Six-Day Creation

Most evangelicals believe the entire universe was created in six literal 24-hour days.  A lot of people believe this, so I'll deal with it.

First of all, I believe that Genesis 1 speaks of six literal days of creation, as described, as long as you start those six days with the thought that begins in verse 3 and ends in verse 5 with the statement “and the evening and the morning were the first day”.  Verses 1 and 2 have no divine time stamp on them.  Verse 3 happens after verses 1 and 2 and begins a separate thought.

Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

You will notice a period at the end of the sentence.  A period indicates a complete thought.  God created the heaven and the earth, and the job was done.  Finished. Complete.  There is no indication in that verse that there was anything incomplete about creation.  Creation was complete—and it was perfect.  Assuming that everything God does is perfect, it had to be perfect and complete.  In order to say the job wasn't finished, you must assume that God didn't do something right.  There had to be something imperfect about the job done in verse 1.  I assume everything God does is perfect, the first time, no exceptions.  He certainly allows a lot of other entities in the universe to do a lot of evil things, but what he creates with his hands is perfect right out of the box, and there is no imperfection in it.  At all.

Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Verse 2 tells us that the earth was, or became (doesn't really matter which) formless and void.  Formless and void—tohu and bohu in the Hebrew—indicate waste, desolation, and vacuity.  I don't see waste, desolation, and vacuity as expressions of God's perfection.  A lot of creationists seem to think they are, however. 

Think about something in the world we live in that is formless and void.  The Fukushima Nuclear reactor area in Japan, perhaps?  There is a lot of formlessness where those reactors blew up.  Debris is strewn everywhere. What are you aware of that is darkness and void?  An utterly empty and dark house, perhaps? Darkness indicates evil, places we are afraid of and we don't want to go there.  Void, vacuity, emptiness—ever feel that way?  Did you enjoy it?  Was it good and perfect?  Is there any example of something that is formless, void, and vacuous that you perceive as good and perfect? How can anything that is formless and void reflect the goodness, perfection and glorious creativity of Almighty God?

Waste and desolation have to do with the destruction, or wasting, of a once good thing.  Only if you assume the earth was already waste, desolate, and vacuous in verse 1 can you assume that this is part of the original creation.  To do that, you have to assume that God did a pretty crummy job of creating things in the first place.  I don't take that position.  What God made was perfect the first time.  Then something happened that made it waste, desolate, and vacuous.  There are other websites that go into great detail about this, but my point here is that one has to adopt some fundamentally flawed methods of Biblical interpretation, and take a pretty low view of God, in order to stuff the first day of creation back into verse 1.  It doesn't fit.  Just let verse 1 stand where it is and take it as written—with the period at the end of the sentence.

I will say that Creation Scientists do some true science.  They have a lot of good points to make, particularly about Evolution.  Evolution doesn't happen.  It can't.  Creation Science does a pretty good job of laying out the true science that disproves the evolutionary baloney we've been taught for the last 150 years.  However, Creation Scientists fall into the same trap that the Evolutionists fall into when they deny the big bang and insist that the world and the universe were created in six literal 24-hour days.  The best they can do is say "it could have happened this way".  They have no hard scientific proof, just like evolutionists have no hard proof that anything evolved. Evolutionists assert that Evolution is true, and if evidence is lacking, they say eventually they'll find it.  This is the exact same logic that Creation Scientists use.  There is absolutely no difference in the logic.  Assert a truth, and just say that you'll eventually find the evidence to support it, despite the fact that no hard scientific evidence exists to support the theory.

Creation Scientists have to deny radiometric dating, geological dating, astronomical dating, and virtually every other scientific method of dating to 'prove' their point. They cannot accept methods of dating that are widely accepted in the scientific world.  As soon as they accept radiometric dating or any other scientifically accepted method of dating, the Young Earth Creation theory goes down in flames.  To get a Christian perspective on radiometric dating, go here. There is no hard scientific proof that the universe or the earth was created in six literal days.  It simply doesn't exist. Many respected biblical scholars also take very different views of what scripture says about the age of the earth and universe.  Yet, the Young Earth Creationists are very dogmatic about their theory.  They insist their theory is truth, only because (they think) the Bible says so.  God said it, and that's the way is, as far as they are concerned.  Only their interpretation of Scripture is correct.  They are basing their entire 'scientific' theory on one particular interpretation of the Bible.  Since when is one scholar's interpretation of scripture necessarily more correct than another's? They have to say everyone who disagrees with them is wrong.  It's the old “I'm right, you're wrong” argument based on one particular interpretation of Scripture.  With no hard scientific evidence to prove the earth is only 6000 years old (and there really isn't any. All such 'proof' is conjecture based on selective interpretation of the scientific evidence) the Young Earth Creation Theory is Christian dogmatism, not science.  When young Christians go to college and see 'proof' of evolution, they frequently lose their faith, and it's no surprise they do.  At least many evolutionists make a serious attempt at being scientific, and if young people are truly looking for truth, they will likely be separated from their faith.  When young people are presented a choice between dogmatism and science, science usually wins.

