Most evolutionists say this fossil is millions of years old, but some creationists say it is a few thousand years old. What do you say? Read this article. Think it through. It's important!

There are three choices:

1. Assume God fashioned Adam out of dust and then made Eve from Adam's rib and the entire human race descended from these two parents. This may seem far-fetched.

2. Assume natural forces acted on mixtures of chemicals and gave rise to simple lifeforms and the entire human race evolved from these simple lifeforms. This, also, may seem far-fetched.

3. Choose not to think about questions such as the origin of the universe or creation vs. evolution.

You can choose one of these three. What's your choice? Are you satisfied with it?

If you are still hanging around choice 3, we encourage you to think about it until you come up with either choice 1 or 2. Both creation and evolution are scientific theories. There are no eye witnesses to either one. The rules of evidence apply, specifically, the rules of the scientific method (discussed later) which depend on the interpretation of data. How you personally interpret data affects how you personally view the results. The goal is to uncover truth, but not "personal truth," the real truth.

Choice 3 is a wimp-out. Nevertheless, millions of people choose it every day. Don't be one of them!

This article is designed for people who have not made up their minds about creation or evolution. We emphasize Bible-based creation because teachings about evolution are readily available. In fact, they saturate today's society.

Pondering questions about the origin of life, the origin of the universe, Bible creation, and secular evolution causes you to address issues that are much more important than choices 1 and 2 above. Consider, for instance, questions that can shape a young person's life, or help older people work through tough decisions. These are questions about God, mankind, and the Bible.

These questions usually remain unspoken when discussing creation and evolution. How do you answer them? See the last section for perspectives from both sides.

Questions like these are not usually addressed in formal creation vs. evolution studies, but they are absolutely essential for your own personal understanding of how the universe works. Your answers reveal your worldview,¹ which may be completely biblical, completely secular, or somewhere in between. If you are not ready to address questions like these, skip this article. But if you want to explore such matters in a biblical context, continue reading. Here is what you will find:

- Overview of Biblical Creation
- Quenching Our Thirst for Knowledge
- High Points of the Creation vs. Evolution Debate
- Seven Theories of Creation and Evolution
- Answers to Questions about God, mankind, and the Bible

There are three fundamental components in our magnificent universe space, time, and energy or matter. The Bible acknowledges these components but also tells of three additional components in a parallel, supernatural universe.

The book of Hebrews says:

Of what kind of faith does Hebrews speak? At one time during the Dark Ages, it was blind, religious faith. But we are not in the Dark Ages anymore. We have science, which has revealed God's handiwork in all the universe. Sir Isaac Newton, one of the world's greatest scientist,

saw God as masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.² - Wikipedia

Newton saw a harmonious connection between Bible-based faith and natural science. Other scientists over 300 of them, past and present, according to Wikipedia,³ including Galilei, Pascal, Kepler, Hales, Euler, Volta, Ampere, Hitchcock, Faraday, Babbage, Pasteur, Kelvin, Marconi, Bakker, Dodson, and others aligned themselves with Newton. However, just about every scientist today rejects Newton's approach.

Overview of Biblical Creation

Outline of the First Three Chapters of Genesis - The book of Genesis is so cool. Just about every Bible doctrine of the Old and New Testaments appears in Genesis in embryonic form.⁴ If we inspect the Genesis account of creation we find a triple parallel structure.

• First Account: God
  1. God creates space, time, and matter (Gensis 1:1)

• Second Account: The Universe
  1. Initial unformed state (Genesis 1:2)
  2. Six creation days (Sunday through Friday)
  3. Creation of mankind in God's image (Genesis 1:26)
  4. God's first covenant with men and women (Genesis 1:28ff)
  5. Sabbath day (Saturday)

• Third Account: Men and Women
  1. Creation of Adam from dust (Genesis 2:7)
  2. The garden of Eden
  3. Making of woman from Adam's rib (Genesis 1:21ff)
  4. Institution of marriage (Genesis 1:24)
  5. The first sin (Genesis 3:1ff)
  6. The bad consequences of sin
  7. The promise of redemption from sin's curse (Genesis 3:15)

The book of Genesis has three descriptions of God s creative activity. Adam and Eve appear in the third account. Before that, they are known only as mankind, the pinnacle of God's creative work.

Trying to interpret the first chapters of Genesis as one long sequence poses several problems. Instead, the Bible passages make good sense when seen as three parallel accounts, the first focusing on God, the second focusing on the universe, and the third focusing on mankind. Each part adds detail to the preceeding part. The third part sets the stage for the rest of the Bible. It ends with a veiled look at God's solution to man's sin problem, Jesus Christ (Genesis 3:15).

The Natural Universe - When someone studies the universe as a whole, its beginnings, dimensions, characteristics, and ultimate end, he or she is called a cosmologist (not a cosmetologist, who deals with beauty treatment). Modern cosmologists agree that the physical universe is made up of three basic components:

• Space
• Time
• Energy or Matter

Space, strange as it may seem, is not simple emptiness. Modern research shows that space is a physical thing, like time, energy, and matter, and it has physical characteristics. For instance, physicists tell us that space can be bent and stretched, which is pretty amazing to us regular folks. Not only that, Einstein proved that energy and matter are interchangeable, as expressed in his famous equation E = mc². Cosmology⁵ is heavy-duty thinking.

Back in Bible times, the science of cosmology had not advanced very far. So we don't expect to hear about the flexibility of space and the theory of relativity in the Bible. But we expect the Bible to be consistent with science, and so it is:

It is not difficult to imagine scientists in Bible times calling space heaven and matter earth. Likewise Genesis 1:1-5 includes morning and evening as passage of time. So the three components of the physical universe, i.e., space, time, and energy or matter, are present in the first five verses of the Bible. For these verses the Bible is consistent with modern science. But what about the remaining verses in the Bible? We address that question right now.

The Supernatural Universe - In addition to the three components of the natural universe, the Bible talks about three components of a supernatural universe, and here the Bible and secular science differ. Unlike Newton, today's scientists often restrict their thinking to the natural, physical universe. The supernatural has been systematically eliminated from secular science over the past 100 years or so.

