
Horses and camels and elephants and many other animals have been found in the rocks, with variations in each group running from simple to complex. This arrangement is then pointed out as proof that the higher evolved from the lower. However, these various groups have been assembled from scattered localities and are arranged in series. The fact seems to be overlooked that God might have created such series in the beginning.
But, says the geologist, the simpler ones are found in lower rocks than are the more complex. Suppose, for sake of discussion, we admit that they are. What does this prove? Could not one type have lived in a different environment than the other, yet have lived at the same time.
Other lines of evidence are supposed to show man’s relation to the lower animals. In all vertebrates, for instance, we find a common pattern for the limbs. The arm consists of an upper part, with one bone, a lower part with two bones, a wrist with several small bones, and a hand and fingers. Although this pattern is modified in different vertebrates, the same general plan my be seen in the whole group. To a superficial thinker this is certain proof that all these animals came from common ancestors. But is that a necessary conclusion? Might not a study of the facts point the way to a different answer to the problem?
Supposedly unanswerable proofs for evolution are presented in the data from embryology. The young embryos of reptiles, birds, and mammals are so much alike that to naked-eye observations they cannot readily be told apart. Upon this fact is based the theory that all higher animals have been derived from common ancestry. And so firmly fixed has this notion become, even in the minds of scientists, that all popular textbooks on biology discuss the theory as if it were actually proved to be true.
The actual fact is that while modern biologists believe in evolution, they admit that studies on the embryos of the various groups give little evidence for evolution, and actually raise more problems than they solve. One needs to be cautious lest he allow popular opinion to dull his sense of critical analysis and to lead him to accept theories in the place of truth. We must leave detailed consideration of the question for later study, but in passing it may be said that it gives us another example of how supposedly sound scientific principles need to be carefully checked before being accepted at face value.
VARIATION IN PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Rocks and bones do not constitute the only puzzle. Living creatures have caused as much discussion as geological phenomena, and perhaps even more. Ever since Carolus Linnaeus, in the middle of the eighteenth century, mistakenly thought he was able to distinguish as many kinds as God had created in the beginning, the question of the origin of species has been a potent source of controversy.
When in 1859 Charles Darwin proposed to explain the origin of species by means of natural selection, the scientific world turned from the Linnaean viewpoint, and biology entered the Darwinian era. The near century that has passed since then has left most people bewildered by the vast accumulation of material on this phase of the question.
Life changes, as may be realized by observation on domestic animals such as dogs, rabbits, pigeons, and other kinds. No one doubts but that the great variety of these animals is due to changes which have occurred since they were in a wild state. From this simple fact the scientist deduces that changes in plants and animals in nature have brought about the present variety of living things from former creatures that were different from those we know today. Thus the Darwinian theory of origin of species through variation seems on the face of it to have good support in readily observable facts.
The question is not so simple as it appears. Some authorities of high standing dispute the interpretation which Darwin gave. Variation which may be observed and checked does not lead to new species, declares Goldschmidt, one of the world’s greatest biologists. See R. B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, page 396.
The biologist who accepts the Genesis record literally is particularly strong in his objection to Darwin’s evolutionary views. For example:
“It is one thing to recognize this very manifest tendency in nature for organisms to vary, but it is an entirely different matter to prove that such variation has been the mechanisms by which the present state of organisms has been built up.” - F. L. Marsh, Evolution, Creation, and Science, page 259.
The present writer made a similar statement in his book Genes and Genesis, pages 141, 142:
“The fact that variation occurs, and that it may at times be of such a nature as to form what might be recognized as new species does not afford sufficient ground for explaining the origin of the major type forms, such as genera, families, or orders, within which and from which such species have arisen.”
Thus the controversy goes on. The facts which H. G. Wells and other evolutionists accept as proofs for evolution are not so readily received by others with equally keen powers of reason. The evolutionary theory is not so firmly established as some would like to believe.
One point in particular is worthy of attention. “There is no other imaginable illumination” of the living world except the light which evolution shed on it, says Wells. See page 404. One is reminded of the words of Scripture: If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!” Matthew 6:23. No other imaginable illumination! Why has the evolutionist overlooked the simple truth that nature may reflect the glory of the Creator?
