Life - How did it get here - By evolution or by creation (1985)
Download: PDF — Life - How did it get here - By evolution or by creation (1985)
Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?
Source: jw.org
Contents
Title Page/Publishers’ Page
Contents
Life—How Did It Start?
Disagreements About Evolution—Why?
What Does Genesis Say?
Could Life Originate by Chance?
Letting the Fossil Record Speak
Huge Gulfs—Can Evolution Bridge Them?
“Ape-Men”—What Were They?
Mutations—A Basis for Evolution?
Our Awesome Universe
Evidence From a Unique Planet
The Amazing Design of Living Things
Who Did It First?
Instinct—Wisdom Programmed Before Birth
The Human Miracle
Why Do Many Accept Evolution?
Why Would God Permit Suffering?
Can You Trust the Bible?
The Bible—Is It Really Inspired by God?
An Earthly Paradise Soon to Come
What Choice Will You Make?
References Listed by Chapter
Picture Credits
“Continue in the Things That You Learned”
Title Page/Publishers’ Page
Title Page/Publishers’ Page
Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?
Millions of people today believe in evolution. Other millions believe in creation. Still others are uncertain what to believe. This book is for all such people. It presents a thoroughly researched examination of how life got here—and what this means for the future.
2006 Printing
This publication is provided as part of a worldwide Bible educational work supported by voluntary donations.
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the modern-language New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 edition
Contents
Contents
Page Chapter
7 1 Life—How Did It Start?
14 2 Disagreements About Evolution—Why?
25 3 What Does Genesis Say?
38 4 Could Life Originate by Chance?
54 5 Letting the Fossil Record Speak
71 6 Huge Gulfs—Can Evolution Bridge Them?
83 7 “Ape-Men”—What Were They?
99 8 Mutations—A Basis for Evolution?
115 9 Our Awesome Universe
129 10 Evidence From a Unique Planet
142 11 The Amazing Design of Living Things
152 12 Who Did It First?
160 13 Instinct—Wisdom Programmed Before Birth
168 14 The Human Miracle
179 15 Why Do Many Accept Evolution?
188 16 Why Would God Permit Suffering?
199 17 Can You Trust the Bible?
216 18 The Bible—Is It Really Inspired by God?
232 19 An Earthly Paradise Soon to Come
247 20 What Choice Will You Make?
252 References
255 Credits
Life—How Did It Start?
Chapter 1
Life—How Did It Start?
1. How extensive is life on planet Earth?
LIFE is everywhere around us. It is evident in the humming of insects, the singing of birds, the rustlings of small animals in the underbrush. It exists in the icy polar regions and in parched deserts. It is present from the sea’s sunlit surface to its darkest depths. High in the atmosphere tiny creatures float about. Beneath our feet untold trillions of microorganisms are at work in the soil, making it fertile for the growing of green plants, which sustain other forms of life.
2. What questions have long occupied many people’s minds?
2 Earth is packed with life so abundant and varied as to stagger the imagination. How did it all start? This planet of ours and all its inhabitants—how did they come to be here? More particularly, how did humankind get started? Did we evolve from apelike animals? Or were we created? Just how did we get here? And what does the answer imply for the future? Questions like these have been around for a long time and they are still unanswered in the minds of many.
3. How do some feel about these questions, but why are they important to everyone?
3 Perhaps you feel that these questions do not really affect you. You may think: ‘It doesn’t matter how I got here—I’m here. And I’ll probably live for 60, 70 or maybe 80 years—who knows? But whether we were created or we evolved, it changes nothing for me now.’ On the contrary, it could change a great deal—how long you live, the way you live, the conditions under which you live. How so? Because our entire attitude toward life and the future is influenced by our viewpoint on the origin of life. And how life came to be here will definitely affect the future course of history and our place in it.