Nevertheless, according to the Bible, God created three components of a supernatural universe:

• The Invisible Realm
• Eternity
• Soul or Spirit

Apart from physical existence, the Bible clearly speaks of a different and separate kind of existence: a spiritual existence, an autonomous existence, and existence we call supernatural, that is, apart from nature. Secular science constrains itself to what we can detect with human senses and rationalize with human minds. The Bible has no such constraints.

In addition to physical space, the Bible speaks of a realm not directly detected by the senses or mind: the invisible realm of Colossians 1:16:

While mankind lives in the visibile realm, God lives in the invisible realm, as do created beings such as angels and demons. Heavenly dwellings and hellish abodes are invisible also.

Even though they have not fully answered questions about the origin of life, most of today's scientists choose to ignore the Bible's claim of a supernatural ability to produce life directly.

Interestingly, modern astronomers have postulated the existence of invisible matter and energy in the universe. This dark matter⁶ and dark energy emit no light or radiation, and are therefore invisible to our instruments. Their presence, however, can be detected because they affect visible objects. Equating dark matter and dark energy to the Bible's invisible realm is a giant stretch, and the two are probably not related, but maybe they are. Time will tell.

The idea that God created time, but is separate from it, is seen in the Bible in several places, including the Genesis 'day' account (above), and the several 'I AM' statements which separate God from time. We live in a physical universe with sequential progression of moments, but God is always in the present, independent of time:

God is eternal. What, then, is eternity? Most people think of eternity as an unending passage of time. But that's not it. Eternity is its own thing, separate from time. Time is only a small bubble in the vastness of eternity, and God existed before He created space, time, matter, and energy. He formulated plans for you before the world began:

The final component of the Bible's invisible universe is called spirit, or sometimes soul. It is the raw material of life, and it is often compared with air, breath, wind, and the intangible, emotional workings of the human heart:

From a biblical viewpoint, the most important aspect of invisible spirit or soul is called Divine Image, introduced in Genesis here:

Consider God's 'incommunicable' attributes, such as unchangeableness, timelessness, omnipresence, and omniscience. They remind us how different we are compared to God. But there are many characteristics of God's divine nature that we share, at least to some extent. Attributes such as wisdom, compassion, truthfulness, faithfulness, love, abstract reasoning, mercy, acting counter to instinct, spirituality, written communication, pursuit of happiness, righteousness, creativity, wrath, free will, art, music, humor, morality, rationality, trade, and a sense of beauty are 'supernatural' attributes that do not occur to any extent in animals, but are predominant in mankind.⁷

No animal will ever spend an hour in prayer or sit down to discuss the merits of bovine philosophy. Animals do not ask themselves what makes them different. Nor do God-like attributes occur to any extent in the animal kingdom; they only appear in humans. Bestowing on mankind the ability to assimilate and reflect divine nature is an important component of the supernatural side of Bible creation.

How, then, did life begin? In the strict sense, theories of evolution do not address the basic existence of life. They address only how life changes over time, not how it began. Scientists are developing theories which start to describe natural processes by which life arose from non-living matter. Much work has been done. Look up 'abiogenesis' on the Internet. So far, no completely viable theories of abiogenesis have emerged.⁸

A simple, Bible-based explanation that God's 'Spirit or Soul' brings life to lifeless matter answers the question of abiogenesis. Instead of acknowledging some type of supernatural essence, that is, one not detected by human senses or rationalized by human reasoning, staunch evolutionists grasp for spontaneous generation,⁹ a theory long rejected by famous scientists such as Louis Pasteur.

Rejection of the supernatural leads to the irrational claim that nothing exists outside our own human capabilities. It is better for a scientist to say, 'I don't fully understand how life began, but I'm working on it,' than to assert as fact, 'Life began by itself.'

Quenching Our Thirst for Knowledge

Until science arrived, we had no way to find out if religious doctrines were true. Now science shines a light on religion. Mature faith complements science, and mature science compliments faith. They need not be adversaries.

Faith and Natural Science - It seems human beings have a built-in thirst for knowledge. We get uncomfortable when we do not understand things that intrigue us. Lacking understanding, we often devise explanations that quench our thirst and alleviate mental discomfort. Religion does that, but, until science arrived, there was no clear mechanism for testing these devised explanations. Now we have the scientific method and we can use it to test religious doctrine. In the Dark Ages, blind religious faith caused, well, darkness. Today, reasoned religious faith brings light.

To address origins, creation, and evolution, there are two sources of knowledge to draw on:

• Belief in the Bible
• Belief in natural science

It is easy to 'choose sides' and emphasize one over the other. Bible faith deals with things that are completely invisible forever (e.g., God, heaven, angels, demons), but natural science deals only with the visible or potentially visible (e.g., rocks, trees, planets, dark energy). Many Bible believers discount science and many scientists discount Bible faith. However, there is a good argument that says faith and science complement each other, and it takes both to formulate a comprehensive view of the universe.

One of our greatest thinkers, Albert Einstein, wrote in a 1941 proceedings:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.¹⁰ - Albert Einstein

Einstein was not Christian, nor was he an observant Jew in the normal senses of these words, nevertheless he included religious faith when trying to quench his thirst for knowledge. He acknowledged religion as part of the age-old quest for knowledge, which comes in-line with the 'evidence' portion of this Bible verse:

Judeo-Christian faith, then, provides evidence of the unseen, invisible, supernatural world described so vividly in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Nevertheless, most scientists today reject it, in spite of Einstein's assertion.

Science is new compared to religion. Modern science started in the late-1500s and is often attributed to the work of Galileo Galilei. Galileo used the scientific method to acquire new knowledge and correct previous knowledge, and he became famous in religious circles when he forcefully stated that the Earth revolves around the sun. The practicing Christian church, which was dark and devoid of scientific understanding at that time, humiliated and punished Galileo for contradicting their idea that the Earth was the center of the universe.

Not until the Protestant Reformation, sparked and enabled by science and technology, did the apostate church acknowledge that Galileo was right all along.¹¹ However, even with a growing body of scientific evidence for creation, most scientists today are like Galileo's church: they reject creation out of hand.

