THE ROUND TABLE, Ep.3 Evolution and Christianity

Alrighty, so if you don't know that I'm Brother Jeremiah, this is Brother Josiah, and this is our special guest,

Dr. Dana Sneed. For those of you who don't know Dr. Dana, she was a longtime member of our church and left a few years ago for?

Two. Two, wow. Okay, two years ago for work. She got her doctorate in Christian education, but she's been specializing the past couple years in creationism and kind of studying that a lot lately.

So I asked if she would come and hang out with us for a little bit and kind of help us discuss this.

The question, as I'll say again, is whether or not evolution and Christianity are compatible.

And I wanted to have this discussion because as a college student,

I kind of deal with this a lot. I run into this a lot. Like, yeah, I'm a Christian, but I'm also an evolutionist.

Yeah, I'm a Christian, but obviously you can't deny this. Also, I'm a Christian, but if you deny evolution, then you're against science.

You're not going with what science says. Science is clear, that evolution is proven, it's a fact, and that you can have them coexist.

That they're not mutually exclusive. So we're going to discuss that some and see what we find.

One thing that we always want to make sure that we emphasize is the difference between doctrine and theology.

A doctrine is a teaching found in the study of God from Genesis to Revelation.

It's found throughout all of it. Theology, theology, the study of God, are beliefs found in scriptures that are allowed for some interpretation.

Doctrines are not built. Doctrines are foundational. Doctrines are what Christianity is built on.

And I would say that creation is a doctrine. As it is found first in Genesis, it's repeated throughout scriptures, including

Jesus talks about it, including Paul talks about it. So it's found throughout scripture. So I would classify that as a basic fundamental doctrine of scripture.

And just to echo that and to give an example just to help people understand. If the

Bible says it, I'm going to talk about this in a minute. If the Bible says it, it's true. For example, what we did with our question -answer last week.

Jesus is coming back. How do we know that? Because the Bible says it is. That's not up for debate, right? Exactly when the rapture takes place in the church and before a witch seal and all that stuff is more theological, right?

So that's a look for if you disagree, then you're not a heretic. Right, right. You're not offending the gospel so long as you're doing it in accordance to what you believe this teaches.

But if this teaches something plainly, it doesn't matter how anyone feels about it, it's true. So I just want to lay out a couple things real quick and then

I'll let Dr. Dana talk about the evolution part of that question. Because the question was posed, is evolution compatible with Christianity or biblical

Christianity? So first off, let me let everyone understand, we're coming at this from the premise and I'll start talking to you guys now.

We're coming at this from a premise that that question is in the hearts and minds of people who are believers or seeking after God.

We're not here to debate an atheist, we're talking to people who are seeking for answers, right? They believe this

Word of God is true and then they have this science that's factual and so they're trying to, you know, make the two coexist.

Right. So here's what we need to start with. When we say this is the

Word of God, let me make sure everyone understands what that term means, okay? Because there are many out there today that would call themselves

Christians that do not call this the Word of God. When we say this is the Word of God, what we're saying is this is a collection of books, of letters, of documents, written over a period of approximately 1 ,500 years by 40 -ish some odd writers, all with one author, and that's the

Holy Spirit. That's what we're saying when we say this is the Word of God. We're saying that this is God -breathed theology, this is

God -breathed and though it came from the pens of men, it is what God intended to be in there, okay?

So when we believe that, we believe what it says is true. So when we say, is evolution compatible with biblical

Christianity, well, there isn't really Christianity outside of biblical Christianity. Right. Because the Bible is

God's work. That's his revelation for us. Right. You can't make up your own Christianity. But it is important to clarify that we are speaking as biblical

Christians because there are people that claim Christianity that are not teaching biblical

Christianity. So although we would say that's not real Christianity, because people use the term, we have to be careful that we're defining what we believe.

Sure, and we just, that's fair, and we want people to know that when we call this the Word of God, that's exactly what we mean. We mean it let

God be true and everyone else be a liar. We mean that this is what's true and if I have believed something due to tradition my whole life and I open this up and I realize, oh, well dang, actually it says this, then

I'm the one that needs to change, not this. Correct. That's kind of what we get there. So I just want to make sure we emphasize, echo what

Jeremiah said, doctrine and theology, right, and then also make sure we know that when we call this the

Word of God, we're saying it's literally God breathed and that, as we quoted last week, what Peter said in 1

Peter chapter 1 verse 20 and 21, I believe it is, that no prophecy was ever fulfilled by the interpretation of men, but men spoke as they were carried along by the

Holy Spirit. All right, go ahead, Dana. Well, I think the first thing we need to do is finish defining the rest of our terms.

So if we're talking about evolution, this is a very tricky place to be because there are so many levels to the definition here.

