Five Views of Origins
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” 
Is the universe twenty billion years old? Can we emphatically state that the earth is four and one-half billion years of age? Perhaps there exists evidence that the earth is relatively young. Would such evidence make any difference to those who are determined to ignore God and what He says concerning the beginning of all things? For the conscientious thinker the age of the earth determines in great measure his or her view of how all things came to be. In the realm of thoughtful postulates there are five views of origins which we must examine in cursory fashion during the course of this message.
Though I will present and discuss five views of origins, in reality there are but two views as we have already seen in previous messages. Either God is behind all that has been, all that is and all that ever shall be, or there is inherent within matter the ability to change into ever more complex forms. Either there is a personal, moral God behind the universe, or the universe itself assumes a godlike existence. Consequently, people must either worship the God who is or they are reduced to de facto worship of the universe. While the latter is perhaps the more popular view today, it is reprehensible to conscientious believers in the True and Living God.
NEO-ORTHODOX EVOLUTION — Despite the association with the name of Charles Darwin, the concept of evolution is preceded modern days by several millennia. Among the ancient Greeks, for example, Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Epicurus and Lucretius were all evolutionists. Likewise, Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C.) believed in a complete gradation in nature accompanied by a perfecting principle. This was imagined to have caused gradation from the imperfect to the perfect. These early philosophers were convinced that man, as you might imagine, stood at the apex of this gradation.
There were evolutionists in more recent times who had preceded Darwin. Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626), René Descartes (1596 – 1650) and Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) were each inclined to what can only be said to have been an evolutionary point of view. The first biologist making a contribution to evolutionary thought was the French naturalist Georges Louis Leclerc de Buffon (1707 – 1788). Another naturalist who contributed to evolutionary thought was Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin (1731 – 1802). The first comprehensive postulate of evolutionary thought was advanced by the Chevalier de Lamarch (1744 – 1829) who became a professor in zoology at the Museum of Natural History in Paris and later popularised his views in Philosophie Zoologique. It was Charles Darwin, however, who captured the world’s attention. His postulate was developed to a degree that none of the others were. Furthermore, his concepts were supported by an impressive array of observations which had been initially collected during an around-the-world tour of the HMS Beagle (1831 – 1836).
Darwin’s concepts may be arranged according to four postulates and two conclusions. POSTULATE NUMBER ONE addresses variation. There are variations within individuals of the same species. POSTULATE NUMBER TWO notes overproduction. In most cases, more individuals are born to a species than can possibly survive to maturity. Conclusion number one presents the struggle for existence. In order to survive, individuals must compete with other members of the same species.
POSTULATE NUMBER THREE presents the concept of the survival of the fittest. In a competitive environment only those individuals best fitted to survive will survive. POSTULATE NUMBER FOUR notes the inheritance of favourable characteristics. Fit individuals pass their “good” characteristics on to their descendants. The FINAL CONCLUSION is that new species arise by the continued survival and reproduction of the individuals best suited to their particular environment. 
In the one hundred years since publication of Darwin’s Origin, considerable work has been focused on the chief mechanism of evolution according to Darwin. The chief mechanism of evolution is natural selection—the impersonal preference given to a particular variation in a species permitting one individual a competitive advantage over another individual. Supposedly, this explains the variety of forms we recognise in the world of nature.
There is a flaw in the mechanism, however. Natural selection may explain how certain individuals have more offspring than others do and therefore survive, or survive and have offspring while other less favoured individuals do not. It cannot, however, tell us how there came to be the various organisms or “good” characteristics of organisms in the first place. There is no “selection” by nature, nor does nature “act” as it is said to do in biology texts. One organism may indeed be “fitter” than another from an evolutionary point of view, but the only event that determines this fitness is death (or infertility). This is not something which helps create the organism, but it is rather something which terminates the organism.
Evolutionists have dealt with the problem by appealing to mutations as the primary source for variations. This was first proposed in 1905 by a Dutch botanist, Hugo de Vries, in a work entitled “Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation.” Later it was suggested that mutations are caused by cosmic radiation. Even a cursory consideration of this concept reveals that evolution is incapable of predicting change. Rather, evolutionary dogma finds itself in the position of reacting to flaws in the system as they are exposed.