Differing Viewpoints
4. How do many feel about the prospects for life on earth?
4 In the view of many who accept the theory of evolution, life will always be made up of intense competition, with strife, hatred, wars and death. Some even feel that man may destroy himself in the near future. A prominent scientist stated: “We may have only another few decades until Doomsday. . . . the development of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems will, sooner or later, lead to global disaster.”1 Even if this did not happen soon, many believe that when a person’s life span runs out in death he is then nonexistent forever. Others feel that, in the future, all life on earth will end. They theorize that the sun will expand into a red giant star, and as it does, “the oceans will boil, the atmosphere will evaporate away to space and a catastrophe of the most immense proportions imaginable will overtake our planet.”2
5. (a) How do the “scientific creationists” view the earth? (b) What questions does this viewpoint raise?
5 Recoiling from these conclusions are the “scientific creationists.” But their interpretation of the Genesis creation account has led them to claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the six “days” allowed in Genesis for creation were each only 24 hours long. But does such an idea accurately represent what the Bible is saying? Was the earth, and all its life forms, created in just six literal days? Or is there a reasonable alternative?
6. On what should we base our conclusions about the origin of life on earth, and how did Darwin leave the subject open?
6 In considering questions related to the origin of life, popular opinion or emotion sway many. To avoid this and to reach accurate conclusions, we need to consider the evidence with an open mind. It is interesting to note, too, that even evolution’s best-known advocate, Charles Darwin, indicated an awareness of his theory’s limitations. In his conclusion to The Origin of Species, he wrote of the grandeur of the “view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one,”3 thus making it evident that the subject of origins was open to further examination.
Science Not at Issue
7. What clarification is made about science and our respect for it?
7 Before proceeding further, a clarification may be helpful: Scientific achievement is not at issue here. Every informed person is aware of the amazing accomplishments of scientists in many fields. Scientific study has dramatically increased our knowledge of the universe and of the earth and of living things. Studies of the human body have opened up improved ways of treating illnesses and injuries. Rapid advances in electronics have ushered in the computer age, which is altering our lives. Scientists have performed astounding feats, even sending men to the moon and back. It is only right to respect the skills that have added so greatly to our knowledge of the world around us, from minutely small things to infinitely large ones.
8. How is the term evolution used in this book, and to what does creation refer?
8 It may also be useful to clarify definitions at this point: Evolution, as used in this book, refers to organic evolution—the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention. Creation, on the other hand, is the conclusion that the appearing of living things can only be explained by the existence of an Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the basic kinds of life upon the earth.
Some Vital Questions
9. What do those who accept evolution contend about creation, but what questions may come to mind about both evolution and creation?
9 Obviously, there are profound differences between the theory of evolution and the Genesis creation account. Those who accept evolution contend that creation is not scientific. But in fairness, it could also be asked: Is evolution itself truly scientific? On the other hand, is Genesis just another ancient creation myth, as many contend? Or is it in harmony with the discoveries of modern science? And what about other questions that trouble so many: If there is an all-powerful Creator, why is there so much war, famine and disease that send millions to an early grave? Why would he permit so much suffering? Also, if there is a Creator, does he reveal what the future will hold?
10. (a) What is the aim of this book, and the publishers’ hope? (b) Why is it so important to consider these matters?
10 It is the aim of this book to examine such questions and related issues. The publishers hope that you will consider its contents with an open mind. Why is this so important? Because this information could prove to be of greater value to you than you may yet realize.
[Blurb on page 7]
Did life evolve or was it created?
[Blurb on page 8]
Our entire attitude toward life and the future is influenced by our viewpoint on its origin
[Blurb on page 10]
Those who accept evolution contend that creation is not scientific; but can it be fairly said that the theory of evolution itself is truly scientific?
[Box/Picture on page 12, 13]
Some Things to Think About
Our world is filled with so many marvelous things:
Big things: A setting sun that turns the western sky into a blaze of colors. A night sky, packed with stars. A forest of towering trees, run through by shafts of light. Jagged mountain ranges, their icy summits glistening in the sun. Surging, wind-tossed oceans. These things exhilarate us, fill us with awe.