The Scientific Method - The scientific method¹² is an extremely powerful technique for uncovering knowledge. It has several steps, the most important of which are:

• Question - formulate a question, such as 'why is the sky blue?'
• Hypothesis - dream up an explanation which may answer the question
• Test - conduct experiments to gather evidence about the hypothesis
• Analyze - determine if the evidence supports the hypothesis or not

Science uncovers truth by repeating these steps many times. Results are not considered valid until the same outcome occurs over and over when tested in different ways and by different means. The process continues indefinitely. Nothing is ever settled completely, because new evidence may change scientific conclusions at any time. Einstein, for instance, discovered a new formulation for the law of gravity which was supposed to be 'finalized' centuries earlier by Newton.¹³

God does everything in creation, but evolution happens by itself when small changes operate over long periods of time. Which theory best fits your life? Creation or evolution? Have you decided yet?

The scientific method reigns in our natural human tendency to believe what we want to believe regardless of the facts. In other words, scientists are instructed to 'doubt everything' and let the scientific method uncover reality, no matter what the reality may be. So science is based on doubt, and doubt is the opposite of faith. If you eliminate one, either doubt or faith, you run the risk of missing true reality because you start with a poorly formulated question, postulate a flimsy hypothesis, neglect necessary tests, and analyze incomplete data.

The Bible portrays a personal, active, intimate Creator who pervades the universe. When you accept science as a discovery mechanism that reveals God's handiwork, you get one set of conclusions. But if you disconnect its creator from the universe, or if you deny any type of creator completely, you get another set of conclusions. Hence we have the ongoing creation vs. evolution debate today. Which type of scientist are you?

If you subscribe to science with a supernatural component, you are in a small minority. The percentage of American scientists who personally believe in a personal God has declined steadily over the years, from about 30 percent in 1914 to only 7 percent in 1998.¹⁴ The 7 percent figure drops to only 2 percent for scientists who subscribe to one of the most conservative forms of creationist thinking, specifically, that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.¹⁵

Two percent of scientists in favor of strict creationism is a very low number, but truth is not always determined by majority vote. In our view, the most of today's scientists are making grave errors by neglecting religious writings as a source of information and wisdom. They are doing lame science, according to Einstein, and worshipping a lame god, according to the book of Romans:

Human understanding of both Scripture and nature is imperfect. If the Bible is true and if full understanding can be achieved someday, there should be no conflict between Scripture and science. Many believers are intimidated by science, afraid it will somehow undermine their faith. Likewise, many scientists are convinced that believers reject scientific evidence in favor of Scripture. Both views are distorted. In fact, mature faith should embrace science, and mature science should embrace faith. They are not mutually exclusive.

High Points of the Creation vs Evolution Debate

What's the Difference? - The fundamental difference between Bible-based creation and atheistic evolution is that God does the former and nature does the latter. Our simple graphics highlight the dichotomy.

Modern evolutionary theory says the universe is 13.8 billion years old. In contrast, 'young earth' creationism, which is the most Bible-compliant branch of creationist thinking, says the universe is about 6,000 years old. Note: mya = millions of years ago

In the biblical view of creation, God not only creates life and nature, but interacts with them on a continual basis. In contrast, standard evolutionary theory does not include God at all, and interaction is limited to that between life and nature. Time and change (including small random changes) are important for evolution, but of little consequence for creation, wherein God deliberately creates and cares for the universe eternally.

Terminology - Please note that terminology is always an issue when discussing complex subjects. Our general headings 'creation' and 'evolution' have many sub-headings that provide more detail. For instance, terms like neo-creationishm, intelligent design, flood geology, and young earth are associated with the general heading 'creation,' while natural selection, biased mutation, genetic drift, and punctuated equilibrium correspond to 'evolution.' For this article, we stick with the overall view and use the general headings without much detail for the sub-headings.

Chronostratigraphics - Good representations of the marked differences between creation and evolution are found in global chronostratigraphic columns, sometimes known as stratigraphic columns or geologic columns. These are 'the traditional means of presenting measured geologic sequences as a figure arranged with the youngest rock unit at the top and the oldest rock unit at the bottom.'¹⁶

Our graphic (above) presents a typical evolution-based timeline with a creation-based one. The differences are remarkable. Evolution claims the age of the universe to be 13.8 billion years, while creation says the age of the universe is a scant 6000 years. Now that's a difference!

Chronostratigraphy shows fossils in age order from bottom to top, reaching back to millions of years ago (mya). However, fossils are rarely found in strict order, and not all rock strata are old. Fossilized trees can span many strata, and these strata cannot be more than a few years old.

Secular history tells us that the Bible's Abraham lived about 2000 BC (before Christ, or BCE, before common era), at the dawn of recorded history. Time before Abraham is called pre-historic time. Jesus was born at 0 AD (anno Domini, or CE, common era), and Johannes Gutenberg, born around 1400 AD, ushered in the modern period of human history with his invention of movable type printing.¹⁷

Chronostratigraphy is an endeavor that aims to correlate the sequence of rock strata with time. Evolutionists use this to assign age to rock layers and the fossils they contain. Generally, older fossils appear in the deeper layers, and younger fossils appear on top. But this is not always the case. Uplifts, outcrops and similar rock movement sometimes place older fossils on top of younger ones. Also, in contrast, creationists point out that presumed 'young' and 'old' fossils are often found mixed together, supporting the view that creatures became fossilized according to habitats, not according to time.

One of the most dramatic exceptions to strict chronostratigraphic order appears in fossilized tree trunks. Quite often these trunks cross boundaries in the rock strata, indicating that multiple strata can be laid down rapidly, at almost the same time, rather than over centuries or millenia of time. So geologic columns with trilobytes and other ancient fossils at the bottom, and horses and other recent fossils at the top, are reasonable, especially when they are very deep, but there are exceptions in cases of rapid sedimentation.

Six Days of Creation - To further develop the contrasts between creation and evolution, consider this simplified summary of creation week as described in Genesis:

• Before creation: God exists (verse 1 of Genesis 1)
• Day 1: Dark, empty, watered abyss (verse 2) and light (verses 3-5)
• Day 2: Sky, heaven, or expanse (verses 6-8)
• Day 3: Plants (verses 4-13)
• Day 4: Sun, moon, and stars (verses 14-19)
• Day 5: Fish and birds (verses 20-23)
• Day 6: Creeping things, land animals, and mankind (verses 24-31)
• Day 7: Sabbath rest (verses 1-3 of Genesis 2)

Except for scant similarities, there are vast differences between modern evolutionary theory and the Genesis account. One of these theories is closer to the truth, and it is up to you to weigh the evidence and decide which theory warrants application to your personal life. We encourage you to gather plenty of evidence, think it through, and decide for yourself.