Yeah. Okay, so the first one that most people have probably heard is the micro and macro evolution, right?

So first, there is evolution, the word evolution just means change, right?

Of course. So this is an example where society, science, humanists have taken a word and they have hijacked the term.

I didn't know that literal definition. Yeah, it just means to change. So do you believe in evolution? Well, yeah, things change.

Okay, we could talk about the evolution of cars, right, but does that mean that the Model T decided to become an

F -150? No, right? I mean, we don't believe as cars, we believe something outside of it, yeah.

There was a change along the way, right? So we have no problem with the word evolution. The problem comes in where they've hijacked the term and they have, even sometimes in a subtle way and sometimes in an underhanded way, tried to make it mean something that it doesn't mean, right?

So there's an equivocation here, a fallacy of equivocation where you take definitions and you change the definition in the middle of an argument, okay?

So if we're talking about evolution and we start talking about adaptation, right? That's an observable scientific principle.

We can go out and we can see this species adapted to this environment and we can prove that, right?

That's repeatable, observable science. But when we equivocate that and so we're saying, yeah, well we would agree, well, okay, that's changed, we're going to call that evolution and then, okay, so then molecules to man evolution.

Well, no, now you've changed the definition. Right, so you're taking what we know as fact that some species adapt and you're saying, well, if that's true, then this bigger picture is it has to be true as well, right?

And you're changing the definition. Right. Because that's not even extrapolating data from one observable fact to a generalizable population.

You're entirely changing the definition. So when we, and now here's where we get into, we're going to take that branch and then it gets even deeper, okay?

So you take the branch of, okay, now I'm talking about evolution in the way that the humanists mean it, okay?

Evolution, and a lot of people will kind of lump this into Darwinian evolution, right?

So we could use that term to kind of differentiate. Darwinian evolution, but okay. But we've actually got at least three different kinds of evolution when we're talking about the history of evolution when

I'm talking about origins. We have cosmological evolution, okay? So that would be like the Big Bang and the

Nebular Hypothesis. The universe had this naturalistic beginning and everything has evolved since then, okay?

We have geologic evolution, and that is just dealing with the beginning of the earth, okay?

And then we have biological evolution, which is specifically dealing with living things and most specifically mankind, okay?

So there's actually different layers in here, and so depending on what conversation you're getting into and which questions are being asked and which arguments are being directed at you, you have to kind of be aware that sometimes they're all lumped together and sometimes they're different questions and different conversations.

You know, it's awesome that we can differentiate between these three, and I'm glad you said that because often a straw man is put on Christians and said that they are anti -science, when really we're calling the humanists out on their own terms and saying, well, what do you mean when you say evolution?

Are you meaning this, this? I'm not being anti -science by calling you out on your own terms, right?

And I like how you split those up, right? The three different kinds. One of my favorite

Christian scientists, he's a mathematician, John Lennox at Oxford University. Brilliant, brilliant.

I love listening to him. He'll actually, when he's talking to atheists, he'll sometimes be like, okay, so you say the cosmological evolution, that's the big thing.

He says, alright, fine. Let's put that one on pause. But there was a beginning, and something got started, right?

And so when he's not even, he'll be like, well, let's put evolution to the side for a second. You're an atheist. What started?

And he talked about that for a little bit, and I'm like, that's interesting. That's a good point because if you're going to start from that basis, well, then the basis itself is valuable, right?

It can't hold on its own. Right, but we can't go any farther until we deal with the word science, okay?

Because science is another word that they have tried to hijack. Now the difference is that they can't really hijack this one because there's an entire field based on it, right?

So when we talk about science, science is knowledge, okay? The scientific field of science is the field in which you study to seek knowledge, right?

And it's all based on observation, and it's based on hypotheses that can be testable and repeatable, and so we have, as Biblical Christians, as Biblical creationists, we have no problem with science whatsoever.

In fact, we believe that science finds its root in the character of God. In fact, when we say

God is omniscient, right? If you have to be like me and say omniscience in order to spell it correctly, right?

We're saying that God has all knowledge. I just got some shakes of the head from some MIT students in the room.

We're saying that God has all that knowledge, right? Well, and take the laws of science, right? So everyone would agree that, and even this is something if we get to it, one of the presuppositions, one of the assumptions of evolution is a uniformity of nature, right?

Things don't change. There are certain universal laws of science that are just laws, okay?

So as a Christian, I can explain that. My God doesn't change. Right.

Therefore, his laws do not change. My God is in control of all things. Therefore, his laws govern all things.

As an evolutionist... And he created those laws in the beginning. Well, I wouldn't even say that he created them.

I would say that they are representations of his character. Oh, okay. Okay? Like, I don't even necessarily would...

