Warren Christian Apologetics Center
Affirm. Defend. Advance.
Simple Logo.jpg

Articles - Miscellanea

Genesis Account of Creation

Life, and specifically human life, exists today. So far as I know, there have been only two explanations for the existence of this life advanced. Creation, the idea that a superior, intelligent and powerful being brought this life into being apart from natural laws; and Evolution, the idea that life began purely by natural law in a very primitive form and developed purely by natural law to the forms in which we find it now.

My subject deals with the Genesis account of creation, but before we consider the biblical account, let us address ourselves to the question of what science teaches about this matter.

Let us set forth two hypotheses, (1) Creation and (2) Evolution, and determine which one is confirmed by modern science. This does not argue from revelation at all but only from data obtained by usual methods of science.


Science is a body of general statements, proposing to predict the behavior of phenomena. What the average person often does not realize is that none of the supposed universal laws are even claimed to be absolutes.

A formula is given for the speed of a falling body. This formula is supposed to cover an infinite number of cases and yet it was originally formulated from the observation of a finite and relatively small number of cases. Indeed, all of the laws came by the form of logic called INDUCTION where a general law, designed to cover an infinite number of cases, has been induced from observation of a relatively small number of cases.

How is it possible to say with any assurance that we expect fifteen million examples to behave a certain way based upon having observed only fifteen hundred? The technique that is used involves statistical analysis, and an inherent part of this is mathematical probability.

Science then is a system of belief or conviction. By no stretch of the imagination would we refer to it as a system of absolute knowledge. It does not even make such a claim for itself.

Indeed, a universal practice in the realm of science is to consider the probability of a proposition's being true and if the confidence level is high enough, then to regard it as true.


Since this procedure underlies all of science, it is certainly a legitimate way to begin our consideration of the two hypotheses. Most of the so-called evidence that is usually advanced for the theory of evolution is virtually beside the point. It is largely merely suggestive and by its nature cannot be conclusive. Today we wish to go to the real heart of this matter.

All living things can be expressed in terms of the genotype and the phenotype. The phenotype is the body, the structure; the genotype is the plans by which the body is constructed. It will probably be much easier to understand this if we use a simple illustration which, of course, does not fit in every detail but does in a number of ways sufficient to accomplish our purposes here.

One of the best illustrations that I know of to help us understand this is a material structure such as a building. An architect makes a set of plans by which the building is to be built. In most cases the plans will consist of a set of drawings and written specifications. For our purposes let us just use the written type of plans. Let us say that detailed and precise instructions are given in words. This illustration will fit the actual case better. Let us consider that a building is built by these verbal plans, then another building is built by the same set of plans. More buildings are built by these plans until one million buildings are built, all by these very plans.

One thing that will be observed is that all the buildings will be slightly different from one another. No two buildings will be exactly alike.

Another significant thing that will be observed is that these variations are not cumulative or progressive. The tenth building is not likely to be any more different from the first than is the second. The one millionth might resemble the first even more than the tenth. These variations will be caused by a difference in material, but certainly they would never produce any sort of gradual change from one type of building to another.

Surely it would be obvious to everyone here that the only sort of changes that would be persistent would be those that came as a result of changes in the plans.

Let us emphasize this a little more by noticing the fact that modifications could be made in the building after it was built, and this would not affect future buildings unless a corresponding modification is made in the plans.

Let us suppose that the building under consideration is a house with a carport. If the builder builds according to the plans, as our premise requires, the resulting structure will have a carport. Let us say that something took this carport off the house. This would affect the house but not the plans. Any future house built by the plans would have a carport.

Now it might be that for twenty houses, one after another, the carport would be taken off. There would be nothing at all in this process that would change the plans. If this occurred one million times in succession, the one million and first house would be built with a carport according to the plans. This process could go on endlessly, and every house that was built would have a carport unless the plans were changed.