	Pro-Evolution	Pro-Creation
Alike.	The universe appears suddenly.	The universe appears suddenly.
Alike.	Water animals come before land animals.	Water animals come before land animals.
Different.	The sun produces light.	Light is present before the sun.
Different.	The sun produces a system of planets.	Planet Earth exists before the sun.
Different.	Water forms on the earth.	Water is present before the earth appears.
Different.	Plants live in sunshine.	Plants live, at first, without sunshine.
Different.	Reptiles evolve into birds.	Birds appear before reptiles.
Different.	Men and women evolve from lower animals.	Resembling God, men and women have no animal ancestors.
Different.	Death comes before mankind.	Mankind comes before death.
Intriguing.	'Let there be light' could be an ancient understanding of the Big Bang.	Big Bang or no Big Bang, creation is fully God's doing.
Intriguing.	With no sun to tell time, the first three days in Genesis could be billions of years.	Starting with nothing, God created everything in six twenty-four hour days.

Regarding Genesis 1:1 to 2:3, sharp contradictions separate evolution from creation. So stated, it is almost impossible to reconcile the two theories. Nevertheless, one of them is closer to the truth.

Examples from the Debate - Much of the rhetoric in the creation vs. evolution debate is very nasty. Both sides dig in and then wage war with personal attacks. Finding reasoned, unbiased logic on the Internet is difficult. We relied on the following resources when constructing this article:

• Pro-creation: Grudem, Systematic Theology¹⁸
• Pro-creation: Snyder, Does Creation Really Matter¹⁹
• Pro-evolution: TalkOrigins.org²⁰
• Pro-evolution: Wikipedia.org/Evolution²¹

Recently discovered fossils of archaeopteryx, an extinct, feathered creature, show a possible missing link between dinosaurs and birds. Evolutionists like the missing link idea. Creationists say archaeopteryx is a bird, not a dinosaur growing feathers out of reptilian scales.

The TalkOrigins web site has a masterful index of creation claims, each with a reference to creationist material and each refuted by evolutionist material. It is a good place to grasp the scope of the debate. The tables shown here provie a small number of examples taken from the TalkOrigins index.²²

There are about 450 separate topics addressed in the index, under headings such as Biology, Paleontology, Geology, Astronomy, Philosophy, Cosmology, Physics, and Mathematics, but TalkOrigins excludes the most important topics for personal understanding. The topics we believe are important are shown under Answers to Questions about God, Mankind, and the Bible at the end of this article. Our topics are not addressed by TalkOrigins.org.

Pro-Evolution	Pro-Creation
Origin of life. At first, nature produced life from lifeless matter. Today, new life does not appear because any occurrence of partially-formed life is quickly eaten by life that already exists.	If life could come from lifeless matter, new life should be appearing even today. It's not.
Dinosaurs. Dinosaurs ruled the earth millions of years ago and became extinct when an asteroid hit the Earth near the Gulf of Mexico and caused worldwide conditions unable to support dinosaur life.	The Bible makes several references to dinosaur-like creatures, and geologic and cultural evidence indicates they lived alongside mankind for a period of time, going extinct, perhaps, from agressive hunting or changing weather conditions.
Language. The ability to convey information using language provides a strong advantage in natural selection. This is one factor that explains the extraordinary success of human beings. More research is needed to fully understand the evolution of language.	Humans have language, even well-developed written language. If evolution were true, other successful species like bacteria, earthworms, and chimpanzees would have well developed language also, but they don't.
Complexity of life. Complexity only indicates that something is difficult to understand. It does not preclude evolutionary development of complex things like DNA molecules. Recent work shows that DNA probably comes from a chaotic "soup" of molecules known as the RNA world.	A single DNA molecule contains hundreds of millions of basic structures called nucleotides. These occur in precisely ordered sequences and the sequences furnish information for life. Generally, information comes from intelligence, not from randomness or chaos.
Soft tissue in fossils. Scientists have discovered long-time preservation mechanisms that involve hemoglobin in animal blood. These mechanisms may preserve tissue for a very long time, even millions of years.	In 2004, a scientist found intact blood cells, cartilage and other soft tissues in a T-rex dinosaur fossil. Other examples have been found since then. It is preposterous to assert that these fossils are millions of years old.
Consciousness. Science does not yet fully understand consciousness. There are some preliminary results that indicate it evolved.	Animals and man are conscious beings, and man has a moral compass. Evolution does not explain consciousness or morality.

This table highlights a very small sample of the 450 individual topics that make up the creation vs. evolution controversy. In contrast, we ask only 9 questions to settle the matter. See Answers to Questions about God, Mankind, and the Bible at the end of this article.

Pro-Evolution	Pro-Creation
Archaeopteryx. Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx, a dinosaur with feathers, is one of the 'missing links' between dinosaurs and birds.	Archaeopteryx is not a dinosaur. It is an extinct bird. It has no true transitional structure such as a part-scale, part-feather.
Sea floor sediment. Shifting plates on the earth's surface (plate tectonics) dramatically affect sedimentation of the sea floor, demonstrating why Pacific sea floor sediment is so thin.	Good agreement with today's observed sea floor sediment (about 1300 feet thick) is achieved when Genesis-based parameters are applied to sea sediment models.
Sea salt. There are several natural processes that remove salt from sea water. Even though new salt is added to the sea every year, these natural processes keep sea saltiness in check.	If material from dry land had been pouring into the sea for billions of years, the salt content of sea water would be very high. In fact, it is very low.
Radiometric dating. Radiometric dating has problems with reliability and accuracy, but these problems are not insurmountable. Correlation with other dating methods, e.g., varves, validates results.	Lava rocks, which we know were formed recently, have been radiometrically dated at millions of years old. This dating method is often erroneous.
Earth's magnetic field. The earth's magnetic field is caused by a self-sustaining dynamo inside the earth, which produces electrical currents. These currents do not decay.	The earth's magnetic field is caused by internal electrical currents that have been decaying since the earth was formed. If the earth were very old, the magnetic field would be gone by now.
Jupiter's cooling. Since the formation of the solar system, Jupiter has been cooling slowly. It could still be radiating its primordial heat.	Jupiter releases about twice the amount of energy it receives from the sun into space, creating a cooling effect. If it were billions of years old, Jupiter would be totally cool by now.
Varves. Varves are annual sediment layers that occur in large lakes. They are straightforward to meaure, cover millions of years, and correlate well with other dating mechanisms.	Counting varve layers is not a reliable way to determine age, because one layer does not necessarily correspond to one year. Day-to-day weather events such as storms can deposit multiple varve layers.