The Young Earth Creation theory is doing a great job of setting young Christians up for losing their faith.  A number of studies have been done showing that anywhere from 61% to 88% of young Christians going to college subsequently lose their faith.  When they finally escape from the Evangelical intellectual bubble they have lived in all their lives, they are suddenly presented with genuine scientific evidence that contradicts the dogma they have been taught.  If they are seriously looking for truth, Christian dogma usually loses.  If you disagree with me, look at the blogs where former Christians explain how they lost their faith.  There are lots of them.  Check them out.  You will frequently find statements about how unscientific or simply untrue their faith was.  Or how dogmatic their parents were about shoving the 'truth' down their throats, or simply how unloving their parents were as a result of their dogmatism.  Christian dogma creates a lot of pain and suffering, and a lot of former Christians.

It would be far more productive for Evangelicals to fairly and objectively present evidence for all views of creation, including theistic evolution, and let students decide for themselves what they believe is true. Students are quite capable of sifting fact from fiction, and if they are presented with all of the evidence, they can make their own minds up.  In the interest of furthering understanding of different Biblical  views of creation, I have created a chart that compares them here.

The Fundamental Philosophical Argument For Creation

First of all, things had to start somewhere, despite atheistic assertions to the contrary.  An actual infinity cannot exist. To illustrate an actual infinity, imagine an infinite number of steel balls.  Now bring all of those steel balls into actual existence.  As soon as you bring them into actual existence, you can add another one...and another one, and another one, ad infinitum.  An infinity of things cannot actually exist, because you can always add another thing once you've brought them into existence. The same thing happens with an infinite regression.  Keep going back to the cause of the cause of the infinitum, and you never reach a cause, so there is no cause.  If there is no cause, nothing happens, and the infinite regression collapses.  This refers to the age-old atheistic argument that asks “if God created the universe, what created God? And what created that entity, and the entity before that,” etc.   It is quite clear that things exist, and anything that exists began to exist at some point.  So there must be a beginning, a first cause, or nothing exists at all; there is no creation and nothing exists if there is no first cause.  Infinity exists as a concept, an idea.  We still can't wrap our brains around it.  The bottom line: there was a beginning, a starting point.  Those who assert the big bang caused itself are saying that something can create itself.  Logically speaking, this is idiocy.  How can something that doesn't exist create itself? For anything to be created, something else had to exist in the first place to exert the force, or whatever else was necessary, to create what did not exist before it was created.  The argument that the universe created itself is just plain stupid.  The truly amazing thing about it is that a lot of so-called intelligent people believe it.  This is another example of atheists stretching logic past the breaking point to justify the non-existence of God.  A clearer illustration of the truth of scripture cannot be imagined:

Psa 14:1  The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Rom 1:22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...

The Science

The Big Bang is the best explanation for how the universe came into existence.  John Gribbin has done a good job of showing how the science for the big bang developed in In Search of  the Big Bang. Science has investigated it, researched it, and pretty much proved that the big bang happened.  There are Christian scientists who accept the notion of the big bang, by the way.  Precisely how the details work out is still being investigated, but the fact that the entire universe, or multiverse, came from an infinitely small singularity is pretty clear.  When I say science, I have to make a distinction between "Official Science" and true science, because there is a big difference between the two.

Official Science versus true science

When people talk about science, they think they are talking about the work done by scientists who follow the scientific method, i.e., investigate phenomena, and legitimately validate their hypotheses with controlled experiments and honest logic.  That is "True Science". "Official Science" claims the pedigree of true science and perpetrates massive lies and fraud in its name.  Official Science is the science we see and hear on TV and in movies.  You can find some true science in it, sometimes a lot of it, but it is always corrupted by global warming and evolutionary hogwash (See for details on Global Warming). The themes of evolution and global warming (or whatever they're calling it at the moment, maybe 'climate change') will always be an integral part of Official Science.  A scientist who questions any of the fundamental assumptions of Official Science will lose his grant money, his job, his reputation, and most likely the ability to publish in major scientific journals.  Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" detailed this phenomena quite well.  There are numerous other examples of what happens to honest scientists who question official science.  Some of them mysteriously die.

Official Science does have the ability to do true science.  As long as the science doesn't contradict evolution or global warming (or whatever else the current politically correct agenda is, which includes political agendas), some honest scientific investigation can be done. However, as soon as the honest scientist begins to question the politically correct agenda, he is silenced.

When I talk about science on this website, I will try to specify "official science" or "true science" to differentiate the two.