The marvelous adaptations seen in nature cannot be explained upon any mechanical basis. Where did honeybees learn to build their wax combs? How did wasps and hornets “evolve” their method of paper building? How does evolution explain the origin of such a complicated structure as the human eye? How did such a complicated structure as the retina in the eye or the organ of Corti in the ear, or the speech mechanism, or a hundred others, happen to be where they are and be so perfectly adjusted as to work together to form a harmonious mechanism? Surely there must be some other way except to believe that such a situation came about by chance.
Two misunderstandings appear to be common. Evolutionists misunderstand the creationist views; the reverse is equally true. They are like the medieval knights who fought over whether a shield was red or black, only to find that it was red on one side and black on the other.
Creationists ordinarily accuse evolutionists of being atheists, assuming that acceptance of the theory of evolution must inevitably lead to belief in pure mechanical action in the whole universe, with no place for God in any natural processes. The modern decline in religion is generally attributed (by creationists) to the influence of evolutionary teaching. The fact is overlooked that there are many devout Christians who believe that evolution is the process used by God to produce the present state of the world.
THE QUESTION AT ISSUE
Evolutionists, on the other hand, accuse creationists of holding to all kinds of unscientific notions. Some years ago a certain candidate for governor of Florida was supported by William Jennings Bryan, who at the time was attracting considerable attention for his opposition to evolution. Whereupon Arthur Brisbane, the well known columnist, in one of America’s leading dailies, made the following comment:
“He probably believes that all kinds of men, microbes, animals, horses with one or four toes, dinosaurs, hippopotamuses, okapis, 500 kinds of fleas, 10,000 kinds of snakes, 100,000 kinds of beetles and bugs, and all the others were created separately and individually by the expressed will of the Creator and were all in the ark together.”
In a more serious view, a strictly scientific writer has said that creationism is “that hypothesis which conceives that the inorganic world as well as the organic species were created by God, but, once created, remain unchanged.” - B. Petronievics, Evolution Universal.
At the famous Scopes trial in 1925, when a court dealt with the evolution question, the experts who filed their testimony on the side of evolution took the position that any change in plants and animals must mean evolution.
And so it goes. Where are we, anyway? What is evolution, and what is it not? What is meant by creation? What processes of change may be allowed and one yet be a good creationist? Or can one be a creationist at all if he recognizes that plants and animals have changed and are now changing? These and scores of other equally pertinent questions must be clarified if one is to know where he stands. The answers do not come from any dogmatic pronouncements, but from painstaking study of the facts from nature.
The purpose of the following chapters is to present these facts and point the way to the conclusions which they demand. It must always be kept in mind that true science and a correct rendering of the Genesis record will be in perfect harmony, for both have the same author. God’s power is responsible for the origin of the world and for all natural processes of the past and present. All things take place in harmony with the laws which He has established. He is also the author of the Bible, for “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” It is the work of the true scientist to discover the truth in both fields science and religion-and to properly relate the facts of nature to the principles revealed in the word of God.
2. In the Beginning
THE theory of evolution is built on the age-old philosophy of uniformity of natural forces. The apostle Peter clearly expressed this philosophy when he described modern skeptics as proclaiming that “since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” 2 Peter 3:4.
This viewpoint, according to which nature is supposed to be endowed with power for carrying on its activities, was the very essence of all ancient pagan philosophical systems. Matter and energy were, to the ancient philosophers, the eternal realities of existence, existing independently of any creative power.
ORIGIN OF THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
The origin of such ideas is somewhat obscure, but appears to have been due to a failure to recognize the existence of a personal Supreme Being. The apostle Paul gives a suggestion on this point in the first chapter of Romans. He speaks of the ancients as holding “the truth in unrighteousness” (verse 18), implying that they had once had the truth, but had corrupted it. This corruption had come about as the result of vain imaginations (verse 21) which darkened their hearts.
The French translation of this verse is interesting, for it speaks of the heart’s becoming destitute of intelligence. In verse 23 Paul plainly reveals the influence of such vain imaginations. The glory of God was changed “into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” In other words, the attributes of the “uncorruptible God were applied to nature, and men “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” Verses 23, 25, margin. Nature worship, or the worship of gods who were personifications of natural forces, became the central theme of pagan religion.