Here are a few more examples from the creation vs. evolution debate. A thorough treatment of the debate must answer questions from Biology, Paleontology, Geology, and several other academic disciplines.

Deism - A religious view known as Deism²³ comes somewhere between the two extremes of pure creationism and pure evolution. Deists believe in God as creator, but they reject his day-to-day interaction with the universe, relying, instead, on natural laws to get things done. Deism is sometimes called natural religion and it appeals to many people worldwide, evolutionists in particular.

Deism is a popular religion which acknowledges God as the Creator of the universe but denies most of the Bible's supernatural elements, including all miracles and the divinity of Christ. Thomas Jefferson favored Deist thinking.

Thomas Jefferson contributed immeasurably to the extraordinary success of America during its early years. He personally shunned religious labels, but his views of religion embraced many deistic principles. Jefferson denounced atheism and believed God was the author of life and nature, and he subscribed to the idea that God sustains creation on an ongoing basis. His alignment with Deism becomes apparent when one considers his denial of Jesus's divinity and his rejection of biblical miracles, even to the point that he physically removed, with a razor, those portions of the four Gospels.²⁴

Deists, then, are evolutionists who believe in God, but they are not Christians or Jews in the biblical sense. Deists remove the supernatural elements from the Bible, leaving only history, poetry, and codes of ethics such as the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

Deism is a viable and successful religion, but Deist philosophy is diluted by its lukewarm approach to spiritual matters. Deists can easily miss out on lifetime benefits which come from prayer, praise, worship, interaction with other believers, Bible-holy living, charitable giving, and helping other people. In fact, most lukewarm Christians today are really Deists who do not know it. The definitive passage for lukewarm Christians is in Revelation 3:

If you are a Christian, make sure you are hot, not lukewarm!

Seven Theories of Creation and Evolution

Answers in Genesis, a four-volume set by Ken Ham, is a definitive reference for young earth creationism, the most Bible-compliant form of creationist thinking. A fifth volume addresses Noah's flood, which is an important part of the scientific creation model. (Illustration by Monica Minto. 'Answers' used by permission AnswersinGenesis.org)

Old Earth or Young Earth - Many evolution-minded scientists tell us that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that is a lot of years. This length of time is based on various dating methods, most notably radiometric dating, which is a scientific technique that discovers the age of rocks based on the amount of radioactive material they contain. On the other hand, a few creation-minded scientists tell us the earth is about 6,000 years old, and that is a lot different than 4.5 billion years. The young earth age is based on reconciling Scripture with observed geological phenomena around the planet. Young earth people assert that radiometric dating and other standard scientific methods used to validate it,²⁵ such as coral growth rings, ice cores, varves, and the like, are flawed and unreliable.

In addition to major debates between evolutionists and creationists, there are minor debates among evolutionists and creationists themselves. For instance, evolutionists argue about continuous natural selection verus punctuated equilibrium, and creationists postulate both old earth and young earth models. While a young Earth position is supported directly by Scripture, there are also interpretations of the Bible that support old Earth dating.

We catalog 7 prevailing theories about the origin and development of the universe in three categories:

• Theories not compatible with the Bible
  • Steady State
  • Big Bang
  • Darwinian Evolution
• Theories somewhat compatible with the Bible
  • Deism and Theistic Evolution (old Earth)
  • Gap (old Earth)
  • Day-Age (old Earth)
• Theories compatible with the Bible
  • Creation with Appearance of Age (young Earth)

The Steady State Theory - The Steady State theory²⁶ has recently been pushed aside by its competitor, the Big Bang theory. Steady State says the universe has always existed, while Big Bang says it has a definitive beginning.

Steady State and Big Bang are two theories of the origin of the universe. They are not compatible with the Bible. For one thing, they start with something and the biblical universe starts with nothing.

Today everyone agrees that the universe is expanding. It is getting bigger and bigger by the moment. You can see this expansion using the latest technological innovations, such as space-borne telescopes and modern radio astronomy. However, the idea of an expanding universe did not enter scientific thinking until the mid 1900s. Before that time a philosophy called the perfect cosmological principle prevailed. This principle asserts that the universe is static and unchanging, and great thinkers like Albert Einstein subscribed to it.

If, indeed, the universe is expanding, the Steady State theory requires that new matter come into existence continuously so that it always looks the same and does not appear to be thinning out. Astronomers tell us that to support the Steady State theory, the rate of creation of new matter must be about 10³² kilograms per second, where 10 is the number 1 followed by 32 zeroes, or 100 million trillion trillion kilograms every second. Wow.

The modern version of the Big Bang theory is not an explosion, but the sudden appearance of everything at once. Some creationists, and even some evolutionists, believe the Big Bang is what happened when God said 'Let there be light' in Genesis 1:3.

The Big Bang Theory - The main difference between the newer Big Bang theory²⁷ and the older Steady State theory is that, with the Big Bang, the universe had a starting point. Scientists compute the starting point to be about 13.8 billion years ago. The philosophical underpinning the Big Bang is called the cosmological principle, which is slightly different than the perfect cosmological principle that supports the Steady State theory.

Albert Einstein had to modify his own personal beliefs when he developed the General Theory of Relativity because, even though his invention clarified several anomalies in the universe (e.g., the peculiar orbit of the planet Mercury), it muddled the perfect cosmological principle to which Einstein had previously subscribed. Such give-and-take is how scientific discovery works. The Big Bang theory crushes all prior theories because it matches mathematical results to observations much better than any other theory.

