Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3
CHAPTER 33 - EVOLUTION AND SOCIETY Part 3
EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIANITY ANTITHETICAL
There are a variety of compromising religious views on evolution. The term "evolutionary theism" is often employed to describe part or most of them.
It is a great tragedy that a majority of Christian denominations today either officially accept some form of evolutionary theory, or consider the matter beneath their notice-thus essentially declaring that it does not matter what a Christian believes in regard to the subject. Referring to theistic evolution, Berkhof said:
"In a word, it is a theory that is absolutely subversive of Scripture truth." Louis Berkof, Systematic Theology (1941), p. 163.
In the closing paragraphs of his book, Origin of the Species, Darwin wrote that "the production of the higher animals" was brought about by "the war of nature, from famine and death."
(1) The two positions (creation and evolution) are totally separate. There is no way to combine them. To accept the one is to deny the other. Men must either accept the teachings of Genesis or they must reject them, and no half-way position is acceptable to the One who inspired Moses to write that book.
(2) Evolution is the position of atheists; the concepts included in the theory are atheistic. There is nothing Biblical or Christian about any of these theories of *Darwin, or any of their Marxist variations.
(3) The theory of evolution has absolutely no clear scientific support in its favor. None. Throughout this set of books we have carefully met and replied to the various evolutionary arguments. We have found them all to be a tissue of lies.
(4) Why should a Christian accept the theories of *Charles Darwin, in preference to clear statements of the Bible that say the opposite? "By their fruits ye shall know them." The fruit of Christianity is changed, unselfish, happy lives; the fruit of Darwin's teachings is equally clear: world wars, racial superiority, blatant atheism, and a history of lies, distortions, fakes and hoaxes. What kind of company do you wish to keep? Godly men who preach the Bible-or men like *Adolf Hitler, *Benito Mussolini, * Friedrich Nietzsche, *Ernst Haeckel, *Clarence Darrow, *Karl Marx, and *Joseph Stalin?
Christians who accept theistic evolution could partly agree to the first, and sign their names to the second and fourth of the first four tenets of the Humanist Manifesto I, drawn up in 1933 by the leading atheists of the western world:
"First: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
"Second: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.
"Third. Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
"Fourth: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment. ." -Humanist Manifesto I (1933).
"Rejecting the atheistic collectivist teachings of Ward, as well as those of Marx, the [religious] modernists accepted theistic evolution and went on from there to promote social evolution. The original leaders of this movement were such men as Washington Gladden (1836-1918) and Walter Rauschenbusch (1816-1918), but it soon became dominant in practically all the main Protestant denominations, as well as very strong in Roman Catholicism." -H.M. Morris, History of Modern Creationism (1984), p. 54.
(5) Even evolutionists themselves recognize that evolution and Christianity are as different as midnight and noon. An atheist discusses the matter in a leading atheist journal:
"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary.. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing! . .
"What all this means is that Christianity cannot lose the Genesis account of creation like it could lose the doctrine of geocentrism and get along. The battle must be waged, for Christianity for its very life." -*G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution, "in American Atheist, February 1978, p. 30.
(6) Thoughtfully read 2 Peter 3:3-14. it contains Important predictions and warnings.
PHILOSOPHERS, HISTORIANS, AND SCIENTISTS AGREE-A leading mid-century agnostic, *Bertrand Russell, cannot figure out why any Christian would want to accept evolution, which is based entirely on randomness and viciousness.
"Religion, in our day, has accommodated itself to the doctrine of evolution . . We are told that.. evolution is the unfolding of an idea which has been in the mind of God throughout. It appears that during those ages . . when animals were torturing each other with ferocious horns and agonizing stings, Omnipotence was quietly waiting for the ultimate emergence of man. Why the Creator should have preferred to reach His goal by a process, instead of going straight to it, these modern theologians do not tell us." -*Bertrand Russell, Religion and Science (1961), p. 73.
A leading atheist agrees:
"Natural selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species.. The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts . . I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution." -*Jacques Monod, "The Secret of Life, " broadcast interview, June 10, 1978.
*Julian Huxley said the two beliefs were poles apart, and *Charles Smith declared that "evolution is atheism."
"Professor Huxley said, 'The doctrine of evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe the Bible.' This theory leads one, consciously or unconsciously, to a state of defiance against God as Creator and Redeemer. Evolution thus becomes a cornerstone of atheism. The president of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, Mr. Charles Smith, said in his Annual Report in 1928, p. 15, that 'Evolution is Atheism.' " -H. Epoch, Evolution or Creation, (1988), pp. 148-149.
*Nietzsche, *Teller, and *Watts add their strong testimony:
"According to Nietzsche, 'Neither crime, cruelty, sexuality, nor intoxication need be matters of shame or repentance.' To him Christian morality was the principal obstacle to the emergence of a superman. Yet there are so many Christians who seem to believe in the theory of evolution as well as in the God of the Bible. However, in the minds of atheists there is no doubt regarding the outcome of the theory of evolution. The vice-president of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, Mr. Woolsey Teller, in his pamphlet, Evolution implies Atheism,' stated: The God idea cannot be reconciled with our knowledge of evolution.' Newman Watts, the London journalist, was right when he said, 'Every attack on the Christian faith made today has as its basis the doctrine of evolution,' (from his pamphlet, "This is Serious")." -H. Epoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), pp. 149-150.
Two scientists tell us that no person with even a modest amount of morality could tolerate acceptance of the totally amoral theory of evolution.
"The balance sheet of evolution has so closely written a debit column of all the blood and pain that goes into the natural process that not even the smoothest accountancy can make the transaction seem morally solvent according to any standards of morals that human beings are accustomed to." -*Peter B. Medawar and *J.S. Medawar, The Life Science: Current Ideas of Biology (1977), p. 169.
Azar agrees.
"The impact of evolution on human thought cannot be exaggerated . .
"Darwinian evolution . . shattered the very foundations of morality." -Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis (1990), p. x.
"Baker declares that the one group in the world which are in total conflict with evolution are the "fundamentalists," and by this term he means people who believe Genesis. (In the following statement, for "science," read science as interpreted by evolutionists; we have continually found that scientific facts point to Creation not evolution.)
"Perhaps the best example of group irrationality is Christian fundamentalism . . the most visible conflict between fundamentalism and science is caused by fundamentalists' literal interpretation of Genesis." *John R. Baker, "Fundamentalism as Anti-Intellectualism," in The Humanist, March/April 1988, p. 28.
*Denton ridicules the idea that any Christian would want to even part-way accept evolutionary theory. Note two important points in Denton's comment, below: (1) "Chance and design are antithetical concepts." Evolution finds its cause as entirely due to random activity. The Bible shows that God is the originator, the Creator, not chance. Everything about us in nature indicates purposive planning, careful design-and planning and design require an intelligent Being that did the planning and creating. (2) It is evolutionary theory, more than anything else today, that is seeking to destroy Christianity. Which side do you want to be on? Fully on God's side, or part-way on the side of evolution, the enemy of Christianity?
"As far as Christianity was concerned, the advert of the theory of evolution and the elimination of traditional theological thinking was catastrophic. The suggestion that life and man are the result of chance is incompatible with the biblical assertion of their being the direct result of Intelligent creative activity. Despite the attempt by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact is that no biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory. Chance and design are antithetical concepts, and the decline in religious belief can probably be attributed more to the propagation and advocacy by the intellectual and scientific community of the Darwinian version of evolution than to any other single factor." *Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 66.