SCRIPTURAL VIEWS
Opposed to this pagan philosophy throughout the centuries has stood the Scriptural doctrine of a personal supreme God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth. He is introduced in the first verse of the Bible: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
His power is recognized in the Ten Commandments. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth.” The psalmist declares: “He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Throughout the prophetic books He is set forth as the One who had made all things. New Testament writings testify to the power by which He made and upholds all things. From Genesis to the Revelation, therefore, the story is a consistent one, with no suggestion of a self-existent or self operating nature.
Belief in supernaturalism was orthodox in the Hebrew religion until Greek philosophy brought in pagan concepts, after the Alexandrian conquests had spread Greek culture over the world. Again, after the time of Christ, we find a pure supernaturalism in the writings of the apostles, and not until Augustine and others of his time introduced Greek philosophy into Christianity did the church depart from faith in God as the Creator and upholder of the universe.
In this connection it will be well to consider the meaning of creation as taught by the Scriptures. The creationist viewpoint gives dignity and meaning to the astronomic, geographic, climatic, and biotic features of the earth. Instead of looking at all the marvels of nature as mere accidents, and life the greatest accident of all, the person who believes the Bible record sees purpose and plan in everything. God made the earth “to be inhabited,” and to that end He combined all the forces of earth, sea, and sky. The manner in which He organized this earth as the home for our first parents is so simply told in Genesis that it is generally regarded as a mere tale that has no scientific value. But let us examine it and see how its scientific aspects appear under close scrutiny.
DAYS OF CREATION
“In the beginning.” This simply means that at first, of originally, or when God first undertook the creative work. There is nothing in it to indicate any time period, either long or short.
“God created.” The pagan concept of self-existing matter is here dispelled by the idea that God created the heaven and the earth. The Hebrew word bara implies that a new thing has been produced, and not from anything of its kind previously existing.
“And the earth was without form.” It was not created as a fully completed world.
“And void.” The earth, when first created, was empty of life and those refinements of nature that make life possible.
“And darkness was upon the face of the deep.” The “deep” is from the Hebrew t’hom, which is translated into the Greek as abussos (English, abyss). Many meanings have been given to it, but its real meaning of great depth, bottomless space, or immense expanse seem especially significant.
“And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Since the words spirit, breath, and wind may all be translated from the same original word, several translations have been made. But the King James Version quoted above is the simplest and most consistent. The meaning seems to be that the Holy Spirit was the agent through whom the creation was accomplished. The text becomes clear and beautiful when we read it this way: And the Spirit of God acted upon the face of the abyss. In other words, using this as an intermediate connecting thought, we have the story thus: Darkness was upon the great abyss, and the Spirit of God acted upon this abyss, and God said: “Let there be light.”
Were the days of creation real days, or were they indefinite periods of time? One of the first arguments one meets on this point is the statement in 2 Peter 3:8: “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” From this it is argued that when the Lord gave the record of the days of Genesis, He did not intend to imply that these were literal days, but rather that the record should be taken in a figurative sense.
Those who make this claim overlook the reading of the context. Peter is here discussing the longsuffering of God and trying to show that the reason ungodly men are not quickly destroyed is that God is “not willing that any should perish.” Verse 9. On the other hand, this mercy will eventually reach its end, and “the day of the Lord will come.” Verse 10. The whole question is that of God’s attitude toward the end of the world, not toward its beginning.
The best evidence on any questionable passage is the internal evidence,-to be found in the passage itself and its context. Upon examination of the first chapter of Genesis we find that at the close of the record of each day occur the words: “And the evening and the morning were the first day,” second day, etc. Here is brought to view a definite sequence of night and day, the same kind of day apparently as that in the second chapter, where the Sabbath is mentioned as a day of rest.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no meaning to evening and morning as applied to geological periods. According to popular interpretation of the rocks, the succession of deposits with their plant and animal remains took place continually, and with no distinct universal breaks in deposit that could be correlated with the “days” of Genesis.