Interestingly, the Big Bang theory is much closer to the Bible than the Steady State theory. With Big Bang, there is a Genesis-style beginning, but with Steady State, there is no such beginning. The move of science toward the Bible is encouraging to many Bible believers, but it is meaningless to scientists. Scientists, on purpose, expect things to change as they refine their theories further and further. The next change could be away from the Bible, or it could be toward the Bible. It doesn't matter to scientists. They just want to get closer to the truth. Some Bible believers need to learn this lesson. Remember Galileo?

Both Steady State and Big Bang theories are not compatible with the Bible. The Bible clearly requires us to believe that God created the universe out of nothing. There are many verses which assert this, for example:

Since both the Steady State theory and the Big Bang theory require something to be present in the universe at all times, they are not compatible with ex nihilo (out of nothing) creation. The Steady State theory purports space, time, and energy always existed. The Big Bang postulates a super-hot volume of sub-atomic particles at the beginning, although the theory expressly excludes how or why that volume came into being. In other words, the current version of the Big Bang theory leaves a door cracked open for supernatural intervention at the beginning. This is the view of most Deists and lukewarm Christians and Jews.

The philosophy behind out-of-nothing creation is causality, or the law of cause and effect. Causality states that every effect has a cause. In this case, the effect is the universe and the Cause is God. Steady State violates causality because there is no cause of the universe. Big Bang circumvents causality because cause is excluded from the theory. Atheistic science has not yet devised testable theories for the cause of the universe.

Some Christian theologians reject ex nihilo creation, saying that something was present before God started His creative work. This, then, makes Genesis very compatible with the Big Bang theory. The thing that was present was water, perhaps an ancient understanding of sub-atomic particles:

The light was the Big Bang. This would solve a lot of problems, but honest analysis of Scripture points to out-of-nothing creation, not out-of-something creation. In addition to Genesis 1:1 and several Old Testament scriptures (e.g., Psalms 33:6ff), there are many New Testament scriptures that require us to subscribe to the out-of-nothing account. Here is an example:

It is difficult to interpret all things as everything except water.

Darwinian Evolution - British naturalist and geologist Charles Darwin is best known for his theory of evolution that states (1) all life on Earth comes from one common ancestor, and (2) it slowly evolves in small steps controlled by forces known as natural selection, sometimes known as survival of the fittest.

Darwinian evolution asserts that man and apes descended from a common ancestor. This appeals to non-believers; they need not answer to a supreme God. It frustrates believers; the Bible says man is special, distinct from animals.

Darwinian evolution is remarkably durable. First published in 1859, ideas of common ancestry and natural selection still underpin the refined and updated evolutionary theory known as modern evolutionary synthesis. A comprehensive and interesting web site, Darwin Online,²⁸ captures his life work, including fascinating digital images of Darwin's notes and sketches.

While there are evidences for and against Darwin, there are also ominous moral consequences associated with it. Morally:

• Of course it is true that strict adherence to religious dogma can lead to abuse of human life (e.g., Islamic terrorism), but fostering imprecise human origins can also lead to abuse of human life, including neglect of the weak and defenseless (e.g., late-term abortion and human euthanasia), and visions of master race supremacy (e.g., Nazi Germany). In contrast, when the exceptional nature of mankind is emphasized, human equality prevails.
• Equating mankind and animals can lead to reckless living, rejecting moral codes and going instead with with Just Do It attitudes with no regard for future consequences. Pragmatic, live-for-the-moment thinking often leads directly to unbridled poverty, drug addiction, unwanted pregnancy, and oh, yes, hell itself.
• Traditional values hold society together and America's departure from them started with the sexual revolutions of the 1920s and 1960s. The best evidence of the positive impact of Bible-based moral codes is the overwhelming success of European and American cultures over non-biblical cultures of the same time period and starting points.

Supercharged with moral implications, rational evidence often takes a back seat. Zealots on both sides of the debate, for and against Darwin, make harsh and rash statements. Discounting such noise, here are a few more examples supporting the Darwinian model:

• Scientist concensus - a large majority of today's scientists adhere to a secular worldview, and tend to agree with Darwin. Scientists with a biblical worldview are in the scant minority.
• Selective breeding - practiced for centuries, gives rise to different breeds of dogs, plants, farm animals, and the rest. The basic idea is to amplify desired traits which, according to Darwin, nature does by herself and can ultimately produce not only different breeds, but different species of animals over millions of years.
• Geographical distribution - life forms tend to group geographically on the Earth's surface, this might indicate common ancestry
• Court rulings - various US courts, including the Supreme Court, have found in favor of evolutionists when creationists try to balance the treatment of creation and evolution in public discourse.

Arguments against Darwinian evolution include:

• Biblical reference - nothing in the Bible remotely resembles a single common ancestor or a process of natural selection apart from God but, in contrast, the Bible says God created several kinds of creatures. Not once in human history has anyone witnessed the changing of one kind into another. No one has seen a dog becoming a cat, for instance, or even an amoeba becoming a paramecium.
• Return to the wild - nature appears to favor wild states of organisms, rather than new evolved states; left alone, organisms return to stable, original types; this indicates that natural selection inhibits evolution rather than promotes it.
• Transitional fossils elude scientists - recent discoveries of, for instance, Archaeopteryx (mentioned above) may point to actual missing links in the evolutionary model. Indeed, the list of presumed transitional species found so far is substantial, but it does not unquestionably connect one species with another. The list is tentative and partial. ²⁹ Darwin himself acknowledged this weakness in his original theory. Modern paleontologist Steven Stanley rejects gradualistic models such as natural selection in his work on evolutionary theory, favoring punctuated equilibrium instead.
• Taught in school - a few US states, notably Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida allow creation to be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

As with the broader evolution vs creation battle, cooperation rather than rank arrogance would certainly uncover more evidence faster. The strong moral issues associated with the Darwin debate stir a lot of cloudiness into evidence gathering on both sides. But, even with mountains of evidence, interpreting evidence is a matter of personal worldviews. Changing one's personal worldview usually comes through revelation, not analysis.

Theistic evolution says God guides and adjusts the evolution process, but it denies God's daily interaction with the universe and the people in it, as the Bible clearly portrays.