Little things: A tiny bird, a warbler, flying high over the Atlantic, heading toward Africa on its way to South America. At some 20,000 feet it picks up a prevailing wind that turns it toward South America. Directed by its migrating instinct, it follows its course for several days and 2,400 miles—three quarters of an ounce of courage wrapped in feathers. We are filled with admiration and wonder.
Ingenious things: Bats that use sonar. Eels that make electricity. Gulls that desalt seawater. Wasps that make paper. Termites that install air conditioners. Octopuses that travel by jet propulsion. Birds that do weaving or build apartment houses. Ants that do gardening or sewing, or keep livestock. Fireflies with built-in flashlights. We marvel at such ingenuity.
Simple things: As life nears its end, it is the small things that we often focus upon, things that we had so often taken for granted: A smile. The touch of a hand. A kind word. A tiny flower. The singing of a bird. The warmth of the sun.
When we think about such big things that are breathtaking, little things that stir our admiration, ingenious things that fascinate us, simple things belatedly appreciated—to what do we attribute them? Just how can such things be explained? Where did they come from?
[Full-page picture on page 6]
[Picture on page 9]
Only 6,000 years old?
[Picture on page 11]
It is right to respect the scientific skills that have added so greatly to our knowledge
Disagreements About Evolution—Why?
Chapter 2
Disagreements About Evolution—Why?
When a special centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species was to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction. In it he said: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution”a
1, 2. (a) How has the word “fact” been defined? (b) What are some examples of facts?
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an established fact. They believe that evolution is an “actual occurrence,” a “reality,” a “truth,” as one dictionary defines the word “fact.” But is it?
2 To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.
3. (a) What indicates that evolution as an established “fact” is still in question? (b) What approach will be helpful in examining the current status of evolution?
3 Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the same solid ground? Interestingly, ever since Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species was published in 1859, various aspects of the theory have been a matter of considerable disagreement even among top evolutionary scientists. Today, that dispute is more intense than ever. And it is enlightening to consider what advocates of evolution themselves are saying about the matter.
Evolution Under Assault
4-6. What has been happening among those who promote evolution?
4 The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.”1 Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.”2
5 After an important conference of some 150 specialists in evolution held in Chicago, Illinois, a report concluded: “[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years. . . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists. . . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight.”3
6 Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,” and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists.”4
7, 8. How did one respected writer comment on Darwin’s Origin of Species?
7 A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about it: “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.” Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he observed: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind.”—Italics added.
8 Booker also stated: “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.” He concluded: “As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall.”5
9. How is the situation among evolutionists in recent times described?
9 Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: “Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side.” He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching proportions, “potentially one of those times in science when, quite suddenly, a long-held idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary evidence and a new one takes its place.”6 And Britain’s New Scientist observed that “an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”7
Dilemmas Over Origins
10. Has an evolutionary origin of life on earth been established as fact?
10 Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”8
11. Complex body organs present what difficulty for evolution?
11 But the difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?
12. (a) How did Darwin comment on the origin of the eye? (b) Is the problem nearer to being solved today?
12 Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: “To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”9 More than a century has passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary, since Darwin’s time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: “The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better.”10
13. What did one scientist conclude about the brain?
13 If this is so of the eye, what, then, of the human brain? Since even a simple machine does not evolve by chance, how can it be a fact that the infinitely more complex brain did? Jastrow concluded: “It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors.”11
Dilemmas Over Fossils
14. Is it true that the fossil evidence supports evolution?
14 Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of living thing evolving into another kind. But the Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History commented: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.”
15. (a) How did Darwin view the fossil evidence in his day? (b) After more than a century of collecting fossils, what does the evidence reveal?
15 Why not? The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin “was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.” In fact now, after more than a century of collecting fossils, “we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time,” explained the Bulletin.12 Why is this the case? Because the more abundant fossil evidence available today shows that some of the examples that were once used to support evolution now are seen not to do so at all.