The principal reason for refusing to accept the Genesis record of creation literally is the acceptance by modern scientists of the theory of uniformitarianism, or the idea that all natural forces have acted uniformly throughout all past time. This modern philosophy was foreseen by Peter when he spoke of the skeptics of our day who declare: “All things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” 2 Peter 3:4.
Obviously, if the uniformitarian doctrine were the true interpretation of the past, direct creation in six days would be only a tradition or folk tale. But it should be pointed out that the uniformitarian hypothesis propounded by Hutton and Lyell has never been proved. It is both unproved and unprovable.
Any conclusions based on it are as uncertain as the hypothesis on which they are built. It has been supposed by some that the light of the first day was unlike anything known at present.
And perhaps it might not be wrong to suppose that the act of creating material substance would be accompanied by brilliant light, for modern atomic physics has shown that units of light energy (photons) are related to the production of certain units of matter. We cannot make any dogmatic statements regarding this, but the idea may have something worthy of study.
Or, it may well be understood that when God spoke matter into existence, the darkness that filled the great “deep” or “abyss” of space would be illuminated as the matter of the earth caught up the rays of the sun and began to reflect them outward.
THE FIRST DAY
It is evident from the record that from the very beginning of the creation process the earth formed a body capable of casting a shadow, for of the first day, as of every other day, it is said: “The evening and the morning were the first day.”
It has sometimes been said that the light of the first three days was due to the special presence of God, inasmuch as the sun was not made until the fourth day. To postulate such a light would require that some source of illumination should exist only on one side of the earth. For it must be recognized that light is not an entity of itself; it cannot exist apart from some luminary. To say that the light was miraculous, or due to the presence of God, is to invoke the miraculous as a means of explaining that for which we can find no other answer. Certainly it was miraculous, for the whole creation process was a miracle. But to invoke a miraculous light for three days in order to fit our preconceived ideas that the sun was actually brought into existence on the fourth day, is a hazardous procedure.
The record of the fourth day says nothing as to the time when the sun was actually formed, and there is no Scriptural or scientific reason why it may not be understood as being in existence and casting its light over the earth from the very beginning of the first day, at least. Whether it was created at the time the earth was formed or long before, there is no way of knowing.
The Genesis record tells nothing of the work of the first day except the presence of light and its separation from the darkness. But it is evident, as we consider the structure of the earth, that either God spoke the matter of the earth into existence instantly, all in proper place, and then did nothing else for twenty-four hours, or else He occupied the time of the first day in organizing and arranging the materials.
There is no good reason for believing in the former suggestion, but it is consistent with the nature of the creation story to consider each day’s work as a series of events. Accordingly we might understand that the first day’s work was concerned with bringing the original chaotic mass, which was “without form,” into an organized globe.
THE SECOND DAY
Evidence for the progressive nature of creation is seen in the record of the second day. At this time the separation of the elements continued so as to produce a firmament, or atmosphere, above the earth.
Nothing else is mentioned for this day, but it is likely that the processes of the first day were continued. This is suggested by the fact that the record of the third day describes further movements of the substance of the earth.
Considerable study has been given to the description of the waters which were above the firmament. Some have interpreted this as meaning atmospheric water vapor, others have supposed that it referred to a “sea” of vapor floating above the atmosphere. In support of the latter view is the fact that water vapor is lighter than air, water vapor having a molecular weight of 18, air of about 29. On the other side of the case is the question as to why such a vapor shell should not exist at present.
Advocates of the vapor shell theory point to the forty days of rain at the time of the Flood, and declare that there must have been a much more extensive source of supply than could have been possible from the vapor suspended in the air. They suppose that certain changes in the electrical condition of the atmosphere must have occurred in order to precipitate the vapor shell about the earth.
After a careful study of all aspects of this question, it must be admitted that since there are so many uncertainties involved, and so little known in detail, a positive conclusion is exceedingly difficult to draw. After all, the essential point is that during this day the earth was brought one more step along the way toward becoming a fit home for plants, animals, and human beings.
One might ponder at length at the wisdom of the Creator as revealed in the mechanics of the atmosphere. As the science of meteorology is studied, and it is seen how many wise and beneficent provisions are made for the needs of living creatures, it is easy to believe that the mysteries of the air are the work of an all wise Creator. Many scientists have recognized the marvelous manner in which the surroundings are fitted to the needs of plants and animals. God’s handiwork can readily be seen in the firmament.
