Part 2The First of the 7 C’s of History: Creation – Answers In Genesis

As mentioned in Part 1, many Christians struggle to connect the Bibles history with the real world because theyve been so influenced by secular, naturalistic teachings, particularly the six stages of the story of evolution (cosmological, geological, chemical, biological, human evolution and eventual heat death).

Even if many Christians dont believe in evolution per se, theyve still been indoctrinated into believing in millions-of-years history and other evolutionary teachings. The attacks on Genesis have been so massive that many Christians (even high-profile pastors, apologists, and Bible college professors) have largely given up trying to defend it, and most believers cant answer basic questions.

And if the average adult cant answer these questions, then chances are their children wont be able to, either. This means that their children could easily reject all of the Bible, which is exactly what has been documented as happening at an alarming rate in the West since 2000, where George Barnas research1 showed that 70% of young people from Christian homes who attended state-run education had abandoned the faith of their parents.

Most people in our churches dont understand that the Bible is a history book. Christianity is not based on myth or interesting stories but on real history. There was a real Adam to whom we are all related. There was a real garden and fall, which is why we are all sinners. There was a real curse, which is why there is death and suffering.

Lets look at just a few verses in Genesis and see what it plainly says about some of the social issues of today.

Biblically, we see that marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman (just like our original parents). The fact that we become one in marriage, as we see in Matthew 19:46 and Ephesians 5:2829, is because Eve was taken out of Adamthey were one flesh. Eve could not have come from some preexisting animalthis would destroy the basis of oneness in marriage.

As Genesis plainly teaches, there are only two created genders, not an evolving spectrum of them. And human life is precious, and we have inherent worth and value from the moment of fertilization to the last breath of old age because we are created in the image of God.

As the sovereign creator of all, God has dictated what is right and wrongmorality is, therefore, not arbitrary. Because God is holy and righteous, there are moral absolutesthey emanate from who God is.

And so, because Genesis 111 is the seedbed of not only these but all Christian doctrines, it is imperative that Christians be able to defend and proclaim the first of our 7 Cs of HistoryCreation.

Skeptics love to ask for proof of Gods existence as if it is just so obvious that there is none. And yet, the obvious question is, What evidence would you accept as proof of the creator God of the Bible? Because if you dont know what you are looking for, how would you recognize it when you see it?

Well, one obvious answer is that you would expect to see evidence of design in nature because we understand that all creations have a creator, buildings require a builder, and inventions have an inventor.

The Bible even speaks to the fact that the creation proves that there is a Creator. As Scripture says,

So, do we see evidence of incredible design in nature? Is there really an excuse not to believe in Creationthe first of the 7 Cs of biblical history?

Interestingly, atheistic evolutionists dont have a problem admitting to seeing design in nature, as evidenced by this quote from arch-atheist and evolution promoter Richard Dawkins:

However, in an attempt to skirt the obvious implication that design indicates a designer, the atheist argues that although nature appears to show evidence of purposeful design, everything in it was somehow brought about through purely naturalistic processes without any intelligent input. So, they argue it looks designed but isnt.

But what is the difference between something that only appears to be designed and something that was purposefully designed? Because the complexity of the design we see in nature is truly incredible, even at the microscopic level in the simplest living things. An example comes from PhD geneticist Michael Denton.

To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is 20 kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York . . . What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design.

On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast spaceship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.3

Now, Dentons comparison of living things having similar qualities to (sophisticated technological creations that humans have created) airships and spaceships, and his use of superlative language such as unparalleled complexity and supreme technology, speaks to the magnitude of design that scientists observe.

Indeed, the biological technology we observe is truly mind-boggling when one looks at the complexity of even so-called simple life forms. Micro-constructs such as the minuscule motor protein kinesin, which operate like the mail delivery people inside cells and stroll along on two legs, carrying packages around with military precision and enviable accuracy, are (at least so far) admittedly beyond human intelligence to create.

And when we add design features into the equation, such as the incredible variety of eyes in living things, marvelous mechanisms like the mind-blowing immune system, life-saving systems such as the blood-clotting cascade (triggered when creatures are injured), or simply the existence of a coded language system in the form of DNAscientists freely admit that creating such mechanisms is unattainable by even our most intelligent scientists.

As Jack Szostak, an evolutionist from Harvard Medical School, admitted,

When you boil it down, belief in atheistic evolution entails believing that non-intelligence is far better at designing things than an intelligence isbetter even than the supreme intelligence on the planet (the human mind) that was supposedly unintelligently designed by that very process.

So, ultimately, atheists admit we do find the evidence youd expect to find if God exists (design). The evidence of Gods existence is literally all around them and even within them!

However, to sidestep the obvious conclusion that God exists, they suppress that truth, and instead of intelligent design, they champion unintelligent design. So, it isnt as if there is no evidence for God, but they choose not to see it. They are willingly ignorant of the Genesis account of creation (and Noahs flood), as 2 Peter 3:57 says, and will be held accountable for their willing unbelief:

However, remember our other former question? What is the difference between something that only appears to be created and something that was purposefully designed? Well, one way to differentiate between the two is our innate understanding that the more complex something is, the more intelligence it likely took to design and create it.