This illustration is very similar to the matter of reproduction of living beings. The genotype or plans of the living being is in the form of chromosomes. There are 46 of these in the cells of human beings. In order to make our illustration more closely resemble the actual genotype, we would need to have the plans copied each time and this would correspond to replication where the genes duplicate themselves. Then if the words of the plan were formed by letters that were fastened together in a string we would have about the same situation.

The words in the set of plans for a living being are called genes. They are actually very large and complex molecules. Instead of 26 letters as in the English alphabet, we have four chemical letters, adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine. For our purposes, let's just call them A, B, C, and D. They are actually arranged in order right down the side of this long molecule as letters are arranged in words and, for example, might spell out AABCDDA. The way the substances which we will call genetic letters are arranged literally spells out instructions, just as I might use English letters in the following arrangement to instruct, "make an eye blue," just so the genetic letters spell out genetic words with this very meaning.

Although a change in plans will affect every house that is built by those plans, the reverse is not true; a change in a house will not affect the plans. In fact if one were to make the same modification in every house built by certain plans and do this endlessly, this would never cause this modification to appear in the plans.

Environment, in the usual sense of the word, can never produce evolution because it would always be acting on the body, the structure, the building, but never on the genotype, the plans. Anything that would begin with a tiny one-roomed house and ultimately result in the Empire State Building would have to involve direct changes in the plans.

Since changes in the body do not produce changes in the plans, then we might ask, "Do such changes come about by any means?" The answer to that question is, "Yes, but only by one means and that is random mutation."

You will recall that a few moments ago we said that to make our illustration fit more closely, we would have the letters of the words fastened together with hooks or magnets and that we would have the instructions copied from generation to generation. In a situation like this, accidents might occur where the letters would be disarranged.

This fits the actual situation very well because our genetic letters are fastened in a molecular chain in the proper. order to spell out instructions. The process of replication is, in effect, a copying process and occasionally accidents do happen so that these letters are rearranged and so far as modern science knows, or has any suspicion, this is the only way these plans are changed.

This, then, is the problem faced by the evolutionist. Is it credible that the genes of a human being are the rearranged genes of a single celled organism, where the changes have taken place by accident over eons of time? Using our building illustration we ask, "If we begin with a one room house and repeatedly build, always copying the plans and building from them, could we reasonably expect that this process with occasional disarrangements of the letters to make new words would finally result in the building of the Empire State Building?"

The chief difficulty that has led to the erroneous belief that there is much evidence to support evolution is the fact that the wrong question has been asked. "Where did the horse get his hooves?" This is not the problem since we know where a given horse got his hooves. He inherited them. In the very beginning of the life of the horse, in the fertilized egg-cell there was contained the genetic information to make the hooves. Had the colt been born in water or on a feather bed, his feet would have been out-fitted with the same hooves as if his first steps were on hard ground.

The proper question is, "Where did he get the genetic information that gave instructions to make the hooves?"

Let us use our illustration of the building again. Suppose we have a set of plans, the specialized kind for our illustration. These plans are expressed in words and the words are made by fastening together otherwise loose letters with magnets at the top and bottom of each letter. Generally these plans will remain stable but some sort of accident could happen and the letters would be disarranged.

The only thing that could make a change in these plans, then, would be some accidental event; otherwise they would simply be copied over and over and millions of houses would be built by the same instructions. Suppose I looked at a house and asked the question, "Where did that house get its chimney?" Obviously it was built because the plans called for it. No problem to explain that. Then we ask the question, "Where did the plans get the instructions that said, 'Build this chimney.'" Certainly we have two different questions. The chimney is made of bricks, the plans are made of words formed from letters. If one wished to change the chimney of a given house he could manipulate the bricks, but if he wished to change the plans so that all succeeding houses had this characteristic, then his concern would be with letters.