The only “evidence” advanced for evolution actually occurring is the fossil record. Students are told that the fossil record is an unbroken witness to the changes that Presumedly have taken place. However there are serious problems with this ancient record. A historical sequence is presented by the fossil record … if we accept that the fossils date the rocks in which they are found. This, however, presents a circular argument which is meaningless. The age of rocks is determined by index fossils found within given strata. The age of fossils discovered within given strata is determined by the age of the rocks which form the strata. For the evolutionist this is a win/win situation, even if scientifically meaningless. And this says nothing concerning the gaps appearing in the fossil record.
If evolution were true we would expect to find a fossil record which is finely graded with generally continuous development from simplest forms to the higher, more complex forms. There are, however, only sudden jumps. There are no gradual developments. The major groups appear suddenly and there is no evidence of transitions. Evolutionists have countered this problem by arguing that the fossil record is incomplete. However, it has been incomplete since Darwin first postulated evolution and it remains incomplete despite repeated palaeontological studies. In the ultimate analysis evolution is supported less by evidence than by hope. The neo-orthodox doctrine of evolution has become the religion of people who wish to exclude submission to the Creator.
Though such is possible, it is impracticable to present a full refutation of the evolutionary viewpoint in the time allotted. I do wish to present Christians with some areas of deep concern, however. Even if evolutionary dogma were true, the doctrine fails to account for the origin of matter. Either matter must be eternally present or it must be created. The evolutionist tacitly believes that matter is eternal or is forced to concede that his views are merely reactionary and incapable of predicting events.
Again, evolution fails to account for the form of matter. The simplest building blocks of matter are atoms, which are incredibly complex. A simple atom such as hydrogen presents a complex form consisting of a proton, a neutron and an electron, all operating in accordance with fixed laws of physics. Evolution can account for neither this form nor for the laws which govern the form. Form and the laws are inherent in the matter, suggesting a Creator who transcends the creation.
The emergence of life defies evolutionary thought. Though I will deal with this in some detail in a later message, evolution is stymied by even the origin of bio-organic compounds such as amino acids, nuclides and sugars from inorganic atoms and molecules such as hydrogen, water, carbon dioxide, methane, and ammonia. If there is difficulty in postulating how these compounds arose, imagine the difficulty of accounting for the presence of biopolymers such as proteins and nucleic acids. Life is not so simple as to postulate these two steps, but the biopolymers must unite in precise form to account for even simple life forms such as single-celled plants or animals. This is not a matter of a single event of low probability; it requires a series of events, each with unbelievably small probability. One writer notes, “For all practical purposes the probability of this series of events may safely be regarded as zero.” 
The last great challenge to evolution is human personality. In theological terms we would grapple with the emergence of the soul and the spirit. How can evolution account for man becoming God-conscious? One writer asks, “Where did the soul of man come from? Why is it that the highest and best animals are unable to pray? They are unable to communicate in a rational way. They are unable to do the things that man is able to do. The lowest type of man upon the face of the earth is far higher than the highest of the animals, because he has the capacity to worship God and can be brought to be a child of God; able to live to the glory of God through Jesus Christ, and that is true of none of the animals.” This writer concludes with this forthright statement of his faith. “I am not ashamed to say that I believe in the first chapter of Genesis, but I should be ashamed to say that I held to any form of evolution.” 
THEISTIC EVOLUTION — A Christian simply cannot accept atheistic evolution. Origin without the hand of God is unacceptable to the Christian. This does not mean that some Christians have ceased to search for a compromise with the generally accepted scientific view and the Christian position of a Creator. A surprising number of Christians either intentionally, or by default, hold to what has come to be called theistic evolution. This view is popular with many Catholic theologians, who follow statements issued by several recent popes.
Theistic evolutionists speak of God as Creator, believing evolution to be the means by which He created all things. The major difference between the theistic evolutionist and the atheistic evolutionist is that the theistic evolutionist believes that the God of the Bible is providentially guiding the evolutionary process, while the atheistic evolutionist attributes the identical development to time and chance. The former speak of God while the latter exalt impersonal forces to the level of divinity.