The editor of a leading atheist magazine says the two viewpoints are in total contradiction to each other:
"When the theory of evolution was advanced, that was the date that the Judeo-Christian religion began the decline in which it now finds itself in the West. The two theories are pointblank in contradiction one to the other. Any scientists, any educators, any religious persons who state to you that there is no conflict simply want to hang on to both worlds . . They want a foot in each camp." -*Editor, replying to question, in American Atheist, January 1988, p. 7.
*Huston Smith brings us back to it again: Evolution is a theory without cause or purpose; it is an empty blankness, totally nihilistic as concerns any reason or purpose to life, cause or effect, origin or destiny! In stark contrast, Christianity is filled with definite origin, purpose, fulfillment, and a wonderful destiny for those who humbly love and obey God!
"Darwin saw his discovery as strongly resistant to admixture with belief in God, while Jacques Monod goes further.
"'The mechanism of evolution as now understood,' he tells us, 'rules out any claim that there are final causes, or purposes being realized. This disposes of any philosophy of religion that believes in cosmic . . purpose.'
"Realizing that this conclusion could be colored by Monod's personal philosophy, I turn to the entry on 'Evolution' in The New Encyclopedia Britannica for a statement that might reflect, as well as any, consensus in the field. It tells me that 'Darwin showed that evolution's cause, natural selection, was automatic with no room for divine guidance or design."' -*Huston Smith, "Two Evolutions, " in Nature, Vol. 6 (1984), p. 48.
McCann discussed the kind of fellow travelers which are quick to take up with evolutionary theory:
"Historian Himmelfarb . . [shows] the sociopolitical affiliations which have been favorably disposed toward Darwinism. It includes: Socialists, conservatives, nationalists, proponents of laissez-faire, militarists, pacifists, political theorists, and egalitarianists. [*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 419.]
"Gleaned from other sources, in addition, are the following: Industrialists, Marxist-Leninists, elitists of different kinds, secular humanists, materialists, racists, and many kinds of religious agnostics." -Lester McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1988), p. 95.
Enoch summarizes the matter:
"Evolution and Christianity are incompatibles. If evolution is true the whole fabric of Christian faith is a Mass of error. There is no creation and there was no fall. Consequently there is no need for redemption and there is none to redeem. Man evolves from a speck of protoplasm ever progressing towards a higher goal, culminating in the formation of the superman. In this process of evolution a fallen nature is unthinkable." -H. Epoch, Evolution or Creation, (1986), p. 149.
Interestingly enough, even the atheists are disgusted with the time-serving, mincing efforts of professed Christians to join their side of the controversy. The following remarkable statement was penned by an atheist, published in an atheist journal, for atheists to read. It is a commendation of those creationists willing to stand by creationist teachings, instead of trying to wear the label of both "Christian" and "evolutionist" at the same time. The article is entitled, "Three Cheers for the Creationists."
"Cheer Number One goes to the creationist for serving rational religion by demonstrating beautifully that we must take the creation stories of Genesis at face value . . Many Christians have taken the dishonest way of lengthening the days into millions of years, but the creationists make it clear that such an approach is nothing but a makeshift that is unacceptable Biblically..
"Creationists deserve Cheer Number Two for serving rational religion by effectively eliminating 'theistic evolution' . . Creationists rightly insist that evolution is inconsistent with a God of love . . Three cheers, then, for the creationists, for they have cleared the air of all dodges, escapes and evasions made by Christians who adopt nonliteral interpretations of Genesis and who hold that evolution is God's method of Creation." *A.J. Mattell, Jr., "Three Cheers for Christians, " Free Inquiry, Spring 1982, pp. 17-18.
A deadly controversy is in progress; the stakes are high. The minds and souls of men are being bartered in a cheap market. Evolution is the destroyer of Christianity, but far too many Christians are embracing it as an authentic fact of science.
"In Australia's Christian newspaper, New Life, Thursday, April 15, 1982, Josef Ton, who was a pastor of the largest Baptist Church in Romania and is now living in exile in the United States, stated:
" ' I came to the conclusion that there were two factors which destroyed Christianity in Western Europe. One was the theory of evolution the other, liberal theology . . Liberal theology is just evolution applied to the Bible and our faith." -Kenneth Ham, The Lie: Evolution (1987), p. 105.
THEISTIC EVOLUTION-Here is a sampling of the compromises that many Christian denominations and their colleges have accepted-and why: *Pattle Pun, a leading evangelical college biology teacher admits that Genesis points to a 6-day Creation Week, and then summarizes his reasons for rejecting it:
"It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of the Genesis record, without regard to all the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created heaven and earth in six solar days, that man was created in the sixth day, that death and chaos entered the works after the Fall of Adam and Eve, that all of the fossils were the result of the catastrophic universal deluge which spared only Noah's family and the animals therewith . .
"However, the Recent Creationist position has two serious flaws. First, it has denied and belittled the vast amount of scientific evidence amassed to support the theory of natural selection [evolution] and the antiquity of the earth. Secondly, much Creationist writing has 'deistic' implications . . the stipulation that the varieties we see today in the biological worlds were present in the initial Creation implies that the Creator is no longer involved in His creation in a dynamic way." -*Pattle P. T. Pun, "A Theory of Progressive Creationism, "Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 39, March 1987, p. 14.
*Pun's two objections are these:
First, the theory of natural selection is correct, and the strata theory of earth's great antiquity. This is evolutionary teaching, pure and simple. In chapter 13 and 14 we saw that there is no way random actions (so-called "natural selection") or random, harmful mutations (which is all that mutations consist of) can produce any new species. In addition, there is no evidence it has ever occurred or is occurring now. The "antiquity of the earth" theories are based
- on dating methods, shown in chapter 7 to be highly speculative and erroneous, and
- on the archaic 19th century strata dating theory, "index fossils," and fossils in the strata, all of which has been dealt with in chapter 17.
Keep this in mind:
- If we are to accept long ages because of the strata, then we must accept long ages for the fossils in those strata.
- If we accept that, we have denied the Genesis account of
[1] a 6-day creation of all plants and animals,
[2] original perfection with no prior suffering or death,
[3] the Fall of Man and the need for redemption,
[4] the worldwide Flood, which could easily have produced all the strata and fossils, and
[5] Biblical dating and an early age for the earth.
*Pun's second objection is irrelevant. Of course, the Creator is continually at work in His creation! He is seeking to bring men to a knowledge of the plan of salvation, He is guiding in the lives of those who accept Him, and He is continually at work to maintain both physical organisms and readjust the orbiting spheres of outer space. "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being." Acts 17:28. Creationists do not believe that the Creator has abandoned His creation.
One must either accept Genesis or evolution; no half-way position is logical. *Davis A. Young, another leading theistic evolution spokesman, holds to a similar position as *Pun:
"One of the most articulate and influential of these [evangelical theistic evolutionists] is Dr. Davis Young, professor of geology at Calvin College, another professedly evangelical college that has become notorious for its compromising position on evolution and related issues. In one of his books, Dr. Young frankly acknowledges that the literal-day interpretation of Genesis is 'the obvious view' and that the Bible teaches a universal flood. Nevertheless he rejects these plain teachings on the basis that 'geology' (meaning geology as interpreted by the geological establishment) has disproved them. There are thousands of scientists today, including a good number of geologists, who would sharply disagree with this assessment [by Young]." -H.M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), p. 103.