The best and latest information from scientists concerning the genetic code, the plans of living beings, is that the plans reside in the nucleus of cells. They take the form of words, so to speak, the letters of which are four chemicals call nucleotides, named adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine, as we have mentioned. Let us call them simply A, B, C, D. They are arranged in a very large molecule called a DNA molecule and the physical arrangement of the substances down the length of this molecule determine the nature of the characteristic that is to be formed. For instance AABBCCDD would give one instruction and ABCD-ABCD would give another. These are arranged in order in a body called a chromosome which we might call a volume of the set of written plans and there are 46 such chromosomes in a human cell. So we have a set of 46 books, each composed of billions of words made of the letters A, B, C, and D.

Let us say that AABBCCDD is the instruction to make a padded foot like a cat and ABCDABCD is the instruction to make a foot with a hard hoof like a horse. It should be obvious that the important question is not one about padded feet and hoofed feet but rather how did AABBCCDD ever come to change to ABCDABCD.

Now that we have located the real question we see that generally the environment that a being lives in would have no effect on the plans. Let us say that our builder started out building houses in a dry climate and made the building of a type of wood that would last very well under those conditions but which would quickly rot in a wet climate. Let us also suppose that he continued to make houses from this same set of plans in other areas and finally such houses began to be built in a wet climate. We feel that an intelligent builder would quickly adjust to the new situation and the new houses in the wet climate would perhaps be made of brick. This would be very sensible. A modification of the original plans would be made and this modification would call for brick instead of wood. This is very simple in the case of the builder, but what intelligent force looks at the plans of life and says, "We need to make a modification so that the life can live in the new environment?" This would be a sort of theistic evolution, and we will deal with this subject later, but the natural process of life which we are able to discover makes no provision for changes of the genetic code by an intelligence.

Now this is the solution that is offered. Plans are accidentally changed so that some of the copies are now reading, "Make a brick house." Since the wooden house will quickly perish and the plans by which they were made will go with them because of the new environment, so only the new modified plans and the corresponding buildings will remain.

This sounds fine except for one thing: What caused the modification in the plans that said, "Use brick instead of wood?" The only explanation given is, that there was an accident and the letters of the words became rearranged and now spell the new instructions instead of the old. 

Usually we have no definite way of considering the likelihood of accidents but, as mentioned in the beginning of the lesson, this is the very thing which is dealt with in the matter of mathematical probability.

Let us say that we have a two-letter word, the first letter may be A, B, C, or D, and so may the second letter. This means that we may have a word spelled AB and one spelled AC and one spelled BD etc. Suppose that there were a great many such letters in a box and a person who is blindfolded reaches into the box and draws out two letters, one at a time. What are the chances that he will get AD for instance? Since there are sixteen combinations possible and we are looking for only one, then the probability that he will get AD in one trial is only one-sixteenth.

This does not mean that if we try sixteen times we are certain to get this combination. It is possible to get another combination twice or even more, so even in sixteen trials we may not get a desired combination AD. What does this have to do with Evolution? It is the very heart of the question concerning it.

Let us take a specific look at the matter of probability. Many perhaps would say that, given a million years, anything can happen, but this is not the case. Evolutionists tend to make the same mistakes some people make about their finances. Some people think that given enough time, they can pay for anything.

I used to have a professor in graduate mathematics class who constantly used the expression, "Pick a particular point." He was referring to a point on a curve in regard to calculus. However, this is good advice in considering almost anything. Dealing in generalities we often reach some exaggerated and erroneous conclusions. It is not always possible to deal in specifics but sometimes we can narrow the field, and gain more accuracy.

I would like to get some realistic idea of the reasonableness of supposing that the trillions of genetic words, composed of the four chemical letters, contained in the nucleus of fertilized egg-cell which developed into a given human being came to exist simply by random mutation, by accident so to speak. Now I want to deal with a specific case so far as I can. Without going into all the background involved, it is known that a certain genetic word that controls red blood cells to the extent that a slight deviation, indeed the displacement of one genetic letter, one nucleotide, results in sickle cell anemia. Although there are millions of such genes, this one will serve our purposes. It is known that this gene could not have less than 300 nucleotides arranged down a given side of the molecule. This is equivalent to saying that this genetic word has at least 300 letters.