16. What do many evolutionary scientists now acknowledge?
16 This failure of the fossil evidence to support gradual evolution has disturbed many evolutionists. In The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven Stanley spoke of “the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another.” He said: “The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution].”13 Niles Eldredge also admitted: “The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist.”14
Newer Theories
17. How did Science Digest comment on the newer theories?
17 All of this has led many scientists to champion novel theories for evolution. Science Digest put it this way: “Some scientists are proposing even more rapid evolutionary changes and are now dealing quite seriously with ideas once popularized only in fiction.”15
18. What difficulty is there with the more recent theory that life began in outer space?
18 For instance, some scientists have concluded that life could not have arisen spontaneously on earth. Instead, they speculate that it must have originated in outer space and then floated down to the earth. But that just pushes the problem of the origin of life further back and into a more forbidding setting. The perils confronting life in the hostile environment of outer space are well known. Is it likely, then, that life began spontaneously elsewhere in the universe and survived under such harsh conditions to reach the earth, and later to develop into life as we know it?
19, 20. What new theory are some evolutionists promoting?
19 Since the fossil record does not show a gradual development of life from one type into another, some evolutionists theorize that the process must have happened by jerks and starts, not at a steady pace. As The World Book Encyclopedia explains: “Many biologists think new species may be produced by sudden, drastic changes in genes.”16
20 Some adherents to this theory have called the process “punctuated equilibrium.” That is, species maintain their “equilibrium” (they stay much the same), but every once in a while there is a “punctuation” (a big jump to evolve into something else). This is just the opposite of the theory that has been accepted by nearly all evolutionists for many decades. The gulf between the two theories was illustrated by a headline in The New York Times: “Theory of Rapid Evolution Attacked.” The article noted that the newer “punctuated equilibrium” idea had “aroused new opposition” among those who hold to the traditional view.17
21. (a) Regardless of which theory of evolution is accepted, what evidence should exist? (b) Yet what do the facts show?
21 Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that there should be at least some evidence to show that one kind of life turns into another kind. But the gaps between different types of life found in the fossil record, as well as the gaps between different types of living things on earth today, still persist.
22, 23. How has Darwin’s idea of “survival of the fittest” been challenged in recent times?
22 Also, it is revealing to see what has happened to Darwin’s long-accepted idea regarding the “survival of the fittest.” This he called “natural selection.” That is, he believed that nature “selected” the fittest living things to survive. As these “fit” ones supposedly acquired new features that worked to their advantage, they slowly evolved. But the evidence of the past 125 years shows that, while the fittest may indeed survive, this does not explain how they arrived. One lion may be fitter than another lion, but that does not explain how he got to be a lion. And all of his offspring will still be lions, not something else.
23 Thus, in Harper’s magazine, writer Tom Bethell commented: “Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. . . . One organism may indeed be ‘fitter’ than another . . . This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, . . . It is clear, I think, that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea.” Bethell added: “As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin’s theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse.”18
Fact or Theory?
24, 25. (a) What are some of the areas in which evolution has not met the standard of being an established fact? (b) In line with what an evolutionist said about the modern theory, how could it be regarded?
24 Summarizing some of the unsolved problems confronting evolution, Francis Hitching observed: “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”—Italics added.
25 Then Hitching concluded by making this observation: “To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying principle of biology, it encompasses extraordinarily large areas of ignorance. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things.” In fact, Hitching stated that he considered the modern theory of evolution “so inadequate that it deserves to be treated as a matter of faith.”19
26. Why is it not reasonable to continue insisting that evolution is a fact?
26 However, many advocates of evolution feel that they do have sufficient reason to insist that evolution is a fact. They explain that they are just arguing over details. But if any other theory had such enormous remaining difficulties, and such major contradictions among those who advocate it, would it so readily be pronounced a fact? Merely repeating that something is a fact does not make it a fact. As John R. Durant, a biologist, wrote in The Guardian of London: “Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.”20
27. What other framework for the evidence is there, which offers a basis for understanding how life got here?
27 On the other hand, what about creation as an explanation for how life got here? Does it offer a framework for the evidence that is any more sound than the assertions that often underpin evolution? And, as the best-known creation account, does Genesis shed any credible light on how the earth and living things got here?