Morris briefly summarizes the extent of the problem.
"The full-orbed theistic evolution position is promoted by only a minority of such schools, but a great many teach either progressive creation or the Gap theory, accompanied usually by the Local Flood Theory. Practically all accept the geological ages and the concept of a very old universe." -Op. cit., p. 104.
EVOLUTION AND THE CHURCHES-In spite of clear-cut statements by evolutionists that "evolution IS atheism," most denominations of Christendom officially accept one form or another of evolutionary theory, or they take no clear stand against it. Yet evolution was born and reared amid atheism, produces atheism, and is championed by atheists. What concord can Christians have with Belial? Evolutionary theory was originated by Satan and continues to be inspired by him. First, let us consider the position of the Roman Catholic Church:
"Official Catholic doctrine, as enunciated in the encyclical, Humans Generis, by Pope Pius XII in 1950, permits the belief and teaching of evolution in the church, provided that the moral and spiritual character of man is still recognized as a divine creation. Although many Catholics have been reluctant to accept evolution, the scholastic leadership of the church is largely subservient now to this philosophy." -H.M. Morris, Twilight of Evolution (1983), p. 21.
Here are portions of the somewhat ambiguous statement of Pope Pius XI I, entitled Humans Generis, issued on August 1950:
"The teaching of the Church leaves the doctrine of evolution an open question." -Pope Pius XII, Humans Generis, statement made in 1950, quoted in Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 92.
"For those reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God." -Pope Pius XII, Humans Generis, paragraph 36, August 1950.
The statement above indicates that evolution is a somewhat open question in the Catholic Church. But also note the concluding sentence to the above paragraph:
"Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on these facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question." -Pope Pius XII, Human Generis, paragraph 36, August 1950.
The next paragraph (paragraph 37), not quoted here, teaches that Catholics believe that Adam was the first man and the father of all other men. Here is another official Catholic statements on this subject:
"The evolution of man from lower forms, as Darwin and Wallace agreed, does not at all imply that man is a mere animal." -New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4 (1967 ed.), article: "Creation of Man," p. 428.
Next, we shall consider the position of many of the Protestant denominations. There is no man who understands their views better than Henry M. Morris, for he has lectured in defense of Creationism for decades throughout North America and overseas.
"The seminaries and colleges of the major denominations (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Reformed, Congregational, Disciples, etc.) have almost all been committed to evolution for many, many years, some since soon after publication of Darwin's Origin in 1859. Nevertheless, in almost all of these denominations there are still significant numbers of creationists among their members; these have, in some cases, even started creationist schools of their own. The latter, however, are never recognized by the denominational hierarchies but are invariably opposed by them.
"Today many of the schools of the smaller, evangelical denominations, as well as many of the originally sound non-denominational schools, are again in the process of compromising with evolution, thus beginning again the oft-traveled slide down into apostasy. Some have descended into full-fledged theistic evolution; some are still at the Day-Age Theory or Gap Theory stage; others are trying to ignore the whole issue. But all are in real danger of eventual apostasy unless they return soon to true creationist convictions.
"The sad truth is that all the humanities including ethics and religion-are today saturated with evolutionary humanism, even in most ostensibly Christian schools. This is a truly amazing latter-day phenomenon, especially in view of the complete absence of any real scientific evidence for evolution." -H.M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), pp. 44-45.
Here are the results of a 1973 survey:
"In 1973 an unofficial survey was conducted among the science teachers in the Christian College consortium, an association of a dozen or so prestigious evangelical colleges (Wheaton, Cordon, Westmont, etc.) . .
"The great majority of these teachers thus teach either theistic evolution or progressive creation-that is, when they do not bypass the subject altogether. 'Relatively few colleges emphasize the creationist-evolutionist dialogue at all . . The students are encouraged to make up their own minds regarding personal position.' This latter attitude-that of sheer indifference to the most basic of all [Biblical] truths-is even more deplorable than promoting a compromise view. " -H. M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), p. 104.
Here are the results of a 1880 survey:
"At least one unofficial survey of evangelical and fundamentalist colleges in 1980, for example, indicated much more positive results than the 1973 Consortium survey discussed above. Of the 69 schools receiving questionnaires, 52 responded. Of these, 48 replied that they do consider the subject of origins very important, and 38 indicated that Genesis is interpreted literally. That means, however, that 31 of the 69 schools contacted were unwilling to be counted as teaching literal creation! Furthermore, only 24 of the schools said they teach that all things were created in six literal days out of nothing. This is less than half of even the schools that responded, so a compromising position on the supposed evolutionary ages of earth history is still a very real problem, even among schools that hold to biblical inerrancy." -H.M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), P. 105.
Christian colleges, seminaries, and denominational headquarters are moving away from a belief in Creation toward a strong compromise with evolutionary theory.
"Perhaps the most distressing evidence of the dominance of modern life and thought by evolutionism, however, is the fact that modern institutional Christianity itself has largely accepted evolution and reinterpreted the Bible and theology to fit it. Departments of philosophy and religion in secular universities have largely become completely humanistic, either atheistic or pantheistic. In Christian colleges and seminaries, especially in the main-line denominations, theistic evolution is all but universally accepted, with the early chapters of Genesis dismissed as spiritual allegories.
"This undermining of Christianity's foundations in Genesis has inevitably led to 'liberalization' of the rest of the Bible in many of these institutions, explaining away the miracles of the Bible and the traditional authorship of its sixty-six books' -H.M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), pp. 43-44.
In contrast to the denominational organizations, there are many local churches, especially the humbler ones, which are old-fashioned enough to believe what the Bible says. They accept Genesis and the record it gives about the Creation and the Flood:
"The number of [local] churches adhering to strict creationism is undoubtedly large and growing, but no statistical data exist on this, so far as I know. The hierarchies in the large denomination; are almost completely evolutionist-controlled, but many individual congregations (especially among the Baptists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians) show growing concern for creation. Some individual pastors and priests, even among the Catholics and the more liberal Protestant denominations, are creationists.
"The charismatic churches (Assemblies of God, Pentecostal, etc.) are an enigma. Most have held to the Gap Theory, and a significant number of their colleges (e.g., Oral Roberts University, Evangel College, CBN University) have a mixture on their faculties, with a goodly number teaching progressive creation or even theistic evolution . .
"Independent churches, especially the so-called Bible churches and independent Baptist churches are almost all at least nominally creationist, though some still hold to the Gap Theory and probably even more tend to downplay the creation issue as relatively unimportant.
"The Southern Baptists and Missouri Synod Lutherans are partial exceptions to the general trend of compromise and eventual apostasy in the mainline denominations." -H.M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), pp. 105-106.
ON WHICH SIDE DO YOU WANT TO BE? On the one side is the scientific evidence; on the other side is atheism, hoaxes, and political and economic coercion.
At the famous Darwinian Centennial Celebration, held in 1959 at the University of Chicago, *Julian Huxley said:
"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed." -*Sir Julian Huxley, in Sol Tax (ed.), Evolution After Darwin, Vol. 3 (1960), p. 45.