Since this special alphabet composed of four chemical substances has only letters A, B, C, or D, then in each one of the 300 places, one of the four letters must occur. To make sure that we understand what is happening, let us note that if we had a one letter word, it would be either A, B, C, or D. If we had a two letter word we could have sixteen possibilities. AA, AB, AC, AD, BA, BB, BC, BD, CA, CB, CC, CD, DA, DB, DC, DD. There is a simple formula for determining the number of possible arrangements. If we had a three letter word such as ABC or ABD we could calculate and discover that there are 64 different three letter words possible using three of these four letters.

Since I do not want to be any more tedious than necessary I will state that by using this formula we can determine that a 300 letter word would be one of 10 to the 180th power different possibilities.

Again, making an effort to simplify this, what we are saying is this, we have in us a genetic word that, with no intelligence guiding it, might have been written in such an astronomically large number of different ways that we do not have a name for the number and we just describe it by saying that it is a one with 180 zeros following it. Let the reader note that one billion is a one with only 9 zeros following. A thousand billion is a one with only 12 zeros; this would be a trillion.

Although there are fantastically large numbers of ways of arranging 300 nucleotides or genetic letters, every arrangement is wrong except one. This means that the chances of accidentally getting the right arrangement in one trial is one in 10 to the 180th power. We do not have room on this page to write such a number.

The evolutionist will say, "Surely, you don't think we mean that this would happen in one trial. We believe that this would have occurred in millions of years of trying." Now this is the place where the error occurs in the thinking of the evolutionist. Let us continue to "pick a particular point" in the idea and really look precisely at it. Let us determine whether a million years of trials would affect this.

Evolutionists all contend that life came from the sea and that between the original one-celled being and man there was a fish-like creature. While I would have no way of estimating the number of one-celled beings that might have existed at one time, there is a pretty accurate way of determining the maximum numbers of fish-like creatures that might have lived at one time since there is only so much surface water in which they could have lived.

Again, without being any more tedious than necessary (the calculations for all these things are available for anyone interested), if we assume that there was one of these fish-like creatures every cubic one-sixteenth of an inch or 4069 of them every cubic inch, then assuming that the amount of surface water on the earth now is about the same as has always been, there could not have been more of the fish-like creatures at any one time than 10 to the 26th power. If they bred at the rate of 100 generations per year for one billion billion years and if each one experienced a billion random mutations, there would have been only 10 to the 55th power mutations in all. This means that many trials.

With all of this, which is far more years, individuals, and mutations than any evolutionist has ever dreamed of suggesting ever occurred, how are the chances increased? The maximum probability now becomes one in 10 to the 125th power.

A billion billion years of the most favorable circumstances did not increase the probability enough to make any difference.

Let us consider another illustration. Suppose that an expedition went into a remote part of the earth. Here in a field we find stones arranged in a pattern, let's say to spell out a name, for instance, John Doe. This would be somewhat startling, and we might be concerned as to whether these stones came to be arranged this way by accident or by intelligent design.

When the stones are examined they are found to contain the same material as most meteorites. Someone in the group advances the hypothesis that these stones fell at random as meteorites and that they are so arranged merely by chance.

The first thought would be that such a thing would be ridiculous, then the argument might be made, "Yes but you cannot say that it is IMPOSSIBLE." When we have no way of saying definitely that something is impossible, and yet it is incredible, we say that this is theoretically possible. Remember, however, that when an idea reaches a certain level of probability as to whether or not it is true, science says, we will treat it as UNTRUE if that probability is sufficiently low or that we will treat it as TRUE if it is sufficiently high.

The two possibilities which we must examine in this case are (1) The stones were arranged by some intelligent being, or (2) they became arranged this way simply by chance.