In the view of the theistic evolutionist the four great gaps inherent within the evolutionary view are addressed through appeal to the God of Creation. At each of the points of conflict the theistic evolutionist appeals to God. Though evolution cannot explain the origin of matter, theistic evolution says that God created matter. Whereas the form of matter can be neither predicted nor explained by evolution, the theistic evolutionist appeals to God as the One who gives form to matter. Though atheistic evolution cannot account for the emergence of life, theistic evolution looks to God as the one who gives life. Again, when the neo-orthodox doctrine of evolution fails to account for personality or God-consciousness, theistic evolution against appeals to God. Obviously, the position appeals to some because it has the appearance of acceptability to the scientific majority.
Nevertheless, the problems with this view are several-fold. First, the desire to embrace theistic evolution appears less to be the result of conviction that evolution is true then a desire for proponents to appear acceptable to their contemporaries. If evolution is true, then all Christians should embrace that view of origins. However, evolution has little scientific proof to recommend it, even as we have seen in the cursory treatment afforded just moments before. Since scientific evidence is scarce (actually, non-existent), what would entice any Christian to espouse evolution?
A second objection revolves around the theistic evolutionist’s appeal to the Bible as suggesting a pattern of God’s involvement with the human race. Is the evolutionary view really the biblical picture, however? Evolution requires the development of life over a period of several billion years. Such a pattern is unknown in Scripture. Supernatural intervention by God, what we refer to as biblical miracles, while not an everyday occurrence is not particularly infrequent either. Hundreds of miracles, supernatural interventions by God, are recorded in the Bible.
As for the development of the rest of history along the lines of natural law, is it not more accurate to say that all history is in God’s hand and that it is being directed by Him in intricate detail according to His own perfect plan. Evolution proceeds as a long, slow, crude, wasteful, inefficient and mistake-ridden process. The God of the Bible hardly fits such a description. If evolution were somehow made to fit to His nature (efficient, wise, good and free of error) it would no longer be evolution. In that case the theistic evolutionist would be revealed to be a biblical theist and would become a creationist, although he would no doubt refrain from identifying himself by that term.
Theistic evolution dishonours the record of God’s creation. God created all life, with the exception of man, in a manner which could possibly lend itself to evolutionary thought. God spoke, and the various animals were. Of man we have a somewhat more detailed account of God’s work. The second chapter of Genesis speaks of this de novo work of God. “The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” [GENESIS 2:7]. Clearly, in the case of man God began with inorganic matter into which He breathed the breath of life. There is no suggestion that man developed from a lower animal.
If this aspect of God’s creation is different, what shall we say about Eve? Eve is said to have been created from Adam. “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”’
“Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
“But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man” [GENESIS 2:18-22]. This does not correspond to any evolutionary theory.
A further objection is found in the singularity of Adam. In ROMANS 5:12-21 and in 1 CORINTHIANS 15:22, 23 and 45, Paul presents comparisons between Adam and our Lord Jesus Christ. Foundational to these comparisons is the thought that Adam was an individual whose acts affected his progeny. This cannot fit with evolutionary thought. Evolution depends on a population as the basic unit. The Bible presents an individual. If evolution is true, at what point did Adam appear? Perhaps Adam didn’t appear? If God chose one individual from a population of pre-human beings and made him man, what happened to the rest? Questions such as these destroy the defence of the evolutionary view on biblical grounds.
The thought that Adam was one of a race existing before the biblical account began presents a logical fallacy if the Bible is to be taken as accurate. If theistic evolution is correct, the biblical account is in error since death, of necessity, must have preceded sin. Consequently, if death preceded sin, then God is untrustworthy for God has testified that death came because of sin. This would mean that we did not actually suffer a fall as a race. The consequence of this thinking is that we don’t need a Saviour. If we don’t need a Saviour, it follows that Jesus died for nothing. However, as Christians our final standard for truth is the written Word of God, given us by God who does not lie [cf. TITUS 1:2].
