Considering Creation and Change

In my study of the issues surrounding Genesis 1 I just completed a book by one of my former professors, Doug Kelly.  His book Creation and Change: Genesis 1:1-2:4 in Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms is not very long (about 200 pages) but wrestles with many of the issues regarding our understanding of the text and interacting with science on them.

Unlike Dr. Bruce Waltke, who merely decided that since he’s not a scientist he shouldn’t really disagree with them, Dr. Kelly put his mind to work and did enormous research.  He did not fall into the trap of thinking “I’m a theologian, not a scientist” therefore they know better.  At this point some may say Dr. Kelly should have taken the same approach.  I, for one, am glad he didn’t.

There should not be this separation of faith and science that often reigns today.  We are trying to understand the same thing- this world we live in.  Dr. Kelly tackled many of the things I’ve pondered in days past.  Only he spent more time thinking them through and researching them.

Long ago some scientists attacked the presuppositions of the creation account.  Sadly, few if any ever evaluated the presuppositions of the scientists or their methods.  What we find here is that process of evaluating their presuppositions and methods.

This book was originally conceived as he taught a SS class at church.  But it is no lightweight book.  It demands much of the reader as you weig the arguments of a variety of positions and think things through.  To assist, each chapter has a Technical and Bibliographical Notes section.  Each also has study or group questions to help process the material.

Cutting to the chase, Kelly ends up defending the traditional view of creation ex nihilo, and a young earth.  He views the Framework Hypothesis as an irrational capitulation to modernism since it gives science too much credit and power to misinterpret parts of the text.  He does provide exegetical reasons to reject their views.  He also rains on Dr. Hugh Ross’ parade at times.

For quite a few years I agreed with Dr. Ross that “creation with age” was deceptive.  But continuing to read the text of Genesis resolved that issue.  One day it clicked, “it is only deceptive if God hasn’t told us he did so, but he does tell us this.  We are the ones who aren’t listening.”

Among the issues he address are:

• Literary genre.  It contains one poetical section- the creation of man.  The rest is written as historical and chronological.
• Supposed conflicts between Genesis 1 & Genesis 2 which lead some to the Framework Hypothesis.
• Evolution and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.  This law is about the conservation of energy.  The creation of matter requires an infusion of energy from outside the system.  Energy and matter cannot be created from NOTHING.  A closed system like the one proposed by scientific naturalism must therefore have eternal matter.  But this still doesn’t explain how it becomes organized without dissipating all the energy.
• Evolution and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Entropy.  A system cannot be closed and consistent at the same time.  Apart from an increase in energy it will move toward disorganization and disorder.  See an abandoned home, it falls into disrepair.  Maintaining a home requires energy from others.  Building a house, creating order where there is none, requires even more energy.  Evolutionists cannot account for how their system violates the Law of Entropy.
• Evolution and Irreducible Complexity.  He depends much upon Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box here.   It essentially shows evidence of design since these features are necessary for life.
• The Gap Theory which was sadly introduced by Thomas Chalmers in response to the “fossil record.”  The Gap Theory introduces fallenness into creation prior to Adam’s sin.  It has theological issues as well as exegetical issues.
• The fossil record, which is largely based on inference.  There is no archeological site that even resembles the theory as found in books.  Most of the “early men” have been found to be something else entirely.
• The “Day-Age” Theory.  This attempts to reconcile the text with “scientific fact” by using the uncommon rather than ordinary usage of ‘day’.
• The Age of the World & the  Speed of Light. In a highly speculative chapter, he discusses recent research that indicates that the speed of light has decreased.  This means that the earth could be far younger than previously estimated.  The speed of light affects not just time (Theory of Relativity) but also the dating of fossils and radio-active material.  Very interesting, but admittedly not solid yet.
• The Age of the World and Chronometers.  In a 2nd admittedly speculative chapter he examines the assumptions necessary for physical chronometers to be reliable.  He then points to evidence that reveals those assumptions are not often met, making them unreliable.
• Uniformitarianism versus Catastrophism.  Many important geological theories relating to the age of the earth are based on uniformity- “the present is the key to the past.”  In one sense they are right, the natural laws are the same, but conditions are definitely not.  The world is dynamic, not static (one of the problems with global warming “science”).  Catastrophic events (like Mount St. Helen’s) create evidence that looks like it took millions of years to occur, but in reality happened in the span of a week or less.

There are also chapters outlining the events of the days of creation.  He utilizes the parallelism that is often found in the Framework Hypothesis, but honors the chronology of the text.

Dr. Kelly argues (I think successfully) for the historical view of creation (six literal days) and a young earth.  He does this in a thoughtful way that examines research and the presuppositions of that research.  As a result, he shows that believing in such things is not irrational and old fashioned by that the biblical account is probably the best way to understand all the data.