THE THIRD DAY
The record of the third day is brief, like that of the second. Gigantic movements must have taken place in obedience to that simple command to let the water be gathered together in order that the dry land might appear. In consideration of this day, it is well for us to keep ever in mind that the earth is not merely a mass of rock thrown together in an unorganized mass.
Even now, after the destructive work of the Flood on its surface, the earth still shows remarkable evidences of the symmetry of its original structure. In the first place, the earth is a huge magnet, with a core of iron and nickel. Because of its weight and of its rigidity, which is approximately equal to that of a steel ball, and because of the presence of iron and nickel in meteorites that fall upon the earth, we conclude that these materials comprise the greater bulk of the inside of the earth. Outside of this core of iron and nickel lie the crystalline rocks, with the heavier basaltic materials deep in the earth and the lighter granite rocks nearer the surface.
The outer portion of the earth, for a depth of one hundred miles or more, is known as the “crust,” so-called because of older theories that there was a molten interior surrounded by a cooler mass, or crust.
In spite of the rejection of the theory of a molten interior by modern geologists, the term crust is still used. Much of the crust has been so changed by the Flood that it is difficult to form a picture of the nature of the outer rocky framework before that event. Doubtless it was much different from anything we know today, for our sandstone, shale, limestone, and many igneous rocks appear to be superficial products of the violent forces of the Flood.
One point is of particular interest. Underlying the sedimentary rocks everywhere that mines, oil or water wells, or canyons have penetrated them, are found the twisted and folded layers of the “basement complex.” This is composed of generally fine-grained crystalline rocks such as mica-schist, gneiss, or similar rocks that appear to have been produced by distortion forces. In some cases it may be that these rocks were formed by disturbances in the earth shell at the time of the Flood. In many cases, however, they seem to form series of bent, folded, and twisted layers that have been truncated, or worn off, as if by some gigantic plane before the surface sediments were deposited upon them. The evidence suggests that these rocks may represent the remnants of the original skeleton of the earth as it was brought into position during the earth movements of the third day.
According to the record, as soon as the land and water areas were established, the dry land became clothed with vegetation. But let us pass that phase of creation, dealing with it in connection with other life forms, and give our attention more fully to the changes in the earth that were necessary in order to make it a satisfactory home for man and animals.
THE FOURTH DAY
On the fourth day the greater and lesser lights were set in the midst of the firmament, thus establishing the great time cycles. If the reader will notice carefully the account of the fourth day, he will see that nothing is said as to when the sun, moon, and stars were actually brought into existence.
As for the stars, many of them are known to be millions of years old, for they are so distant as to require immense periods of time for their light to reach the earth. In passing, let us suggest that the idea that God created these distant suns each complete with beams of light already reaching outward throughout all space, if accepted, would destroy all belief in the regularity of God’s laws.
All that we know of God’s manner of producing light teaches us that when He causes a body to become luminous, beams of light energy travel outward from the source, and are not set in action instantaneously along), the whole path of the light beams. God works in regular ways and according), to definite laws. We should not attempt to explain away His laws to fit our own opinions.
Further, it should be kept in mind that creation involved not only production of matter, but its organization and setting in relation to other material bodies. Accordingly the creative act of the fourth day appears to have been a process by which the great luminaries were established in the firmament of heaven to serve as markers for days and years and seasons.
The viewpoint of creation that assumes the sun to have been in existence on or before the fourth day and to have given light upon the earth from the very beginning of creation week makes the whole story consistent and simple. The only objection that can be brought against this interpretation is the idea that some have retained from their childhood days, of the fourth day as the time of formation of the sun, moon, and stars.
On the other hand, since creation means organization as well as production of material, the work of the fourth day is reasonably understood as part of the organization of the earth in relation to the other members of the system, just as reasonably as to understand the work of the other days as organizational,- which they were largely, if not entirely. For there is no reason to believe that any new material substance was produced after the first day. Even the living things were made from the substance of the earth.
CONTINUE