[Blurb on page 14]
“Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble”
[Blurb on page 15]
“Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists”
[Blurb on page 18]
“The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better”
[Blurb on page 21]
“The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist”
[Blurb on page 21]
“Some scientists are proposing . . . [evolutionary] ideas once popularized only in fiction”
[Blurb on page 22]
New theories contradict what has been accepted for many decades
[Blurb on page 23]
“Darwin’s theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse”
[Blurb on page 24]
“Over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth”
[Box on page 18]
“Computer Scientists Stymied in Their Quest to Match Human Vision”
Under the above headline The New York Times reported: “Experts pursuing one of man’s most audacious dreams—to create machines that think—have stumbled while taking what seemed to be an elementary first step. They have failed to master vision.
“After two decades of research, they have yet to teach machines the seemingly simple act of being able to recognize everyday objects and to distinguish one from another.
“Instead, they have developed a profound new respect for the sophistication of human sight. . . . The human retina is the envy of computer scientists. Its 100 million rods and cones and its layers of neurons perform at least 10 billion calculations per second.”b
[Picture on page 16]
Of Darwin’s book The Origin of Species, a London Times writer who accepts evolution wrote: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind”
[Picture on page 17]
An evolutionist stated: “Entrenched positions, for and against, were established . . . and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side”
[Pictures on page 19]
Said astronomer Robert Jastrow: “It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors”
[Pictures on page 20]
“Some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record . . . have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”c—David Raup, Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History
Eohippus
Archaeopteryx
Lungfish
[Picture on page 22]
While the fittest may survive, this does not explain how they arrive
What Does Genesis Say?
Chapter 3
What Does Genesis Say?
1. (a) What is the purpose of this discussion on Genesis, and what should be remembered? (b) How are events covered in the first chapter of Genesis?
AS WITH other things that are misrepresented or misunderstood, the first chapter of the Bible deserves at least a fair hearing. The need is to investigate and determine whether it harmonizes with known facts, not to mold it to fit some theoretical framework. Also to be remembered, the Genesis account was not written to show the “how” of creation. Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way, describing what things were formed, the order in which they were formed and the time interval, or “day,” in which each first appeared.
2. (a) From whose standpoint are the Genesis events described? (b) How does the description of the luminaries indicate this?
2 When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth Genesis “day.” There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a ‘greater light that rules the day’ and the moon a ‘lesser light that dominates the night.’—Genesis 1:14-18.
3. How is the earth described before the first “day”?
3 The first part of Genesis indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before the first Genesis “day,” though it does not say for how long. However, it does describe what earth’s condition was just before that first “day” began: “Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.”—Genesis 1:2.
How Long Is a Genesis “Day”?
4. What indication is there in the creation account itself that the word “day” does not mean just a 24-hour period?
4 Many consider the word “day” used in Genesis chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion “day.” In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one “day”: “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day [all six creative periods] that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”
5. What is one meaning of the Hebrew word for “day” that indicates longer periods can be understood?
5 The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.”1 This last sentence appears to fit the creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.
6. Why does the use of “evening” and “morning” not necessarily limit a “day” to 24 hours?
6 Genesis chapter 1 uses the expressions “evening” and “morning” relative to the creative periods. Does this not indicate that they were 24 hours long? Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a man’s lifetime as his “day.” They speak of “my father’s day” or “in Shakespeare’s day.” They may divide up that lifetime “day,” saying “in the morning [or dawn] of his life” or “in the evening [or twilight] of his life.” So ‘evening and morning’ in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours.