THE GAP THEORY — The Gap Theory was exceptionally popular among evangelical believers from a period shortly after publication of Darwin’s theory and until a generation ago. According to this theory the first two verses of Genesis appear to be continuous, but between the two verses is actually a long, indeterminate period in which the destruction of an original world and the unfolding of the geological ages are located. While the rationale behind the formulation of this view may be suspect, the exegesis behind the view has some strong points.
Proponents were struggling to account for what appeared to be overwhelming evidence of long ages presumed to be resident within in the geologic column. The fossils of long-extinct animals seemed to indicate fantastic creatures associated with a world far different from that in which we now live and the seemingly unified voice of palaeontologists insisting on vast ages for evolution of the earth cowed into silence many otherwise valiant stalwarts of the Faith. Their postulation of long ages preceding the present earth was somewhat effective in countering the arguments of the scientific community and in strengthening Christians in their faith. Among proponents were scholars such as C. I. Scofield, C. S. Lewis, M. R. DeHaan and even Francis Schaeffer.
The evidence for this view lies within the text of the Word of God. This is no small recommendation for this particular view. In the Masoretic text of Genesis, ancient Jewish scholars attempted to incorporate a number of “indicators” to guide the reader in proper pronunciation and interpretation of the text. One such “indicator” is a small mark known as a rebhia following VERSE ONE of our text. The rebhia is a disjunctive accent. That is, it serves to inform the reader that there is a break in the narrative at this point and that he should pause before going on to the next verse. The rebhia might also indicate that the conjunction that begins VERSE TWO (wā), should be translated “but” rather than the more common “and.” We must be cautious to remember that the rebhia was not in the original text of Genesis and therefore represents only the opinion of the Masoretes.
Supporting this view is the fact of parallelism in the account itself. Each of the accounts of God’s daily creative activity ends with the words, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the first [second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth] day.” Furthermore, on the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days, those same sections begin, “And God said…” It is only natural to assume that the account of the first day of creation begins, not with VERSE ONE, but with VERSE THREE where the parallel phrase occurs (“And God said, ‘Let there be light.’”) If this is so, then the first two verses stand apart from the rest of the account, describing a creation prior to the work of God on the first day.
A third reason advanced for the view is the possibility of translating the Hebrew verb “to be” (hoytȃ) in VERSE TWO not “was” but “became.” The verse would thus read, “But the earth became formless [a ruinous mass] and empty [devoid of life].” It is also possible that the verb should be considered pluperfect with the meaning, “But the earth had become… “ The arguments concerning the meaning of this basic Hebrew verb are long and tortuous, not ones which most people would cheerfully follow. However, they boil down to the point that this is at least a possibility and perhaps even a probability.
The fourth point favouring the Gap Theory is that the words “formless and empty” (tōhȗ wā bōhȗo) possibly provide a verbal clue to a preadamic judgement on the earth. Though the words do not necessarily speak of the destruction of something which was formerly beautiful, they can provide such a meaning. Besides, there is the text in ISAIAH 45:18 which says, using the words of GENESIS 1:2, that “God did not create the world to be a ruin.”
The entire view revolves around the timing of Satan’s fall, postulating that he fell prior to the creation recorded in the verses following GENESIS 1:2. In this view, Satan fell and was a malevolent spirit even before God began creating the world as we know it. Those gifted men who promoted this view often assured themselves that this would account for the fossils of great lizards, the evidence of world-wide catastrophe, and yet remain true to the spirit of the Creation account.
The objections to this view are important to understand. First, it gives a peculiar interpretation to one of the most important passages in the Word of God. Bible scholars should be uncomfortable in rejecting the collective wisdom of years of biblical interpretation in reaction to the ascent of evolutionary thought. Of course, to make a creation prior to that recorded takes away from the grandeur of God’s great work. Also, if the Gap Theory is correct, how shall we understand EXODUS 20:11? “In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” That verse hardly sounds like a re-creation; rather, it sounds as if it is describing an original creation.
Again, the exegetical data, while impressive, is far from certain. However, it is important for you to know that the most common meaning of the Hebrew words is incorporated in the text which we have received in virtually every standard translation of the Bible into the English tongue. In other words, the most accurate translation would not permit a gap between VERSES ONE and TWO.