*Harlow Shapely, well-known astronomer, writer, and sponsor/joiner of Communist front organizations then said that it was not necessary to berate religion, since most modern religionists accepted evolution in its fuller sense:
"You spoke of their parting. But there are many kinds of religions. I have had much contact with the liberal clergy of America in the last two or three years; and they accept evolution, without objecting to it or worrying about it." -Op. cit., p. 46.
Why would any Christian want to have any philosophical fellowship with atheists? Here is the kind of thinking they have about the conscience and its promptings to obey moral standards:
"Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation [of evolution] put in place to further our reproductive ends . . Ethics is seen to have a solid foundation, not in divine guidance, but in the shared qualities of human nature and the desperate need for reciprocity." -*Michael Ruse and *Edward O. Wilson, "Evolution and Ethics," in New Scientist, October 17, 1885, p. 51-52.
Here is how these evolutionists explain away the voice of conscience:
"In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. . The way our biology forces its codes is by making us think that there is an objective higher code, to which we are all subject." -*Ibid.
*Allegro, an important Dead Seas Scroll translator and editor, made this statement for the encouragement of fellow atheists:
"For what religious man came eventually to think of as 'conscience' is simply the faculty that enabled his hominid ancestors to inhibit their programmed responses to stimuli in the interests of some longer-term advantage. 'Guilt' is the unease that accompanies and sometimes motivates that control, and 'god' is the idealist projection of the conscience in moral temps." -*John M. Allegro, "Divine Discontent, " in American Atheist, September 1986, p. 26.
Such concepts are ruinous to the welfare of humanity. Evolutionary theory is something to flee from! Have nothing to do with it! It will, erelong, destroy you if you begin accepting even part of it!
CRIME AND ABORTION We have seen the cause-effect relationship of evolutionary theory and immorality, warfare, racism, and mass destruction. Let us briefly look at its relationship to crime, hard drugs, abortion, and similar evils:
According to evolutionary theory, there is no right, no wrong, no divinity, no devil;-only evolution, which makes all things right!
"Unbridled self-indulgence on the part of one generation without regard to future ones is the modus operandi [manner of working] of biological evolution and may be regarded as rational behavior." -*W. H. Murdy, "Anthropocentrism: A Modern Version," in Science, March 28, 1975, p. 1169.
No wonder there is so much crime in our world today! Murder, lawlessness, robbery, and every other crime is acceptable under the Darwin and Darwin/Marx theories of evolution.
"Natural selection can favor egotism, hedonism, cowardice instead of bravery; cheating and exploitation."- *Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Ethics and Values in Biological and Cultural Evolution, "in Los Angeles Times, June 16, 1974, p. 6.
These are the teachings of evolutionists. Even *Arthur Keith, a leading evolutionist of his time, recognized that a great gulf separates evolutionary ideas from Christianity and Biblical teachings:
"As we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless and without mercy . . The law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution." -*Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (1947), p. 15.
No compassion, no pity, no help; just shove and do whatever you want. That is the teaching of evolution. Christianity and Darwinism are worlds apart.
"Evolution is a hard, inescapable mistress. There is just no room for compassion or good sportsmanship. Too many organisms are born, so, quite simply, a lot of them are going to have to die . . The only thing that does matter is, whether you leave more children carrying your genes than the next person leaves." -*Lorraine Lee Larison Cudmore, "The Center of Life, " in Science Digest, November 1977, p. 46.
*Gould mentions three possible evolutionary excuses for criminal action; but each one exonerates criminals as not responsible for their actions:
"Biological theories of criminality were scarcely new, but Lombroso gave the argument a novel evolutionary twist. Born criminals are not simply deranged or diseased; they are, literally throwbacks to a previous evolutionary stage." Steven Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin, p. 223.
On pages 134-140 of his book, Long War Against God, Henry Morris quotes evolutionists who teach that homosexuality is an advanced level of evolutionary progress, necessary for the perpetuation of the race, and that abortion is fully in accord with evolutionary theory, and should properly include, not only fetuses, but infants as well.
There is simply no comparison between Christianity and evolution! They are worlds apart!
"[Evolutionary] Science and religion are dramatically opposed at their deepest philosophical levels. And because the two world views make claims to the same intellectual territory that of the origin of the universe and humankind's relation to it-conflict is inevitable." -*Norman K Hall and *Lucia K. B. Hall, "Is the War between Science and Religion Over?" in The Humanist May/June 1986, p. 26.
*Will Durant was a humanist, but as an historian, he knew the past well enough that he was frightened at what evolutionary theory would do to humanity in the coming years:
"By offering evolution in place of God as a cause of history, Darwin removed the theological basis of the moral code of Christendom. And the moral code that has no fear of God is very shaky. That's the condition we are in." -*Will Durant "Are We in the Last Stage of a Pagan Period?" in Chicago Tribune, April 1980.
14 - BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CREATIONISM
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF CREATIONISM There are a number of half-Christian/half-Darwinist attempts to mingle Bible teachings with evolutionary theories. A common name used to refer to some of them is "evolutionary theism." The term itself means that the person adheres to many evolutionary beliefs, while somehow still retaining a belief that there is a God, and that, perhaps, part of the Bible is still true.
Rather than focusing our attention on a variety of compromises with evolution, we shall give our attention to the basic fundamentals of Biblical Creationism. These fundamentals would be as follows, and they are simple enough:
- God is an actual divine, all-knowledgeable, all-powerful, personal Being, a loving God, and not an immaterial force or "nature."
- God created everything in the universe. He created all things with and through His fully-divine Son, Jesus Christ.
- The Creator was not indebted to pre-existing matter in any of His creative acts.
- In regard to our world, God created it and everything in it during Creation Week. There was nothing existing on or in this planet prior to Creation Week.
- Creation Week was six literal, 24-hour days in length, with a literal, 24-hour seventh-day Sabbath terminating it.
- Creation Week can be approximately dated in time. Biblical chronology is able to give us that date. That date would only be a few thousand years before the time of Christ.
- No evolution of life (trans-species changes) occurred prior to, during, or since Creation Week.
- A world-wide Flood, recorded in Genesis 6-9 occurred less than 2,000 years after Creation Week.
The above eight points essentially summarize the basics of Biblical Creationism. If these facts are accepted, everything else falls into place. Three much-disputed facts summarize it:
- The Creator God, a personal, all-powerful, loving God, created this world and everything in it during a literal, 6-day Creation Week.
- Creation Week occurred only a few thousand years ago.
- The Genesis Flood occurred less than 2,000 years afterward
On the basis of Biblical chronology, the present writer places Creation Week at about 4000 B.C., and the Genesis Flood in the neighborhood of 2348 B.C.
The basic compromising error of evolutionary theists is to push the date for the creation of the world back to millions or billions of years ago, and then have life evolve "with God's help" upward through amoebas, tadpoles, and on up to monkeys and man. But while such a theory may agree almost completely with evolutionary theory, it is in total violation of scientific and Biblical facts and principles. It destroys the plan of salvation. We have already read a number of statements by confirmed evolutionists which say just that about this compromising viewpoint; committed creationists object just as strongly to such a gross misstatement of Biblical beliefs.
What the evolutionary theists are trying to do is to unite a nominal belief in Genesis with an acceptance of erroneous evolutionary theories in regard to fossils and sedimentary strata (see chapter 17), and dating methods (chapter 7).