The first thing to consider is, "Do meteorites even fall in this area?" and let's say that the answer is, "Yes." Next we might ask, "With what frequency?" Let us suppose that there was some evidence that not more than a certain number per year could fall in this field.

Let us then calculate the maximum probability and suppose we find that the maximum probability that this happened by chance was less than that in a billion billion billion. There is one only circumstance that could possibly justify us in concluding that these rocks have been arranged this way by chance and that 'is if we could absolutely prove that no intelligent beings could possibly have done this job.

In short, intelligent design is the most scientific explanation, and certainly the one to be accepted unless it is otherwise ruled out.

I submit that the genetic code evidences intelligent design to as high a degree as it is possible to do, and the only rational justification for concluding that it happened by chance is to contend that intelligent design is impossible.

The layman thinks that evolution is proved overwhelmingly, and thus one must abandon creation in the face of such proof. The truth is that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of creation and the only rational excuse for rejecting it is the contention that one has conclusive evidence that creation is impossible.

How do we deal with the supposed evidence in favor of evolution? This evidence is very weak and inconclusive. Generally it falls into two categories. (1) It simply is not true; and (2) it is something that would be characteristic of evolution but also of creation. Let's look at these in turn.
   1. Alleged tracing of evolutionary origins through fossil remains. Generally all of the arguments rely on one notion. It is possible to take the bones of long-dead animals and arrange them side by side in such a way as to consider first the most simple and then proceed in order to the most complex. In a more extended study I would like to consider these in detail. Here I will note only that even the evolutionists do not contend that this is actually the way the animals evolved. They would be quick to admit that they have not the slightest idea that the more complex animals actually came from the less complex. If is hardly necessary to answer an argument that evolutionists will not dare make.
   2. Recapitulation of evolutionary processes in the development of the embryo. The evolutionists have several problems with this. The first is that it does not fit the theory that is held in later years but if true would tend to support a theory which has been abandoned. If evolution took place by the random destructive process of mutation, then when the gene was changed there would be no vestige of the old characteristic left. For instance if the letters in the word STAR were accidentally rearranged to form the word RATS, we would not expect to find any connection at all between a star and rats. Furthermore recapitulation just does not occur. The supposed correspondence of the development of the embryo with the supposed evolution of the being just doesn't correspond.
   3. Subhuman beings that are near human. This is supposed to provide a missing link. Many things are wrong with this alleged proof.
      1. A link should connect two things. These supposed links cannot be found to be connected either to man or to more primitive forms of life than themselves.
      2. These supposed sub-men can be divided into two groups. (1) a table full of scraps of bones which cannot be shown to have represented a group of living beings, breeding true to these characteristics and (2) Neanderthal man, a variety of human beings who lived at the same time as did men just like ourselves and who in fact interbred with them and produced off-spring with a combination of their characteristics. In short, from all the supposed missing links, only one kind can be shown to have actually lived as a group of beings; the rest may be any sort of deformed creature, possibly a malformed human being that never had any offspring. The only one which can be shown to have been a group of males and females producing offspring with their distinctive characteristics are not forerunners of men but simply men themselves, different from average, as are pygmies, but by no means non-man or sub-man, not even pre-man, but just man.

Next let us look at the purported evidence that equally could prove creation.

1. Anatomical similarity. While we would expect to find anatomical similarity if evolution were true, we would equally expect to see it if creation is true. Human builders will often design buildings that are in many respects similar, yet each is designed directly by the purposeful intelligence of the architect. Similarity may indicates only a common creator.

2. Adaptability. The ability of a species to adapt to its environment within a range may well be something we would expect in evolution but it is also something we would expect in creation. A wise and benevolent creator would surely cause his creation to have some flexibility so that through the changing conditions of the world, members of its kind might survive.