I don't think you have to say he spoke them into existence. They are natural extensions of his character.

Okay. Okay? The same way that logic... Logic exists. Why does it exist?

Because it reflects the thinking of God. Okay. Okay? But as an evolutionist, explain those things to me.

You have absolutely no way to say these things are always the same in all locations.

They don't change over time. How can you explain that? Now, something that's thrown in the face of Christians a lot, as a counterpoint, is that we're just a

God of the gaps. And what that means is that, well, because we don't know the answer, that we just fill that gap with God.

And therefore, that's our cop -out. That it's the lazy, cheap way out of really, as the

Sam Harris would say, really lurking, learning, and searching for the truth of the matter, as he would say.

Well, and that's just really an argument in ignorance, because there are there are lots of creationist

Christian scientists that have dedicated their lives to searching out things in the realm of science, just like the atheists and the evolutionists have.

And so, I don't have to know how everything works, because I have a

God that has created all things, right? But, God has given us minds to think, and he has given us a curiosity to explore, and he wants us to look those things out.

And, you know, it's kind of like the believers who, and I think maybe we've all been guilty at some point, but we need to correct ourselves.

We've used the verse in Deuteronomy, the secret things belong to the Lord, to try to say, well, okay, why don't I have to study that part?

Because I don't think I'll find that answer this side of heaven, haven't I? But, we're also commanded that our love, and I don't want to spin off too much on this, but Philippians 1 .9,

our love will keep on growing in knowledge and every kind of discernment.

Now, Paul could have said, and you would probably expect him to say, if we had a fill -in -the -blank test for every

Christian on this planet, and we said, Paul said in Philippians 1 .9 that your love will keep on growing in blank and blank.

I doubt very seriously that most believers would put, your love will keep on growing in knowledge and discernment.

That's exactly what Paul said. And, you know, you might expect him to say other things, but if that's a command of Paul and that's how your love keeps on growing, at least in that context, then our goal is to keep on searching until we die, even if we can't find all the answers, right?

Be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, the constant learning, right?

The constant seeking after God. Right, and we don't have time. That would be a whole other conversation to get into.

He calls us to reason. He calls us to think. He calls us to seek knowledge, to seek wisdom.

In fact, when David sinned, he said, I was an unthinking animal towards you. That was his description of himself when he said,

I was an unthinking animal towards you. I think it's funny that people would like to forget some of the greatest and most brilliant scientists of all time, like Isaac Newton.

Like, dude's created by himself. He made calculus and physics.

Like, he was the one who's the father of all of that, and dude was a stout Christian. He was a stout believer in God, and people forget that the whole anti -science thing is totally off -base.

Well, it's, and it goes back to the definitions, and well, some of it is the brainwashing that has been done, you know, through the years, but they, going back to the definition of science, when they say, science says, or this is right, this is knowledge says.

What do you mean? Who's knowledge? Right. You, science can't say anything. The scientists say stuff, and that's their opinion, their interpretation of the proof that they've had, and so that's why when we, coming back to creation and evolution, we are not arguing over evidence.

We all have the same evidence. Yes. What we're debating is our interpretation of that evidence.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, most, a lot of the disagreement is not with the what is currently.

It's a question of past events, right, and how that affects current events. Well, there's very, unless I'm misreading, there's very little argument over what is currently happening on this island, and the question is what happened on that island.

You take what you can see, and you walk that backwards, and say, well, if this is happening here, this must have happened in the past.

And there's a mountain of presuppositions that you have to carry back thousands of years, and carry back miles away to make that happen.

And we call that historical science, okay, because it is still a search for knowledge. It's still, in that sense, relates to science, but it's historical science, not observational science.

Because, okay, think about it this way. We're talking about the origins, okay, whether you're talking about origins of man, origins of the universe, breaking it down, or clumping it all together, okay, but you're talking about the origins.

Who was there? Okay, from a, from an evolutionist perspective, nobody was there. Nobody was there to observe it.

It has not repeated itself. It can't really repeat itself. It's a historical science.

So there is absolutely nothing in observable science that can say this is what happened in the universe.

The only way at the beginning of the universe, the only way you can know for sure what happened at the universe, at the beginning of the universe, is if an eyewitness told you.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but most, I'll use the term evolutionist in a Darwinian sense, would say there is a distinction between the origins of the universe and the origins of the earth.

Right. So they are looking at evidence of the effects of the origins of the earth to look for answers for the origins of the universe.

Well, sometimes. To be, to be fair, a lot of those arguments for the beginning of the universe would come from astronomical, okay, and so then it would be outside of the earth.

Okay, okay. But, yeah, in a lot of senses, in a lot of cases, those do get blurred, those lines get blurred.

But, as biblical creationist, I do have an eyewitness account of the beginning of everything.