7. What other uses show “day” could be more than 24 hours?
7 “Day” as used in the Bible can include summer and winter, the passing of seasons. (Zechariah 14:8) “The day of harvest” involves many days. (Compare Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14.) A thousand years are likened to a day. (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8, 10) “Judgment Day” covers many years. (Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24) It would seem reasonable that the “days” of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time—millenniums. What, then, took place during those creative eras? Is the Bible’s account of them scientific? Following is a review of these “days” as expressed in Genesis.
First “Day”
8, 9. What came to be on the first “day,” and is Genesis saying that the sun and moon were created at that time?
8 “‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.”—Genesis 1:3, 5.
9 Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day,” and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.
10. In what way could this light have come, and what kind of light is indicated?
10 Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about Ge 1 verse 3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.—See footnote b for Ge 1 verse 14.
Second “Day”
11, 12. (a) What is described for the second “day”? (b) How has the Hebrew word for this development sometimes been mistranslated, and what does it really mean?
11 “‘Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.’ Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. And God began to call the expanse Heaven.”—Genesis 1:6-8.
12 Some translations use the word “firmament” instead of “expanse.” From this the argument is made that the Genesis account borrowed from creation myths that represent this “firmament” as a metal dome. But even the King James Version Bible, which uses “firmament,” says in the margin, “expansion.” This is because the Hebrew word ra·qiʹa‛, translated “expanse,” means to stretch out or spread out or expand.
13. The expanse may have looked as though what had happened?
13 The Genesis account says that God did it, but it does not say how. In whatever way the described separation occurred, it would look as though the ‘waters above’ had been pushed up from the earth. And birds could later be said to fly in “the expanse of the heavens,” as stated at Genesis 1:20.
Third “Day”
14. How is the third “day” described?
14 “‘Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.’ And it came to be so. And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas.” (Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how this was done. No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals as catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.
15, 16. (a) What points were raised to Job about the earth? (b) How deep do the roots of continents and mountains go, and what is likened to a “cornerstone” for earth?
15 In the Biblical account where God is described as questioning Job about his knowledge of the earth, a variety of developments concerning earth’s history are described: its measurements, its cloud masses, its seas and how their waves were limited by dry land—many things in general about the creation, spanning long periods of time. Among these things, comparing earth to a building, the Bible says that God asked Job: “Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, or who laid its cornerstone?”—Job 38:6.
16 Interestingly, like “socket pedestals,” earth’s crust is much thicker under continents and even more so under mountain ranges, pushing deep into the underlying mantle, like tree roots into soil. “The idea that mountains and continents had roots has been tested over and over again, and shown to be valid,” says Putnam’s Geology.2 Oceanic crust is only about 5 miles thick, but continental roots go down about 20 miles and mountain roots penetrate about twice that far. And all earth’s layers press inward upon earth’s core from all directions, making it like a great “cornerstone” of support.
17. What is important relative to the appearance of dry land?
17 Whatever means were used to accomplish the raising up of dry land, the important point is: Both the Bible and science recognize it as one of the stages in the forming of the earth.
Land Plants on Third “Day”
18, 19. (a) In addition to dry land, what else appeared on the third “day”? (b) What does the Genesis account not do?
18 The Bible account adds: “‘Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth.’ And it came to be so.”—Genesis 1:11.
19 Thus by the close of this third creative period, three broad categories of land plants had been created. The diffused light would have become quite strong by then, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants. Incidentally, the account here does not mention every “kind” of plant that came on the scene. Microscopic organisms, water plants and others are not specifically named, but likely were created on this “day.”
Fourth “Day”
20. What divisions in time became possible by the appearance of the luminaries in the expanse?
20 “‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16; Psalm 136:7-9.
21. How did the light of the fourth “day” differ from that of the first?
21 Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·’ohrʹ, which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In ver. Ge 1:3, ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma·’ohrʹ in Ge 1 verse 14 means something “affording light.” On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.