Adam and Eve were created within five literal days after the creation of all other living creatures on the earth-and the earth itself. There was no death or sin on earth during or before Creation Week (and there was no earth or life here before that week either).
Long ages of time for earth's existence prior to that first six days of Genesis 1, would eliminate Creation Week. It would change a crucially important part of the Bible into a myth. Long ages of time and evolution would also eliminate the Biblical fact of "no sin" and "no death" prior to that single week. The story of the Fall of man and redemption through a coming Saviour, as recorded in Genesis 2 and 3 would also be wiped away.
Think hard about it: Are you willing to trade the Bible for *Darwin, *Marx, *Nietzsche, *Hitler, *Stalin, and *Mussolini? Are you willing to trade even part of that precious book for their beliefs?
For additional information, see the quotation supplement, " 3 - Comparing Creation and Evolution," in the appendix.
EVIDENCES OF THE FLOOD AND CREATION In this book we have discussed many evidences from the past. It is noteworthy that the great majority of them point us to the Genesis Flood. Many of those evidences will be found in chapters 17 and 19 (Fossils and Strata and The Flood). Everywhere you turn, you will see those evidences.
But are there no evidences of Creation? Yes, there are. Gaze upward at the stars, most of which circle other stars in binary systems without crashing together. In the winter skies find the triangle of Cassiopeia, endlessly pointing you northward toward the pole star; a short distance south of that triangle you will find an amazing object: the Great Nebula of Andromeda. Gaze upon it with a pair of binoculars. That massive galaxy contains over 200 million stars, all circling a giant stellar cluster. As described in chapter 4, that cluster is composed of over a hundred thousand stars whirling far up and out, and then back down into a common center, yet never striking one another.
Pick up an apple, look at it and think awhile. Smell it, taste it. Pluck a rose and think whether you could improve upon it. Look closely at a small bug crawling across your hand: those exquisitely tiny legs, and all working in perfect coordination. Watch a beetle land, and then carefully double fold its wings sideways under its trunk lid. Listen to the crickets at night. Gaze into the face of a young child; look at its delicate features, fingers, eyelids, and eyes,-and think! Stop listening to the theorists, and look at the facts for yourself. Remember that the evolutionists have a reason why they devised and cling to their theories.
Everything about you proclaims that a thinking, planning Creator of massive intelligence and power made everything. Every fourth chapter in this series of books is filled with evidences pointing to the Creator; evidences which deny the randomness of evolutionary change. Purpose and planning is to be seen all through nature.
Creationist writers often agree with the statement of evolutionists that there is no evidence for either evolution or creation. Nowhere in this set of books will you find that statement, for if is not correct. Yes, there is no evidence for evolutionary theory, but there are multiplied myriads of evidences loudly proclaiming that Creation did occur, it was carefully planned and carried out by a super-wise, super-powerful Being.
EVIDENCES OF CREATION WEEK There are powerful evidences all about us of the Flood and Creation. But are no evidences of Creation Week? Yes, there are two powerful evidences. The first is the weekly cycle and the second is the Bible Sabbath. Henry Morris will describe them to us:
"The most fascinating aspect of chronology is the history of the 'week,' which has no astronomical basis. The 'day' is measured by the regular appearance of the sun as the earth rotates; the 'year' is measured by the annual rotation of the heavens as the earth orbits the sun; the 'month' is measured approximately by the moon's lunations, or intervals between new moons, caused by the revolution around the earth.
"The week, however, has no astronomical basis at all, yet people everywhere have always observed a weekly cycle: six days of work and a day of rest . . There is no better explanation for this remarkable phenomenon than the one given by God himself:
"' Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shall not do any work . . For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20:&11).
"The basis of the six-day work week is nothing else than the six-day work week of God in creation! There is no other satisfactory explanation. Even evolutionists who deny the creation commemorate it once a week-they take their weekly day off from work just as though they believed the Bible!
"Incidentally, this fact [of a world-wide weekly cycle and rest day] is also a rebuke to those professedly Bible-believing Christians who accept the geological ages as their 'creation' period and call themselves 'progressive creationists.' They accept man's literal work week, but not God's. The fact is, however, that these days of God were literal days just like man's days: 'Six days may work be done, but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord . . It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed' (Exodus 31:15,17)." -Henry M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), pp. 310-311.
"It seems quite impossible to accept the day-age theory, regardless of the number of eminent scientists and theologians who have advocated it. The writer of Genesis 1 clearly intended to describe a creation accomplished in six literal days.
He could not possibly have expressed such a meaning any more clearly and emphatically than in the words and sentences which are actually used.
"Not only is a six-literal-day creation taught in Genesis, but also in Exodus in the Ten Commandments. The Fourth Commandment says: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God . . For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: . . and hallowed it.' (Exodus 20:8-11).
"It is quite clear that the six work days of God are identical in duration with the six days of man's work week. The basis for this very precise commandment is trivial and vacuous otherwise." -H.M. Morris, Scientific Creationism (1985), p. 225.
A LITERAL WEEK Creation week was like all the weeks that followed it: seven literal 24-hour days. Ken Ham, a staff member of Institute for Creation Research, explains it:
"If you are going to say the word 'day' means a long period of time in Genesis, then it has been already shown that the only way this can be is in the sense of the 'day' being an indefinite or indeterminate period of time, not a definite period of time. Thus the sense of Exodus 20:9-11 would have to be 'six indefinite periods shall thou labor and rest a seventh indefinite period.' This, however, makes no sense at all. By accepting the days as ordinary days, we understand that God is telling us He worked for six ordinary days and rested one ordinary day to set a pattern for man-the pattern of our seven-day week which we still have today." -Kenneth Ham, The Lie: Evolution (1987, P. 161.
In English, for the concept "day," we have to use special phrases to differentiate between the daylight hours only, or a 24-hour day. The Hebrews used distinctive terms also. They used a special phrase to indicate a 24-hour day: "evening and morning. "That meant from sunset to sunset; the darkness time followed by the sunlight time. We find the phrase in a number of passages in the Old Testament, such as Genesis 1:5, 8,13, 19, 23, 31, and Daniel 8:14. (In contrast, "morning and evening, " as found in Ex 18:13 and Acts 28:23 meant the daylight hours only.)
THE CHART OF THE WEEK We have observed that the evidence of Creation is all the created works about us. But, in addition, there are two special evidences that that creation occurred during Creation Week, as recorded in Genesis: (1) the universally-observed seven-day weekly cycle, and (2) the rest day at its end.
In 1886, William Mead Jones published a large Chart of the Week. On it will be found week and each day of the week-in 160 different languages of mankind-past and present. This mammoth research task occupied several years.
In most of those 160 languages, the word, "week, " generally means "seven" or "seven days, " and the word for the seventh day of the week means "rest," and in most instances is written and pronounced as "Sabbath" or something very similar.