Evolution is a genetic process.   As new features of an organism evolve, the DNA in that organism's cells changes accordingly. The Evolution narrative tells us that cellular DNA adapts to changing circumstances over long periods of time. There are a number of Evolutionary studies that examine how biological organisms adapt to varying environmental conditions. There are also examples of how one type of lizard lays eggs in one region, but gives birth to live babies elsewhere.  The underlying assumption is that these different features evolved over time as a result of environmental pressures.

A fundamental fact of living organisms is that they develop according to the DNA they have, with that development shaped by external causes.  The external causes don't change the DNA, they simply change how it is expressed.  Significant changes can happen within an organism as a result of external causes, but the organism's existing DNA regulates those changes.  The DNA doesn't change.  If an alligator ends up in a tree after a flood, it does not become a bird. It gets out of the tree and goes back to the water, clearly expressing its alligator DNA.  The theory is that if an alligator ends up in a tree often enough, it will develop a way to survive in a tree.  But how?  Its DNA has to change, but how does spending a lot of time in a tree change an alligator's DNA to a bird's DNA?  Or a tree snake's DNA?  That's like saying if you spend enough time with apes, you'll become an ape.  You may learn to act like an ape, sound like an ape, and think like an ape, but you still won't be an ape.  You'll be a human being, with human DNA, that has adapted to living like an ape.  Your DNA hasn't changed one bit.  In order for DNA to change over time, the organism must be able to 1.) change it's DNA somehow, then 2.) be able to reproduce that DNA in its offspring.  How many years of living with a tribe of apes will change a human's DNA to ape DNA?  Once the DNA has changed, if it ever does, how does that changed DNA get into the sperm cells or eggs so it can be passed on to offspring?  And can you find an example of any human successfully breeding with an ape?  And how do you get a male and female evolving precisely enough as a couple to reproduce those changes?  We're talking about some serious coordination here.

There are massive amounts of material on the Internet that detail every aspect of Evolution, from “trees of life” to descriptions of how one species evolved into another. The fundamental, underlying thinking behind all of this material is the philosophical assumption that Evolution is true. It is assumed at the beginning of any study or investigation that Evolutionary theory is a true and accurate representation of reality, and that it is supported by science (what I call “Official Science”).  Yet, there is no hard evidence of Evolution.  The missing links are still missing, no one has described a genetic mechanism that is capable of changing DNA from one species to a completely different species, and the history of Evolution is full of hoaxes, many of which are still believed.

What the Evolution narrative fails to tell us is exactly how the DNA changes.  Since DNA lives in the nucleus of living cells, Evolution must happen within the cell or not at all.  So there must be some cellular mechanism that causes DNA to change over long periods of time within living cells.  What is that cellular mechanism?  I submit that there is no such mechanism.  Show me that mechanism if you think you have one.

Evolution doesn't happen.  It can't. It is a fiction that atheists must believe to avoid dealing with God. The whole reason "Evolution Science" exists is to give atheists a reason to avoid God.  It is also a convenient excuse to implement the most wicked and destructive political policies ever imagined by mankind (See The Black Book Of Communism for details of the atrocities of the most famous atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and others). Evolutionists cannot prove, scientifically, that anything—and I mean absolutely anything—evolved.  There is no hard scientific proof of anything evolving from one species to another.  It just doesn't exist.  The best you will hear is "it could have happened this way" (Sounds suspiciously like a creationist to me).  The arguments you will hear from Richard Dawkins and others are trumpery, arrogance, and ad hominen attacks on those who believe in creation.  They will do nothing more than assert that evolution is true and present some 'possible' scenario of how things could have evolved.  They don't know how anything evolved.  To make this point, let's analyze Richard Dawkins' video on how the eye evolved.  You can find his video here.

Before we analyze this video, however, we have to establish some basic facts, which are these:

  1. Every living organism develops     according to the chemical program, or 'code', in its own DNA. Birds     don't develop elephant trunks, Dogs don't develop insect legs, and     bears don't develop octopus tentacles. We have no examples of any     such thing, nor should we expect any.  The DNA of any living     organism is consistent with its own kind, and all of its DNA is     specific to its own form.
  2. No part of any living organism     develops without the DNA 'code' to make it happen.  No change, no     mutation, no feature of any organism develops without the DNA for     that feature being there first.  We can't expect external     physical changes in an organism to change its DNA.  The DNA has to     change first, then the changed organism develops accordingly.  If     the DNA ever changes, that is.     
  3. The DNA, or 'code' of any organism     must be well-nigh perfect for the organism to develop properly. The     code in the DNA must successfully handle any and all challenges to     the organism's existence, or the organism dies and its evolution     ceases.     
    If you're familiar with computer     programming, you know how difficult it is to get a complicated     program to work properly.  The face recognition software that is now     in use took years to develop, and it had a budget, management, and     teams of programmers.  It did not happen by itself, by chance, or by     accident.  It took a purposeful, well-directed effort to make that     software happen, and I think I can safely say that it is getting     revised on a regular basis.  If you're a programmer, you know about     these things.  If our DNA worked like most computer programs, we     would all soon be dead.  Does any computer program develop itself     without intelligent direction? How can DNA do that? Can you type     random C code into a computer for billions of years and expect a     working program to just 'happen?' Do you honestly think a program     for growing an eye could develop by doing that?