22. What development on the fourth “day” could have contributed to the coming of animal life?
22 An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life.
23. What major changes are described for this time?
23 Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now “came to be” on this fourth “day” would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on.—Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22.
Fifth “Day”
24. What kinds of creatures were said to appear on the fifth “day,” and within what limits would they reproduce?
24 “‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.’ And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.”—Genesis 1:20, 21.
25. What were the creatures that appeared on the fifth “day” called?
25 It is of interest to note that the nonhuman creatures with which the waters were to swarm are called “living souls.” This term would also apply to the “flying creatures [that] fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse.” And it would also embrace the forms of sea and air life, such as the sea monsters, whose fossil remains scientists have found in recent times.
Sixth “Day”
26-28. What took place on the sixth “day,” and what was remarkable about the last act of creation?
26 “‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.’ And it came to be so.”—Genesis 1:24.
27 Thus on the sixth “day,” land animals characterized as wild and domestic appeared. But this final “day” was not over. One last remarkable “kind” was to come:
28 “And God went on to say: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.’ And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.”—Genesis 1:26, 27.
29, 30. How can the variance between Genesis chapter 2 and chapter 1 be understood?
29 Chapter 2 of Genesis apparently adds some details. However, it is not, as some have concluded, another account of creation in conflict with that of Ge chapter 1. It just takes up at a point in the third “day,” after dry land appeared but before land plants were created, adding details that were pertinent to the arrival of humans—Adam the living soul, his garden home, Eden, and the woman Eve, his wife.—Genesis 2:5-9, 15-18, 21, 22.
30 The foregoing is presented to help us understand what Genesis says. And this quite realistic account indicates that the creative process continued throughout a period of, not just 144 hours (6 × 24), but over many millenniums of time.
How Did Genesis Know?
31. (a) How do some misrepresent the Genesis account? (b) What shows their contentions to be inaccurate?
31 Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe” and the myths “are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2.”3 Regarding Babylonian creation legends, the trustees of the British Museum stated: “The fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different.”4
32. How has the creation account in Genesis been shown to be scientifically sound?
32 From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.
33. Where only could the information in the Genesis creation account have come from?
33 All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.
34. What other line of evidence underlines the soundness of the Genesis outline of events?
34 The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.
35. What questions are raised, and where are the answers to be discussed?
35 However, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there, knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. Instead, it attributes the appearance of life on earth to the spontaneous generation of living organisms from inanimate chemicals. But could undirected chemical reactions relying on mere chance create life? Are scientists themselves convinced that this could happen? Please see the next chapter.
[Blurb on page 25]
The Genesis account is given from the standpoint of an observer on earth
[Blurb on page 36]
The fossil record confirms reproduction only “according to their kinds”
[Box on page 35]
The Babylonian creation myth that is claimed by some to be a basis for the Genesis creation account:
The god Apsu and the goddess Tiamat made other gods.
Later Apsu became distressed with these gods and tried to kill them, but instead he was killed by the god Ea.
Tiamat sought revenge and tried to kill Ea, but instead she was killed by Ea’s son Marduk.
Marduk split her body in half, and from one half he made the sky and from the other half he made the earth.
Then Marduk, with Ea’s aid, made mankind from the blood of another god, Kingu.a
Does it seem to you that this type of tale bears any similarity to the Genesis creation narrative?
[Box on page 36]
A well-known geologist said this about the Genesis creation account:
“If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.”b This geologist, Wallace Pratt, also noted that the order of events—from the origin of the oceans, to the emergence of land, to the appearance of marine life, and then to birds and mammals—is essentially the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.