For example, anyone examining a paper airplane would instantly know it had been designed. How? Well, the finished product is made from components that do not have the capability to self-arrange themselves into such a specific, aerodynamic shape.

Paper is made from wood pulp, which is made from trees. However, trees dont have the ability within themselves to become papera mind is required to create processes to do this.

Evolutionists might tout natural selection and genetic mutation as supposed creative mechanisms that could somehow evolve creatures from one kind to another given enough time. However, natural selection only selects from, and genetic mutations only corrupt preexisting genetic information.

So, they certainly cant account for the creation of the supposed first living organism in the third stage of the evolutionary story (chemical evolution) because the first living thing would have needed a genetic code for natural selection to select from or for mutations to mutate and change!

And they certainly have never been observed causing the transformation of one unique kind to another (biological evolutionthe supposed fourth stage of the story of evolution) either. They only make variations of the same kind of creaturenever new ones. They simply arent creative in any true sense of the word. Now having said that, lets return to our paper airplane example because there are other factors to consider.

Even if there was a naturalistic process that somehow transformed trees into paper, no matter how many sheets of paper might be produced, the specific arrangement of that paper into a structure with the ability to soar through the air (should the right propulsion be applied to it) adds a further level of complexity beyond that of the arrival of the paper itself.

Now extrapolate those thoughts and compare them to another kind of airplane, like a US F-16 jet fighter. There isnt a person with an iota of common sense who would argue that something like that machine could somehow come into being without intelligent input.

Again, we recognize that the increased complexity of form, function, and features equals increased intelligence behind the design of whatever product is being discussed. And yet, the simplest living thing we observe is vastly superior in technological ability to an F-16it isnt even close.

Some atheists attempt to counter this idea of obvious design by pointing to examples of apparent design found in nature, such as crystals or snowflakes. However, such examples only go to prove the creationist viewpoint.

Unlike the paper or jet plane mentioned earlier, in which component parts do not contain inherent properties that could cause them to form, crystals and snowflakes are formed because of the intrinsic qualities their parts initially possess.

Snowflakes, for example, show beautiful, highly ordered design patterns which automatically arise under simple freezing conditions. The water that forms snowflakes is doing what comes naturally, given the properties of the system.

There is no need for any intelligence, external information, or programming to be added to the system in the case of a snowflake forming. The existing properties of the water molecule and the atmospheric conditions are enough to inevitably give rise to snowflake-type patterns.

To clarify the difference between real and apparent design even further, compare a crocheted doily to a snowflake. Both have a beautiful, organized pattern that appears designed.

And yet, whereas water has inherent properties that allow crystal formation and attachment to occur in specific temperature environments, the doily is made from cotton yarn. And cotton does not have properties that self-arrange it into yarn, nor does yarn have the inherent ability to deploy itself into artful arrangements.

One (the snowflake) did not require an outside intelligence to arrange it, while the other (the doily) did. And when we look at the world around us, what we see is example after example of the complexity and incredible engineering inside living things that simply could not come about through naturalistic processes.

And when you think about it, as beautiful as every snowflake is, the spontaneous creation of a snowflake compared to how living things might have spontaneously arisen is incredibly weak.

Recognizing true design comes naturally to us, and we appreciate and value modern technology. We want faster, more efficient computers. We are fascinated by spaceships soaring to Mars, submarines diving to incredible depths, mind-activated prosthetic limbs, and dynamic movies with ultra-real effects. And again, when we see advanced technology, we understand that it takes intelligent minds to make it.

However, nothing man-made compares to the complexity of living things. So, why is it then that highly intelligent people around the world are unwilling to believe that there is a God who created them that is vastly more intelligent than they are? Because believing in God means that they should also believe in and obey the rules that he has given them.

The world around us clearly supports a plain reading of the Genesis account of creation and, as a historical text, exhibits everything one would expect to find. As Romans 1:20 (read earlier) says, design is clearly demonstrated all around us every day, so no one has an excuse not to believe in God. This is why the Bible says,

Remember, there isnt a scientific fact properly interpreted that contradicts a plain reading of the Bible. It is only evolutionary interpretations of facts we see in the present that contradict what the Bible clearly says. Belief in the story of evolution, which has never been observed, cannot be duplicated in a laboratory, has no historical documentation, and actually breaks laws of science (such as the law of biogenesis), is truly an unscientific worldview.

Of course, we do live in a seemingly contradictory world at times. We live in a place of great love and beauty yet observe ugliness and cruelty. And that is why Christians need to be able to understand and explain the fall, which explains the origin of death and suffering.

So, tune in next week when we will gain more insight into our journey through the 7 Cs of History as we arrive at the second CCorruption!

Originally posted here:

Part 2The First of the 7 C's of History: Creation - Answers In Genesis