Now, let's look at Dawkins' video.  He explains how an eye could have begun with a light sensitive patch of skin on some organism.  Then the organism developed a cup shape that held the light sensitive skin.  Then the cup shape developed into a bowl shape, then a ball shape with a hole in the outside.  Then it developed a lens that just happened to end up right over the hole. Each of these changes somehow helped the organism survive better. Wait a minute!  What caused the DNA of the original organism to change?  The light sensitive skin won't develop unless the DNA is there first.  What force put it there?  What changed the DNA? He doesn't specify which organism developed this light sensitive skin or what purpose detecting light could have served in this mythical organism, nor how that purpose helped it survive.  What intermediate DNA changes had to happen for this light-sensitive skin to develop? What happened with the many unsuccessful DNA changes, and how did they come about? How did the organism survive in all of the many intermediate states it had to go through?  He illustrates a very few specific stages of the 'evolution of the eye', but he completely ignores all the miniscule intermediate steps that evolution must have taken. And he completely ignores the DNA.  He says not one word about how the DNA changed, why it changed, and how the organism could have survived with changing DNA.  If evolution has any truth to it, DNA evidence will show it, and it will show clear evidence of the multitudes of intermediate forms that Darwin insisted must exist. Where is the DNA evidence of successful evolutionary change?  Anyone can point out different seemingly related species, but where is the DNA evidence of the millions of forms that must have evolved between those forms? And what caused the DNA to change?

Before you evolutionists arrogantly dismiss what I'm saying here, you need to answer a few questions:  

1.  Can you demonstrate (not speculate-DEMONSTRATE) a random mechanism that creates life from non-life?

Stanley Miller's 1953 experiment doesn't prove anything other than that an intelligent scientist can create conditions which, when stimulated by an intelligent application of energy, are capable of creating amino acids. All that proves is that intelligent design can create amino acids.  You'll have to be more creative than that to create life from non-life.  You must demonstrate a random mechanism, not directed or managed by ANY intelligence, that creates viable DNA.

2.  What molecular mechanism in any living cell demonstrates a capability to change its DNA from one species to the viable DNA of a completely different species (with no non-viable steps in between)?

 "Demonstrate" is the key word here.  You must have a peer-reviewed, validated experiment that clearly demonstrates a DNA change from one viable organism to a DIFFERENT viable organism--caused by a RANDOM process.  And it has to demonstrably change a feature or function of the organism from one feature or function to a different feature or function--a better feature or function.

3.  Demonstrate, in step by step detail, a mechanism that is capable of transforming raw matter or
even organic matter into a complex system where every part of the system works perfectly in every step of its evolution. 

An eye, digestive system, nervous system, any system. Even a clear verbal explanation would be sufficient here.  The qualification is that it must address every step in the process, however minuscule it may be, because, if evolution happens, it MUST be viable at every minuscule step of the process, or the process ends and that species dies out.

This is not as simple as you might think.  You have to demonstrate, first of all, how the DNA of a given species changes during its own lifetime in such a way that the new feature is genuinely helpful.  You must describe what force causes it to change, and how.  Then you have to explain how this organism is more successful at surviving than other organisms.  Then you have to explain how its reproductive DNA reproduces that feature.  Every miniscule step in the process must be described.  No fudging by just asserting that something happened a certain way the way Richard Dawkins does.

4.  What force causes evolution to happen? 

Even if you can demonstrate a mechanism that is capable of changing one species into another, there must be a force that causes it to happen.  There are numerous mechanisms in the world, but each one of them requires the application of a force to make it work.  A comparable force must cause evolution to happen.  What is it?  For your edification, chance is not a force.  Chance is simply a description of what happens when a force is applied to a somewhat undefined process. A force must still be applied for chance to describe anything.  Chance may describe how the numbers on a dice show up after rolling it, but somebody rolled the dice first--a force was applied.  The distinction between a power cord and a signal cord on an electronic device is a good analogy here.  The signal can have a random component in it, but until the power is applied through the power cord, nothing happens.  Have fun speculating.

5.  Show me anything--anything at all--where a random event of any kind creates a genuine intelligence that is capable of directing a process.  This random event must somehow happen in non-organic matter, or even organic matter, and create more intelligence than what already exists.  Not different intelligence, but more intelligence. Or information, to be really basic.  Just make it generate more information.

Good luck. 

Content copyright 2018. Ken Sauter. All rights reserved.       Website Builder" target="_blank">"/>