[Picture on page 27]
Day 1: “Let light come to be”
[Picture on page 28]
Day 2: “Let an expanse come to be”
[Picture on page 29]
Day 3: “Let the dry land appear”
[Picture on page 30]
Day 3: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth”
[Pictures on page 31]
Day 4: ‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse, the greater for dominating the day and the lesser for dominating the night’
[Picture on page 32]
Day 5: ‘Let the waters swarm forth living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth’
[Picture on page 33]
Day 6: ‘Domestic animal and wild beast according to its kind’
[Picture on page 34]
Day 6: “Male and female he created them”
[Picture on page 37]
The chances of doing this on the first try are 1 in 3,628,800
Could Life Originate by Chance?
Chapter 4
Could Life Originate by Chance?
1. (a) What did Charles Darwin concede about the origin of life? (b) What idea has present-day evolutionary theory revived?
WHEN Charles Darwin advanced his theory of evolution he conceded that life may have been “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”1 But present-day evolutionary theory generally eliminates any mention of a Creator. Instead, the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, once repudiated, has been revived in a somewhat altered form.
2. (a) What previous belief involving spontaneous generation was proved false? (b) Though admitting that life does not happen spontaneously now, what do evolutionists assume?
2 Belief in a form of spontaneous generation can be traced back for centuries. In the 17th century C.E., even respected men of science, including Francis Bacon and William Harvey, accepted the theory. However, by the 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from nonliving matter.
A New Form of Spontaneous Generation
3, 4. (a) What outline has been given of the steps leading to the origin of life? (b) In spite of the improbability of life originating by chance, what do evolutionists maintain?
3 A current evolutionary position on life’s starting point is summarized in his book, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. He speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.
4 Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.2
5. How is the origin of life usually dealt with in published material, yet what does a scientist say?
5 At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins’ comment in the preface to his book: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.”3 But readers on the subject will find that his approach is not unique. Most other books on evolution also skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter. Thus Professor William Thorpe of the zoology department of Cambridge University told fellow scientists: “All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was.”4
6. What does increasing knowledge show?
6 The recent explosive increase of knowledge has only served to magnify the gulf between nonliving and living things. Even the oldest known single-celled organisms have been found to be incomprehensibly complex. “The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning,” say astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. “Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. . . . so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.”5 And as information increases, the harder it becomes to explain how microscopic forms of life that are so incredibly complex could have arisen by chance.
7. What are the claimed principal steps en route to the origin of life?
7 The principal steps en route to the origin of life, as envisioned by evolutionary theory, are (1) the existence of the right primitive atmosphere and (2) a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of “simple” molecules necessary for life. (3) From these come proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds) that (4) combine and acquire a membrane, and thereafter (5) they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themselves. Are these steps in accord with the available facts?
The Primitive Atmosphere
8. How did a famous experiment by Stanley Miller, and later ones, fall short?
8 In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. More than 30 years later, scientists were still unable experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered plausible.
9, 10. (a) What is believed regarding the possible composition of earth’s primitive atmosphere? (b) What dilemma does evolution face, and what is known about earth’s primitive atmosphere?
9 Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.”6 Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”7
10 The fact is, any attempt to establish the nature of earth’s primitive atmosphere can only be based on guesswork or assumption. No one knows for sure what it was like.
Would an “Organic Soup” Form?
11. (a) Why is it unlikely that an “organic soup” would accumulate in the ocean? (b) How was Miller able to save the few amino acids he did get?
11 How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.
12. What would happen to amino acids even if some reached the oceans?
12 However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”8
13. What must amino acids in water do if they are to form proteins, but then what other danger do they face?
13 So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”9
14. So, what is one of the most stubborn problems facing evolutionists?
14 Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”10 Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”11
15, 16. What major problem is there in getting life’s proteins from the amino acids in a supposed organic soup?
15 There is, however, another stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. Remember, there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are “right-handed” and others are “left-handed.” Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all are left-handed!
16 How is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup? Physicist J. D. Bernal acknowledges: “It must be admitted that the explanation . . . still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain.” He concluded: “We may never be able to explain it.”12
Probability and Spontaneous Proteins
17. What illustration shows the extent of the problem?
…