Deism and Theistic Evolution - Deism, addressed above, views God as the initial author of life and nature but lets evolution do the rest. A similar view, called theistic evolution,³⁰ adds God to evolution in a different way. Theistic evolution says that God guides the evolutionary process as it moves along, making tuning adjustments so things come out according to plan. Both Deism and theistic evolution are very compatible with each other and with scientific endeavors, but they are not at all compatible with even a liberal interpretation of the Bible.

About one half of the Bible's text describes God's interaction with world history. This interaction is continuous and ongoing, not a one-time thing (Deism), and it is also very deliberate and purposeful, not tweaks and adjustments to an on-going process (theistic evolution). This verse in Psalms conveys the immediacy and power of God's creative Word:

The words 'For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast' imply immediate, all-powerful, deliberate action.

For these reasons, plus other reasons not mentioned here explicitly, Deism and theistic evolution do not form a reliable bridge between Bible interpretation and modern science. They require both to to give in a little to reach compromise. However, Deism and theistic evolution are acceptable to many people, including some Judeo-Christian believers and some scientists.

The Gap theory of creation proposes two distinct creations, separated by a gap in time. The gap may be very long, up to billions of years. This makes the Gap theory compatible with evolutionary time scales.

The Gap Theory (Old Earth) - Scientists build theories by constructing possible models and comparing them to observations using mathematics. Bible theologians build theories by constructing possible scenarios and comparing them to Scripture using hermeneutics,³¹ the theory of text interpretation.

The Gap theory³² proposes that there is a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2:

- [A] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1)
- [B] Time gap, possibly billions of years
- [C] And the earth was without form, and void (Genesis 1:2(a))

The normal, six day creation picks up after Genesis 1:2. But this is really a second creation, the first occurring before the gap.

Since the Bible has nothing to say about what happens during the gap, many gap theorists feel free to construct most any scenario. Usually scenarios chosen correspond to modern scientific results. For instance, dinosaurs may have lived during the gap, and this explains their fossil record. Evil may have flourished during the gap, including the fall of Satan from heaven to earth. Of course there are over-the-top gap arguments, including visits from extra-terrestrials and large Atlantis-style civilizations. At a minimum, the Gap theory provides a reconciliation between young earth and old earth scenarios.

Hermeneutically, the Gap theory suffers major problems, the most severe of which is that no verse in the Bible, not even one, gives explicit support to an earlier creation. There are several other problems as well.

The Day-age theory of creation allows more than twenty-four hours in each day of Genesis 1. Like the Gap theory, it is compatible with evolutionary time scales.

The Day-age theory of creation allows more than twenty-four hours in each day of Genesis 1. Like the Gap theory, it is compatible with evolutionary time scales.

The Day-Age Theory (Old Earth) - From a God-confirming standpoint, creation of the universe took place in a sequence of six twenty-four-hour days. At the other extreme, a God-denying view says that Genesis is simply a fictional allegory, not an historical account. Somewhere along this continuum between God-confirming and God-denying, a Bible interpretation known as the Day-age theory³³ comes into play. Here, the six days of Genesis are really six spans of time, or ages, that may last millions of years or longer. Hebrew scholars take differing views on this subject, but some allow the word day to refer to a period longer than twenty-four hours. The Day-age theory, however, is not without theological problems.

One such problem for the Day-Age theory is that animals would have to die before the time of Adam and Eve, creating the fossil record. While this is possible, it is generally held that death did not start until Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3). A second problem is that plants would have to grow without sunlight for millions of years, since they were created before the sun was created. These, and similar problems of Bible interpretation, add doubt to the viability of the Day-Age theory.

However, the parallel nature of the Bible's creation account, sometimes called the Framework Hypothesis,³⁴ can be used to soften the strict order of creation, answering some of the theological problems with Day-age. You can interpret the six days of creation as a single sequence in time, or you can see a parallel structure:

• First Account: Forming the Universe
  • Day 1: Light and darkness separated
  • Day 2: Sky and waters separated
  • Day 3: Dry land and seas separated

• Second Account: Filling the Universe
  • Day 4: Sun, moon, and stars
  • Day 5: Fish and birds
  • Day 6: Animals and mankind

Both interpretations, pure sequential or parallel, preserve the most important aspects of Genesis 1: (1) God is the Creator, and (2) Creation took six days.

At the expense of literal Bible interpretation, the Day-age theory tries to reconcile biblical creation with secular evolution. It is a view supported by many people today, both Bible believers and otherwise.

Young earth creationism asserts that God created the universe with an appearance of age, like a watchmaker makes a timepiece, and then starts it running. Young earth creationism rejects modern evolutionary theories in favor full Bible compliance.(Illustration by Monica Minto. Concept photo by jinjo0222988 of istockphoto.com)

Creation with Appearance of Age (Young Earth) - People who believe the earth is young, a few thousand years old, generally subscribe to the idea that God created the universe with an appearance of age.³⁵ Adam and Eve, for instance, were not created as infants, but as mature adults. Extensions of this idea allow chickens to be created before eggs, trees to be created full grown, geological formations to be created in place, rather than requiring eons to form, and stars to be created with beams of light already reaching Earth so Adam and Eve could see them on their first night. It is a very compelling argument from a theological point of view, but scientific dating methods such as radiometric dating must be soundly rejected.

Sometimes the young earth approach is called Mature Creationism, since God created the universe in a mature, not infantile, state. Non-believers call it God the Trickster because it implies that God intentionally deceives people by making things appear old when they are not. Believers, of course, detect no trickery because the entire process is explained without apology in the Bible: God created things with built-in age. Eve was created from Adam's rib, for instance, and newly-created animals were commanded to be fruitful and multiply. Further, the Bible describes a massive flood, which jumbled everything up shortly after creation. The flood provides a forthright explanation for the observed randomness of inorganic material in today's earth.

Summary of the theories - Of the seven theories discussed above, only creation with appearance of age (young earth) is directly compatible with the Bible. Steady State, Big Bang, and Darwinian models are totally incompatible with the Bible. The remaining theories are somewhat compatible with the Bible, but they only make sense when conservative Bible interpretation gives way to liberal Bible interpretation.

Answers to Questions about God, Mankind, and the Bible

We started this article with a series of questions about your personal worldview. Here are some typical answers to those questions. How do your answers align with ours?