We do not have the time in this short hour to deal in detail with these things but I do not mean to suggest that we shrug them off. I will be happy to deal with these supposed elements of proof of evolution and any others that might be brought forth, at some other time.
I mention them primarily because these are the most usual ones offered and they serve to point up the nature of the support of evolution. Let us sum it up in this way:
   1. The evidence which exists to support creation is powerful, overwhelming, and precise.
   2. The evidence offered to support evolution is suggestive, vague, inaccurate and inconclusive; I will not say that there is not any evidence for evolution, only that it is not any good.
We might refer to the first part of this discussion as the scientific account of creation. In the second portion we want to consider the account of creation which is given by the Creator himself.

We do not have the time to consider the various descriptions of creation of the worlds that are to be found in the many religions of the world. However, we will note that there is not one which is not ridiculous on the very face of it. The Genesis account in the Bible is profound. In fact, if some modern day scientist were to attempt to set forth what we actually know from science of the beginnings of the world and man, and if he wanted it said in a way that could be appreciated by men of all ages, highly educated as well as those of primitive backgrounds, no more suitable description could be given.

The only area in which there would be a basic disagreement between the ideas that are commonly held by modern scientists and the Biblical account is in the area of the creation of life and specifically human life. As a matter of fact this disagreement does not prevail with all scientists since many accept creation.

The one notion of evolution and its implications seems to be the primary point of departure, if not the only point of departure, between the Bible and the ideas generally held by many present day scientists.

One of the most dangerous possibilities connected with the error of evolution is the possibility of pretending that it is not really contrary to the Bible.

The name of this theory is theistic evolution. This idea has arisen purely out of a desire of some that they not be forced to commit themselves against the Bible, nor yet that they be forced to admit to their sophisticated friends that they do not believe in evolution.

I can imagine some similar thing happening when the controversy raged as to the shape of the earth. One said it was round and another said it was flat. I can imagine some one suggesting that perhaps it was in the shape of a circular disc which is both round and flat. No evidence of such a thing existed. It fit no known facts and really solved nothing except that it was a way that one could keep from taking a stand.

I. What can be said for theistic evolution from the standpoint of science?

Science shows that it is not reasonable to suppose that life, and in particular human life, came to exist purely by the operation of natural law, hence it must have come by supernatural law or divine accomplishment. How God miraculously accomplished the existence of man is the question under consideration. Theistic evolutionists are evidently suggesting that God caused something to be done in one million years which by natural law would have taken billions of billions of billions of years, if ever. Since we have divine intervention reducing the billions of billions of billions, etc. to a mere million years, the wonder of it is that we cannot accept that it was reduced to one day.

But to answer the question, science gives no support to theistic evolution.

II. What can be said for theistic evolution from revelation?

The only thing we have is the Bible and let us consider what it has to say. Genesis 2:7: "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

There is nothing in this to suggest a process of evolution. In fact one would never suspect such a thing from this statement. There is every indication that this body was formed before it was alive. Any type of evolution, theistic or atheistic, requires that life had a beginning some millions of years before man and that the first man was born from sub-humans. In short evolution, theistic or atheistic, requires that there never was a time when a nonliving human body existed on the face of the earth and something happened to cause it to gain life.

Genesis 2:21, 22: "So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man."

Now this account either has truth in it or it does not. If it is true the first woman came from a rib in the first man. This doesn't fit any kind of evolution. Let the theistic evolutionist face the consequences of his theory.

Can he say that there really was a first human being? He says that some offspring of sub-human parentage had reached a point sufficiently advanced that he might be thought of as the first man. Then God gave him a spirit.

It is hard for me to believe that anyone thinks that is actually what happened, but we will dismiss that for the moment. How can the idea of the first women be dealt with? According to theories of evolution she would have to be born also. But the Bible says that she was taken from the body of the first man.