Here is the name of the seventh day of the week in a sampling of nearly 40 languages:
Hebrew-shabbath / Greek-sabbaton / Latin-Sabbatum / Arabic-Assabt / Persian-Shambin / Russina-Subbota / Hindustani-Shamba / French-Samedi / Italian-Sabbaato / Spanish-Sabado / Old Egyptian-Seb / Towarek- A-hal es-sabt / Assyrian-Sa-ba-to / Ancient Syriac-Shab-ba-tho / Pashto-Shamba / Ancient Persian-Sabbati / Kurdish-Shamba / Turkish-Yom-es-sabt / Lazen-Asabatun l Beluchistani-Shambe / Chinese-Sai-bi-tai / Georgian-Shabatt / Malayan-Hari sabtu / Javanese-Saptoe / Borneo-Sabta / Swahili-As-sabi / Mandingo-Sibiti / Teda-Essebdu / Kanuri-Sibda / Fulfulde-Assebdu / Logone-Se-sibde / Wandala-Sibde / Bagrima-Sibbedi / Maba-Sorb / Norman French-Sabbedi / Ancient French-Samedi / Roman ecclesiastical-Sabbatum.
In each instance the meaning of the word is "Sabbath," or "rest." Clearly, the weekly cycle and the seventh-day Sabbath are both powerful witnesses to Creation Week. Creationists should value them as such, and share these facts with others. God has providentially given us both to stand as strong evidence, not only that He created everything in our world-but that He did it during Creation Week. It is obvious, from Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:17 quoted above by Morris, that God intended that the Sabbath-the birthday of the world-should stand as a perpetual memorial to Creation, and His Creatorship. And so it has turned out. By the simplest means, such as the seven-day week and the Sabbath at its end, He is honored as the Creator-and all the evolutionists in all the world cannot gainsay the fact.
Since its founding in 1963, the Creation Research Society has had as its strict creationist motto the words, "Haec credimus [this our creed]:For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh. -Exodus 20:11." This motto has been placed on the top front cover of every issue of their quarterly journal, which is the leading creationist magazine. The literal 6-day Creation Week stands at the heart of creationism.
THE UNCHANGEABLE WEEKLY CYCLE Here are several statements by historians regarding the perpetuity of the weekly cycle throughout history and in all nations of the globe. These statements point us to the truth of Creation Week, as given in Genesis 1. Yet it is the fact of this Creation Week which is denied by the various compromises by Christians to unite portions of evolutionary theory into Christian beliefs.
"One of the most striking collateral confirmations of the Mosaic history of the creation is the general adoption of the divisions of time into weeks, which extends from the Christian states of Europe to the remote shores of Hindustan, and has equally prevailed among the Hebrews, the Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, and northern barbarians-nations some of whom had little or no communication with others." Home, XXX Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 1 (1841 ed.), p. 69.
The seven-day week and the days of the week have never changed.
"The week has been followed for thousands of years and therefore has been hallowed by immemorial use." -Anders Donner, League of Nations Report on the Reform of the Calendar, published at Geneva, August 17, 1926, p. 51. [Astronomy professor, University of Helsingfors].
"Seven has been the ancient and honored number among the nations of the earth. They have measured their time by weeks from the beginning. The origin of this was the Sabbath of God." -Lyman Coleman, Brief Dissertation on the First Three Chapters of Genesis, p. 26.
"The only time reckoning on which the Christians, Moslems, and Jews agree in the Orient is that of the days of the week. These are numbered and called by their numbers, save Friday and Saturday, which are known [in Arabic] as 'the day of assembling,' and the 'day of the Sabbath.' -*Samuel M. Zwemer, "An Egyptian Government Almanac," quoted in The United Presbyterian, September 26, 1929.
"I have always hesitated to suggest breaking the continuity of the week, which without doubt is the most ancient scientific institution bequeathed to us by antiquity." -Edouard Baillaud, League of Nations Report on the Reform of the Calendar, published at Geneva, August 17, 1926, p. 52. [Director, Paris Observatory].
"The majority of the members of the Office of Longitudes considered that. . it would be highly undesirable to interrupt a continuity which has existed for so many centuries." -Emile Picard, p. 51. [Permanent secretary, French Academy of Sciences.]
The weekly cycle continues down from the beginning to our own time-unchanged.
"The week is a period of seven days.. It has been employed from time immemorial in almost all Eastern countries." -*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 4 (11th ed.), article: "Calendar," p. 988.
"Some of these (the Jews and also many Christians) accept the week as of divine institution, with which it is unlawful to tamper. Others, without these scruples, still feel that it is useful to maintain a time-unit that, unlike all others, has proceeded in an absolutely invariable manner since what may be called the dawn of history." -"Our Astronomical Column," Nature, June 6, 1931, p. 869.
In an attempt to deny Creation Week-and thus deny that God is the Creator and that He created all things on six literal days, men have declared that the weekly cycle has been altered at various times and cannot now be known. But this is an important matter. The seven-day Creation Week of Genesis 1 is not a myth-and we can trace directly back to it.
Historians and astronomers declare that the weekly cycle has never changed, and its days have never changed. Thus the days of the week (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) on our calendars today are accurate, and date back all the way to the beginning. These facts are important in defense of Creation Week and the God of Creation.
"There has been no change in our calendar in past centuries that has affected in any way the cycle of the week." -James Robertson, letter dated March 12, 1932. [Director, American Ephemeris, Navy Department, U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington D.C.]
"In the various changes of the calendar [the Julian and Gregorian calendars] there has been no change in the seven day rota of the week, which has come down from very early times." -F. W. Dyson, letter dated March 4, 1932 [Astronomer Royal, Royal Observatory, Greenwich England.)
"The week of seven days has been in use ever since the days of the Mosaic dispensation, and we have no reason for supposing that any irregularities have existed in the succession of weeks and their days from that time to the present." -W. W. Campbell, director, Lick Observatory, quoted in Beyond Pitcairn (1988), p. 169.
"In spite of all our dickerings with the calendar, it is patent that the human race never lost the septenary [seven day] sequence of week days and that the Sabbath of these latter times comes down to us from Adam, through the ages, without a single lapse." -Dr. Totten, astronomy professor, Yale University, quoted in Beyond Pitcairn (1988). p. 168
HAS THE CALENDAR BEEN CHANGED What are these "dickerings with the calendar," referred to above? Because of the importance of the weekly cycle in witnessing to Creation Week it is necessary to explain how we can know that the weekly cycle has never changed since the beginning:
We can trace the weekly cycle in Bible times through the Sabbath:
(1) God gave the weekly cycle of seven days, and the Sabbath rest on the seventh day, to Adam and Eve in the beginning. This fact is clearly stated in Scripture.
"And on the seventh day God ended His wok which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made." -Genesis 2:2-3.
The Bible Sabbath was clearly given to mankind as a memorial of Creation and Creation Week.
..Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shall not do any work . . For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lad blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." -Exodus 20:8-11.
(2) Adam and Eve observed the Sabbath and followed the seven-day weekly cycle, and taught it to their children. Noah, "perfect in his ways," kept it, and passed it on to his descendants after the Flood.
(3) Moses kept the seventh-day Sabbath and observed the weekly cycle. If he was keeping the wrong day, God would have corrected him at that time. Moses gave the written Ten Commandments to the people, with the weekly cycle and seventh-day Sabbath incorporated into it (Exodus 20:8-11).
(4) The Jews kept the Sabbath all the way down to the time of Christ. Prior to the birth of Christ, the weekly cycle with the Sabbath at its end, was taken into the Roman calendar. This Julian calendar was in use when Jesus Christ was upon the earth.
We have traced the weekly cycle from Creation to Sinai to Christ. Next, by means of the Julian and Gregorian calendars, we will trace the weekly cycle onward to our own time.