Though the Gap Theory attempted to incorporate the geological data, it failed to settle the problem posed by that data. The fossil record is still incomplete and the geologic column is truncated, inverted and impossible to reconcile. It also fails to address one of the great theological objections, namely the problem of death preceding judgement. Some gap theorists appeal to the Flood for the fossils; but if they wish to do that there is left no reason for the gap. On the whole, this theory fails to provide us a working model, being doctrinally suspect and scientifically incomplete.
PROGRESSIVE CREATION — In recent years a concept known as “progressive creation” has been advanced by some individuals endeavouring to reconcile disparate concepts of origins. This view says that God created the world directly and deliberately, without leaving anything to chance. However, according to this view, God did it all over long periods of time that correspond roughly to the geologic ages. Moreover, this creation is still going on. Progressive creationism attempts to show how current scientific theories of the origin of the universe and the formation of the earth match the revelation given in Genesis.
According to this postulate the FIRST VERSE of GENESIS could be viewed as presenting something like the Big Bang theory. GENESIS 1:2 would reveal the condition of the earth after a few billion years. VERSE THREE relates the thinning of a cloud cover which had blanketed the earth, allowing the light to begin shining onto the surface. This is called THE FIRST DAY of creation because it was the first significant event in the preparation of the earth for habitation. THE SECOND DAY continues with a further thinning of the clouds and a separation between them and the waters that now cover the earth. The new element is the appearance of the firmament or atmosphere, which we refer to as the sky.
THE THIRD DAY describes the separation of the great landmasses from the oceans and the appearance of vegetation on the land. The land is presumed to have appeared as result of volcanic eruptions and buckling of the earth’s crust. There is a problem from a palaeobotanical point of view, however. According to palaeobotanical studies only simple plants existed early on—seaweed, algae and bacteria—and these are associated with the oceans instead of land. Seed-bearing plants are not supposed to arise until the Devonian period (about four hundred million years ago).
By THE FOURTH DAY light had been reaching the earth since the first day of creation, but now the skies cleared sufficiently for the heavenly bodies to become visible. Now they began to function as regulators of the day and the night. On THE FIFTH DAY God began to create living creatures. This is the first use of the word “create” (yibrā) since VERSE ONE. This would indicate de novo creation, but there is a problem since many marine invertebrate animals such as corals and trilobites appear in the fossil record prior to land plants. Progressive creationists react to this problem by allowing for overlap in the days, however, in accounting for this discrepancy.
THE SIXTH DAY sees God creating land animals and dividing them into three categories—livestock (that is, animals capable of being domesticated); creatures that move along the ground (the reference is to animals such as squirrels, chipmunks and woodchucks, and may include reptiles); and wild animals (that is, those that could not be domesticated). God also created man at the peak of the created order. Since God is said to have created each of these three categories of animals and man independently and after certain specific kinds, the possibility of evolution seems to be discounted. This does not mean that progressive creationists cannot appeal to microevolution, limited development within species, such as development of the horse. The language also suggests a pause between making the other animals and making man.
Again, problems between the fossil record and the order in which life forms are said to be created must be noted. As well, there is a linguistic problem in taking the days of Genesis as long periods of time. God seems to have taken great pains to indicate that He meant days of twenty-four hours since he bounded each with the phrase “evening and morning.” A third objection is that this view introduces death into the world before the fall (or even the creation) of Adam. Either death is the punishment for sin or the Bible is in error. Further the Bible imposes death upon the whole creation as result of sin!
SIX-DAY CREATION — A growing movement within the Evangelical Faith during the past several decades has been the Creation Science Movement, championed by such men of faith as Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts. These men vigorously advanced the concept that that God created all things in six days of twenty-four hours duration each. Moreover, in this view God accomplished this creative activity a relatively short time ago; none of these men appeal to long geologic ages to account for the earth and the heavens and all that is in them. Their evidence is disturbing to individuals wishing to appear acceptable to contemporary scientific thought.
Ridiculed by many—both unbelievers and fellow Christians—as naïve literalists, biblical creationists promote a position unanswered in the main by other views. In evaluating this position you should know that proponents are concerned for the accuracy of biblical teaching. The biblical creationist makes biblical teaching determinative. The biblical creationist endeavours to make an initial creation, the Fall and the Flood the three great points around which everything else is to be interpreted. Not surprisingly, these are the three great points presented in the first ten chapters of the Bible.