	Pro-Evolution	Pro-Creation
Does God exist?	Maybe.	Yes.
Do things happen randomly?	All the time. Luck and randomness are key elements of the universe.	No. God is in charge, and He is deliberate, not random.
Is Bible-based faith separate from natural science?	Yes. Science considers nature only; the Bible has supernatural elements and is therefore not scientific.	No. There are major differences, but the two are moving closer together as understanding increases. Neglecting the supernatural may supress scientific truth.
Is it possible to reconcile Bible-based faith and secular science in today's world?	Yes. But to do so, you must allow things beyond the natural universe, i.e., the supernatural.	Yes. But to do so, you must diminish the power and authority of God and the Bible.
Is the human race special?	No. I am accountable only to other people.	Yes. I am accountable to God, as revealed in the Bible.
Are there limits on our scientific knowledge?	No. With enough time and with enough precision in our instruments, we can find out everything there is to know about the universe.	Yes. Even though doggedly curious, humans will never understand everything. Some things cannot be explained through human senses and human reasoning.
Should the Bible influence my behavior?	Somewhat. It has a code of ethics that has proven effective over millenia.	Yes. 'For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous' [1 John 5:3 KJV].
How should I treat the Bible?	Treat it as a collection of allegories.	Treat it as holy, true, and valuable and interpret it carefully.

Where do you stand? Pro-Evolution or Pro-Creation? To find out, answer each question honestly.

If you are leaning toward evolution, that's good. You have thought about the issue and are coming to a conclusion. You are relying on your own reason and your own resources, and most people enjoy such independence. However, remember that living without moral absolutes often leads to severe life troubles and always leads to spiritual death. The book of Romans says:

If you are leaning toward creation, that's better in our view because you are not missing out on faith-based benefits such as prayer, praise, worship, a Bible-holy lifestyle, daily interaction with God who loves you, fellowship with other believers, charitable giving, and helping other people who are less fortunate than you.

Work Cited

1. Ken Funk, What is a Worldview? Oregon State University, 21 March 2001, web.engr.oregonstate.edu.

2. Wikipedia contributors, God, Wikipedia, (accessed 11 January 2020), en.wikipedia.org.

3. Wikipedia contributors, List of Christians in science and technology, Wikipedia, (accessed 17 January 2020), en.wikipedia.org.

4. J. F. Snyder, Does Creation Really Matter?, (United States of America: Kindle Direct Publishing, 2018), 15-30.

5. Stephen Battersby, Introduction: Cosmology, New Scientist, 4 September 2006, www.newscientist.com.

6. Stephanie M. Bucklin, A History of Dark Matter, Ars Technica, 3 February 2017, arstechnica.com.

7. Charles Q. Choi, Top 10 Things That Make Humans Special, Live Science, 25 March 2016, www.livescience.com.

8. Juli Peret, Controversies on the Origin of Life, International Microbiology, University of Valencia, Spain, 18 February 2005, www.im.microbios.org.

9. Philip Ball, Man Made: A History of Synthetic Life, Science History Institute, 15 April 2016, www.sciencehistory.org.

10. Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941, article available online from Uppsala University: www.update.uu.se.

11. Wikipedia contributors, Galileo Galilei, Wikipedia, (accessed 17 January 2020), en.wikipedia.org.

12. Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D., Six Steps of the Scientific Method, ThoughtCo, 18 February 2020, www.thoughtco.com.

13. George Smith, Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2008, Edward N Zalta, editor, plato.stanford.edu.

14. Edward J. Larson & Larry Witham, Leading Scientists Still Reject God, Nature, 23 July 1998, www.nature.com.

15. Andrew Kohut, Director, Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media, Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 9 July 2009, www.people-press.org.

16. Dr. Paul Link, Principle Investigator, What are Stratigraphic Columns? Idaho Museum of Natural History, 18 March 2018, digitalatlas.cose.isu.edu.

17. Agnes Hooper Gottlieb, Henry Gottlieb, Barbara Bowers, Brent Bowers, 1000 Years, 1,000 People: Ranking the Men and Women Who Shaped the Millennium, Wisdom Portal, 1998, www.wisdomportal.com.

18. Dr. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press and Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 262-314. PDF availabe at: fbcfairburn.com.

19. J. F. Snyder, Does Creation Really Matter?, (United States of America: Kindle Direct Publishing, 2018), 1-117.

20. TalkOrigins contributors, Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy TalkOrigins Archive, Usenet newsgroup, 1998-2016, https://www.talkorigins.org.

21. Wikipedia contributors, Evolution, Wikipedia, (accessed 1 January 2020), en.wikipedia.org.

22. Mark, Isaak, editor, An Index to Creationist Claims, TalkOrigins Archive, Usenet newsgroup, 5 November 2006, www.talkorigins.org.

23. Kaufmann Kohler, Emil G. Hirsch, Deism, Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906, (accessed 26 March 2020), jewishencyclopedia.com.

24. Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Jefferson's Religious Beliefs, Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia, Th Jefferson Monticello, 24 July 2016, www.monticello.org.

25. Wikipedia contributors, Geochronology, Wikipedia, (accessed 12 December 2019), en.wikipedia.org.

26. Norriss S. Hetherington and W. Patrick McCray, Spencer R. Weart, editor, Cosmic Journey: A History of Scientific Cosmology, American Institute of Physics, 2020, history.aip.org.

27. Dr. Edward J. Wollack, Britt Griswold, webmaster, Universe 101: Big Bang Theory, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 24 June 2011, map.gsfc.nasa.gov.

28. John van Wyhe, editor, The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online, Darwin Online, 2002, darwin-online.org.uk.

29. Wikipedia contributors, List of transitional fossils, Wikipedia, (accessed 16 January 2020), en.wikipedia.org.

30. Dr. Wayne Grudem, 1994. Systematic Theology, (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press and Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 275 279.

31. GotQuestions authors, What is biblical hermeneutics? Got Questions Ministries, (accessed 30 March 2020), www.gotquestions.org.

32. Dr. Wayne Grudem, op. cit., "Theory of a Gap Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, 287 289.

33. Ibid, "Day-Age View, 298 300.

34. Ibid, Literary Framework View, 300 304.

35. Ibid, "Creation With an Appearance of Age (Mature Creationism), 304 307.