THE JULIAN CALENDAR The Julian Calendar was initiated by Julius Caesar about 50 years before the birth of Christ. It was a solar calendar, and consisted of three 365-day years, followed by one 366-day year. So it had the leap year principle.
(5) This calendar continued in use for fifteen centuries, but was not quite accurate in the length of its year. By 1582 the vernal equinox of March 21 had receded to March 11, or was 10 days off schedule. The length of the year was off, but this did not affect the weeks.
(6) A change was made to correct this at the time that Gregory XIII was the pope, and so the new calendar was called the Gregorian calendar. It began to function on Friday, the 5th of October, 1582. Friday the 5th was changed to Friday the 15th. But in all of this, the week remained untouched, and the days of the week were undisturbed. All the weeks of that year, 1582, were full seven-day weeks, just as were all the weeks of the years before and after 1582. The week before the 1582 change-over was a normal week and ran from September 23 to 29. The week after the change-over ran from October 17-23. Here is the very week in which that changeover was made:
THE LATIN CHANGE-OVER (1582)
Sunday September 30 / Monday October 1 / Tuesday October 2 / Wednesday October 3 / Thursday October 4 / Friday October 15 / Saturday October 16.
So the change-over week had as many days in it as always: seven days. But that changeover month (October 1582) was ten days shorter, and that year (1582) was ten days shorter. This brought the calendar back into proper order. The Julian calendar had 365 days in it, and the Gregorian calendar had 365 1/2 days in it.
Folk in Spain who retired to sleep on Thursday, October 4, awoke the next morning on Friday, the 15th. Some nations began the use of the new calendar at once. This included Spain, Portugal and Italy. France waited until December to adopt it.
Part of Germany made the changeover in 1583 and the rest of the nation waited until 1700. About that time the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark also accepted the new calendar.
Then in 1752, England and the American colonies made the change-over. By that time, eleven days had to be changed instead of ten. Wednesday, September 2, 1752 was followed by Thursday, September 14, 1752. Here is the week in which England made the changeover:
THE ENGLISH CHANGE-OVER (1752)
Sunday August 30 / Monday August 31 / Tuesday September 1 / Wednesday September 2 / Thursday September 14 / Friday September 15 / Saturday September 16.
Finally in 1919, Rumania, Serbia, and Turkey changed to the new calendar and Soviet Russia made the change soon after. That was only about 70 years ago.
For 337 years the calendars of Europe were mixed up, and the dates of the month were different. But all that time the days of the week were alike for they had never changed. When it was Monday in Russia, it was Monday in Germany, England, and Spain, though they were living under different calendars. That which the Encyclopedia Britannica called the "unalterable uniformity" of the week has never been affected by calendar changes.
(7) Thus, we today have the same weekly cycle, the same days of the week, and the same Sabbath that Christ, Moses, Noah, and Adam had. All over the world today, we have solid evidence of Creation week; the work week is identical to the work week of Creation Week, just as Morris mentioned in the quotation above. None of it has changed; it goes all the way back to the beginning of earth's origins.
But there is still another powerful evidence of Creation Week. The God of heaven knew that we would need to have clear-cut proof that He created all things in six days, as recorded in the book of Genesis. So He gave us the Jewish race.
Every other Near Eastern ethnic group has disappeared: the Hittites, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Moabites, Philistines-all are gone, absorbed into other groups. We today cannot identify any of those racial groups. But the Jews remain-and with them the integrity of the weekly cycle. Why is this so? Because they have always kept the Bible Sabbath. It has been about 3,440 years since the manna experience of Exodus 16, and the giving of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. But down through all that time they have kept the Sabbath.
Orthodox Jews throughout the world have kept strict record of time. They have carefully observed the seventh-day Sabbath throughout the ages. The existence of the Jewish race is alone able to settle the matter: the weekly cycle runs all the way back to the beginning. That cycle and the rest day at its end stand as solid memorials to Creation, Creation Week, and the Creator.
"The continuity of the week has crossed the centuries, and all known calendars." -D. Eginitis, director, Observatory of Athens, quoted in Beyond Pitcairn (1988), p. 169
"The division of time into weeks. . [is a] singular measure of time by periods of seven days [that] may be traced not only through the sacred history before the era of Moses, but in all ancient civilizations of every era, many of which could not possibly have derived their notion from Moses . . Among the learned of Egypt, the Brahmans of India, by Arabs, by Assyrians, as may be gathered from their astronomers and priests, this division was recognized.
[The Greek writer] Hesiod (900 B.C.) declares the seventh day is holy. And so also Homer and Calimachus. Even in the Saxon mythology, the division by weeks is prominent. Nay, even among the tribes of primitive worshipers in Africa, we are told that a peculiar feature of their religion is a weekly sacred day, the violation of which by labor will incur the wrath of their god. Traces of a similar division of time have been noticed among the Indians of the American continent.
"Now, on what other theory are these facts explicable than upon the supposition of a divinely ordained Sabbath at the origin of the race?" -*Christian Sabbath, " tract number 271, Presbyterian Board of Publication.
"It is a strange fact that even today there is a great deal of confusion concerning the question of so-called 'lost time.' Alterations that have been made to the calendar in the past have left the impression that time has actually been lost. In point of fact, of course, these adjustments were made to bring the calendar into closer agreement with the natural year [the solar year]. Now, unfortunately, this supposed 'lost time' is still being used to throw doubt upon the unbroken cycle of the seventh-day Sabbath that God inaugurated at the Creation. I am glad that I can add the witness of my scientific training to the irrevocable nature of the weekly cycle.
"Having been time computer at Greenwich [England Observatory] for many years, l can testify . . that all our days are in God's absolute control-relentlessly measured by the daily rotation of the earth on its axis. This daily period of rotation does not vary one-thousandth part of a second in thousands of years. Also . . the year is a very definite number of days. Consequently, it can be said with assurance that not a day has been lost since Creation, and all the calendar changes notwithstanding, there has been no break in the weekly cycle." -Sir Frank Jeffries, fellow, Royal Astronomical Society, and research director, Royal Observatory, Greenwich, England, quoted in Beyond Pitcairn (1988), p. 169.
TRYING TO DESTROY THE WEEKLY CYCLE On the time-keeping records of man the facts of Creation Week have been "writ large". The truth of Genesis 1 is engraved on all our calendars.
The hand of God has been against every effort to change the weekly cycle. It has never happened; it will never happen. The atheists know that the weekly cycle came from God, so they have tried to blot it out. Changing the length of the week would be the way to do this. Morris recognizes the importance of the matter, and gives us the historical facts pertaining to it:
"It is noteworthy that the two greatest atheistic regimes in history-the revolutionary governments of France in 1792 and Russia in 1929-tried to change the traditional week, hoping thereby to destroy Christianity. The French set up a ten-day week and the Soviets a five-day week, and both were rigidly enforced, but each lasted only a few years. Says Zerubavel:
"'The complete failure of the eleven-year Soviet calendrical experiment, just like that of its French predecessor 140 years earlier, attests to the tremendous resilience of tradition in general and of religion in particular.'
"The seven-day week stands as a unique and unanswered testimony to creation." -Henry M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), pp. 312313. [quoting Eviatar Zerubavel, The Seven Day Circle (1985), p. 43.]