The creationist position rejects evolution as a failure. Evolution fails to provide an adequate explanation for the fossil record. It fails to predict events supposed to have occurred in historic time. It violates the laws of science, including the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the law of biogenics.
Lastly, creationists are not persuaded by scientific evidence of an ancient earth. The geologic column and the fossil record are a faithful account of God’s first great judgement on the earth—the Great Flood. Instead of requiring aeons of time, the fossils could be created in a very short period. The view of the creationist is support by the fact that present day conditions form very few potential fossil deposits, that failure of the facts of geology to maintain harmony between the oldest levels and the youngest levels within the geologic column, and the existence of vast fossil deposits.
Objections to the creationist view include apparent age in the universe. Certainly astrophysics accord an apparent age of billions of years to the universe. Radiometric dating would seem to support an ancient earth. Such objections can be readily answered by appeal to a universe created in motion with light already in progress from distant points. Furthermore, radiometric dating is suspect on a variety of points which I shall address in future messages. Creationists can provide answers which predict events without reacting to the problems, which seems to support this view most strongly.
Ultimately, for the Christian, the view adopted is determined by the Word of God. Shall we imagine that God is incapable of telling us what He has done in creating the universe? Is our Lord Jesus to be considered naïve when He spoke of God creating [MARK 13:19; MATTHEW 19:4 (NASV)]? Throughout the Bible the language of the writers betrays either deliberate ignorance, naïvety or bold understanding of the mind of God. Moses understood that God made all things in six days [EXODUS 20:11]. John considered Jesus to have been the One who made all things [JOHN 1:1-4]. Paul presents Jesus as both the Creator and the One responsible for holding all things together [COLOSSIANS 1:15-20].
The Word of God is a seamless garment and the fabric must be maintained whole. Creationism alone accounts for the Fall of our first parents and sets the stage for the redemption of mankind. Without the creation account the atonement provided in Christ the Lord is meaningless. Far better, I say, to believe that God called all things into being in six literal days then to begin to react to every difficulty imagined as we seek to find a better view than that which He has given us. Since we have literal sin, we should anticipate that there was a literal creation. In that way alone can we anticipate a literal salvation by a literal Saviour to enjoy a literal redemption.
I conclude with a humorous look at atheistic evolutionists. An atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that the “accident of evolution” had created.
“What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!” he said to himself.
As he walked alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. As he turned to look, he saw a seven-foot grizzly charge toward him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was gaining on him. He tried to run even faster so terrified that tears were coming to his eyes. He looked over his shoulder again; the bear was even closer. His heart was pounding as he tried to run faster, but he tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up and the bear was staring him in the face—raising his paw to kill him.
At that instant he cried out “Oh, my God!” And at that moment, time stopped, the bear froze, the forest was silent, the river stopped moving. A bright light shone upon the man and a voice came out of the heavens saying, "You deny my existence all these years, teach others I do not exist; even credit my creation to a cosmic accident, and now you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"
The atheist, ever so proud, looked into the light and said, “It would be rather hypocritical to ask to be a Christian after all these years; but could you make the bear a Christian?”
“Very well,” said the voice of God. As the light went out, the river flowed, the sounds of the forest continued, the bear put his paw down.
The Grizzly then brought both paws together, bowed his head and said: “Lord, I thank you for this food, which I am about to receive.”
There is a God; and He has revealed Himself as Creator. He is worthy of our praise is for no other reason than His might and majesty. Even a cursory walk through the world He has created will induce awe and gratitude in the heart of one seek His smile. Do you know Him? Do you now enjoy a relationship with Him? Amen.
 Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
 This summary of Darwin’s theory is adapted from John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis and Evolution (St. Louis: Concordia, © 1970), pp. 34, 35
 Donald England, A Christian View of Origins (Grand Rapids: Baker, © 1972), p. 97
 Edward J. Young, In the Beginning: Genesis Chapters 1 to 3 and the Authority of Scripture (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, © 1976), pp. 56, 57