We sometimes hear the explanation that all these things are allegorical. Now an allegory is an extended metaphor and a metaphor is a figure of speech in which a likeness is drawn. Can we honestly say that there is a likeness here between the account of the origin of the first woman given in the Bible and that which is required by evolution, theistic or atheistic? One might as well say that a description of the devil is an allegorical description of God. Genesis 2:16"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

The context shows that the first human pair did sin in eating of that tree and the penalty of death came upon them and on the whole human race. In I Corinthians 15:22 we read, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." The very coming of Christ into the world and the great sacrifice that he made was, among other things, to undo the harm done by Adam and Eve.
If Genesis the first chapter begins an allegory, it is not ceased until after Christ.

The sacrifice of Christ and the sin of Adam are essentially connected. If there were no real Adam and Eve, there was not a first sin. If there was not a first sin, then Christ and the New Testament writers misunderstood his death.

When one attempts to make mystical and allegorical the first chapters of Genesis he vitally affects the last chapters of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and Paul said these ARE THE HEART OF THE GOSPEL.

A person who has a grave problem in believing that God made a living man from a non-living man is sure to have problems with the notion that God raised Christ from the dead.

When a person takes a step backward from total acceptance of the Bible as God's word, he finds that he has stepped onto a slippery slope on which there is no place to plant his foot except the ultimate valley beneath of total rejection.


How could a notion such as theistic evolution be supported? Not by science. Although it is evident from even science that man did not spring into being by natural processes, no scientist has ever suggested that he could give a detailed description of the process of evolution showing the parts accounted for by natural means and the parts which were accomplished by supernatural means.

Not by revelation can theistic evolution be supported, for no revelation supports it. In fact God's revelation, the Bible, denies it.

Theistic evolution is a hodgepodge explanation. It does not deal with anything. It reminds me of such situations as these:
Suppose we were trying to decide if a certain thing were done by a man or a woman. Some of the evidence seems to point to a woman. Other evidence seems to point to a man. The theistic evolutionist would find great and immediate comfort in contending that the person was half man and half woman.

The hindrance to believing that man was created just as the account is given in the Bible is zero per cent scientific and one hundred per cent psychological. By this I mean that no one is compelled by facts of science to believe in evolution, theistic or atheistic. Theistic evolution is prompted by DESIRE, the wish to preserve one's image in a world where it is fashionable to believe in evolution and yet to maintain a belief in the existence of God. It is my belief that this one conflict, that of evolution with a fundamental acceptance of the Biblical account of creation, is the greatest vehicle of modernism, skepticism and atheism.

I am deeply disturbed when I hear my brethren referring to morality and social good as the REAL issues of life. To be sure, these issues are essentially involved but they are only expressions of the more fundamental issues.

I am filled with great anxiety when brethren tell our young people that the basic principles of Christianity can be followed and should be followed whether man is created or whether he has evolved.

I believe that the issue of evolution should be met head on. I believe that it can be met head-on and on any intellectual level. There may be people in this very audience who feel that we should go easy and not commit ourselves too deeply. That person may say, "What if evolution is proved true, then will we not have placed ourselves in a position of giving up the Bible?"

Let us note the example of the apostle Paul in a similar situation. A controversy raged in his time as to whether or not there is a resurrection. The modernists of his time might have said, "Oh well, that is not the main issue. I personally believe that the dead rise, but I can see how someone may doubt this; however, we can unite on the main issue of Christ." Paul would not have such a half-hearted service. He said it either is or it is not. Christianity succeeds all the way or it fails all the way.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19: "Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied."

Let us meet this issue with the same strength of resolution that Paul met the one of his day, for indeed these are but parts of the same issue. The Bible is completely right or completely untrustworthy. It is either God's message to man or an outdated effort by foolish and misguided men.

I submit that there does not exist one single real reason for supposing it to be less than God's revealed will and as such it demands our belief, our acceptance, and our commitment to propagate it.

 Genesis Account of Creation. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1971. pp. 277-96


* * * * * *

Robert S. Camp was an associate of Dr. Thomas B. Warren along with the late Roy Deaver, Mr. Camp served as a moderator for Dr. Warren in his 1978 debate with Professor Wallace Matson on the Existence of God.