WHY WESTERN CULTURE SURGED AHEAD Instead of trying to destroy the Christian heritage, modern scientists ought to appreciate the treasure to be found in the most ancient and most accurate record in the world, the Bible. It is that book which has helped Western Civilization at every step of its advance. It is the traditions and errors of men, not the words of Scripture which have hindered the progress of society.
It is a tragedy that in these last days, the very culture-Western Culture-which has been so much helped by Christian principles is so very willing now to trample them underfoot.
It was by following Christian principles and rejecting pagan ones, that the West surged forward ahead of the rest of the world:
"How did the West acquire in the first place its astonishing scientific lead? It did so by rejecting what was distinctly and fundamentally pagan in Greek science. . The newly established universities taught everything that could be known (that is why they were called universities) but they taught it from the Christian perspective, the cardinal and essential point of which is the dogma of creation in time." -Stanley L Jaki; "On Whose Side is History?" in National Review, August 23, 1985, p. 42
In the majority of cases, it was dedicated Christians which produced the best research work in the sciences (see chapter 29, History of Evolutionary Theory.),
"It is widely accepted on all sides that, far from undermining it, science is deeply indebted to Christianity and has been so from at least the scientific revolution. Recent historical research has uncovered many unexpected links between scientific enterprise and Biblical theology." -*Colin Russell, "Whigs and Professionals, " in Nature, April 26, 1984, p. 777.
The very premises upon which those advances were made were grounded in Christian principles.
"Scientific premises define and limit the scientific mode of thought. It should be pointed out, however, that each of these postulates had its origin in, or was consistent with, Christian theology." -Stanley D. Beck, "Natural Science and Creationist Theology, " in Bioscience, October 1982, p. 739.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE HISTORY OF THE CALENDAR
THE EARLIEST CALENDAR Throughout history, the seven-day length of the week has not been included in governmental edicts concerning the length of the month or year. The week has uniformly been seven days in length, with only a few short-lived attempts to change it. Because of that, calendar changes affect dates but not the days of the week.
All the oldest calendars were lunar calendars, based on the time interval between one new moon and another. The new month began when the first-quarter crescent was initially seen. The Norse had a lunar calendar of 10 months of 30 days each. The Jewish calendar was lunar, as was also the Babylonian. The Egyptians had a confused, loose calendar which Egyptologists called the "vague calendar" (see chapter 35).
The Assyrian calendar is a typical example of a lunar calendar: The month began with the first appearance of the lunar crescent in the evening. They knew that a lunation (lunar cycle) was 291/2 days long, so their lunar year was 354 days
in length, which was 11 days short of the solar year. After 3 years such a lunar calendar would be off by 33 days, or more
than one lunation. From time to time, with no definite pattern in mind, by proclamation the Assyrians would add an extra month.
The Romans invented an extra month, the Mercedonius, of 22 or 23 days which, every second year, was added to the year to correct the calendar. But since that extra day was included in the weekly cycle, it did not therefore alter it. Yet the Roman calendar was still so far off that Julius Caesar, following the advice of the Greek astronomer Sosigenes, ordered a sweeping reform in 45 B.C.
THE JULIAN CALENDAR In order to bring the calendar back into line with the seasons, by imperial decree, the first year was 445 days long. Henceforth the solar year, with a value of 365 days and 6 hours, was to be the length of this Julian calendar. This was the first dear-cut solar-year calendar in history. The months were 30 or 31 days in length, and every fourth year was made a 366-day year (leap year). Caesar also decreed that the year was to begin on January 1, not on the vernal equinox in late March.
That was the Julian calendar. It is still used today by the Greek Orthodox churches. But it was 11 1/2 minutes less than even Sosigenes' calculations of the solar year.
Bade (673-735), an Anglo-Saxon pastor-scientist, announced in A.D. 730 that the Julian year was 11 minutes, 14 seconds too long, but nothing was done about it. Roger Bacon (1220-1292) sent a letter to Pope Clement IV, who was busy with other projects. Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) wanted to change the calendar, but his advisor, the German astronomer Regiomontanus who arrived in Rome in 1475 to work out the change-over, died in the plague the next year and the project ended there.
THE GREGORIAN CALENDAR By 1582 the accumulated error was 10 days. At the prompting of scientists, in that year Pope Gregory XIII decreed that Thursday, October 4, 1582 would be the last day of the Julian calendar, and Friday would be called October 15, thus dropping 10 days. As was usual with all these calendar changes, the weekly cycle had not been altered. Christopher Clavius and Aloysius Giglio (Lilius in the Latin), two Italian mathematicians, worked out the details, which, simply stated would be this: Ever fourth year is a leap year unless it is a century year like 1700 or 1800. Century years can be leap years only when they are divisible by 400 (e.g., 1600). This rule eliminates three leap years in four centuries, making the calendar sufficiently correct for all ordinary purposes.
The average year of the Gregorian calendar is about 26 seconds longer than the earth's orbital period, but this discrepancy requires 3,323 years to build up to a single day. (Theoretically, since the early 1970s, we have been on accurate solar time: astronomers periodically add a "leap second" to their cesium clocks to correct them.)
THE UNBROKEN WEEKLY CYCLE From 1582 (When the southern European nations adopted it) until 1918 (when Russia accepted it) and 1949 (when Communist China returned to it), some major nations were on the Julian calendar while others were on the Gregorian. Throughout those centuries there has been abundant confusion regarding dates, but none (with the exception below) in regard to the week or the days of the week. The weekly seven-day cycle has continued unbroken.
The only exceptions have been quite obvious and very short-lived. In 1793, the French Revolutionary Government adopted a calendar of 12 months of 30 days each with 5 extra days in September of each common year and a 6th extra day every 4th year. For 13 years, many rural areas remained on the regular weekly cycle, while the moderns in the cities followed the revolution week. Napoleon reinstated the Gregorian calendar in 1806.
In 1834 an Italian priest, Marco Mastrofini, began the drive for a calendar reform which would change the weekly cycle. He suggested taking one day out of every year, making it a holiday-and not including that day in the weekly cycle. His proposed calendar would have one week in every year with eight days in It. His plan was that every year begin with January 1 on a Sunday. In leap years, there would be two unnamed holidays at the end of the year, producing a nine-day week at the end of those years.
About a decade later, Augusta Compte recommended a 364-day calendar with an extra day, called Year Day, which also would not be in the weekly cycle.
Since then other calls for calendar reforms which would change the weekly cycle have been made, but all efforts have been unsuccessful.
The unbroken, world-wide seven-day Weekly Cycle testifies to the truth of Creation Week! It attests to the veracity of the Genesis record, that the Creator made all things in our world in six days, and then rested on the seventh.
We can know that no significant civilized group ever lost the seven-day cycle, because when first discovered they were keeping it, and had it embedded in their language. The world as a whole has consistently observed the weekly cycle. Because of this, we can know that the seven days of the week today are the same as the seven days throughout ancient times. We can know that each of the seven days mentioned in the Bible are identical to those we now have. The only difference is that pagan names have since been assigned to the days (Sun's day, Moon's day, etc.). In Bible times, the days of the week were as follows: First day, Second day, Third day, Fourth day, Fifth day, Sixth (or preparation) day, the Sabbath.
You have completed
CHAPTER 33 - EVOLUTION AND SOCIETY Part 3