Right? Right. So, so in that sense, I can be way more confident than an evolutionist as to how did things begin.

Yeah. Because I have an account right here. The only being that existed was God. Yeah. And he has given us the exact account of what happened.

Yes, he did. So, I'm not sure if we completely finished defining all our terms, it kind of jumped around, but I think we've done enough to, sure, to get going.

So, so the question directly is, is evolution and Christianity compatible? Why, why not?

So if we define evolution in a Darwinian biological sense, okay, well then no, it would not be, and there are several reasons why.

Let me just give a couple and you guys jump in when we want. First off, guys, I do want to encourage anyone who may be listening this, who is completely alone in their high school or college level science class, and you are the only person that disagrees, and you're trying to muster the courage to disagree.

I have been in that scenario. That is a frightening scenario in some sense. It's tough being alone in that.

However, you're really not, and often there actually are other believers in the room who just haven't mustered up the courage themselves yet.

But at any rate, if this is the Word of God, right, if this is the

Word of God, and it has all the truth we need, then it has answers in it, and God has given us answers,

Romans 1. God has given us answers in his creation, and you can find them, and you don't have to have an IQ of 180 to figure it out, right?

If you read this for yourself, and I'm going to read a passage of scripture in just a moment out of Romans 5.

If you want to go ahead and turn there, those of you watching Romans chapter 5, because I'm going to show you that you can read this for yourself and get the answers for yourself.

You don't have to have someone tell you. Our job isn't to necessarily teach you everything.

Our job is to teach you how to teach yourself, how to find the answers for yourself. When you read the

New Testament, when you read the

New Testament, they took Genesis literally. When you read Psalms, the writers of Psalms took

Genesis literally. I mean, if I were to take out every Psalm that called God Creator, we would have a lot fewer

Psalms, okay? So, I mean, just think about it, and sometimes the workarounds we do to try to fit

Genesis and Psalms into our modern -day view is not how any other writer of scripture would have read it.

Well, and I'd like to jump in there, because, I mean, really that question, if you're asking me, can evolution be compatible with Christianity, then my immediate question back to you is, why does it need to be?

Okay? Because, really, underlining that question is the idea, and you kind of mentioned this a little bit earlier, the fact that, you know, science says this, or the scientists are saying this.

This is consensus among the scientific community, and it's been proven, right?

They've found all this proof. Well, we could have an evidential argument and demonstrate that that's not really true either, but the reason that we sometimes feel like we need to fit things in is because we are not holding this as the sufficient authoritative word of God.

We're taking man's word, and we're saying, well, they have discovered this, and I don't see how it fits.

I must be wrong, so let me see, let me try to figure out how to force it in here. And I've had to repent of this before in a totally different context, but if John 3 .16

is God's word to you, so is Psalms 90, so is Genesis 2. You can't pick and choose.

Right. If Philippians 4 .13, my goodness, maybe one of the most misused verses of the

Bible, if Philippians 4 .13 is God's word to you, then so is Romans 5. If you're gonna take

John 3 .16 of Philippians as a solace for your soul to take refuge in, if you're gonna take this part of Scripture, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, to say

Jesus came and saved my soul, and I believe that, but then you're gonna come back here and throw this part to the side,

I think there's some serious problems there. And if you were just gonna read your Bible, where do you see millions of years?

Where's that term even... The millions of years doesn't come from the Bible at all. It comes from scientists. Sure. So we're starting from the wrong direction to begin with.

And it doesn't come from science. Scientists. And you know, people often...

And not all scientists. No. And sometimes we'll be like, yeah, but it doesn't say in 4004

BC at 1035 Eastern Standard Time that God created the world. But guys, look, when you add up the genealogies,

I'll let you do it for yourself. Add up the genealogies, and yes, I understand the argument that sometimes it says son of, and really that was his grandfather.

I get all that. You can't even do that in Genesis 10, though. You're never... Right. You're never going...

You're never gonna get close to any model of what is gonna equal millions or billions of years or whatever.

And apart from that, and don't let me stop you, but apart from that, I think Dana's point.

Search your heart for a minute. Ask yourself, why are you looking for that? Be honest for a minute.

Are you searching for the truth? Are you starting from your supposition that everyone who's gonna hear this, including myself, is guilty of?

Are you reading a text of the Bible and then in your mind saying, well, it can't mean that. So let me just...

If you ever start reading your Bible and you start before you even say, well, I know it can't mean that, and there's a reason behind that that comes outside of this.

It can't mean that because Psalm 90... If you start with that, you probably need to check your heart for a minute and try again, because you're gonna bring something into the text that's not there.

But let me read. Let me read. I'm gonna read Romans chapter 5, and guys, we've been over this many times, but maybe if you're new to Witten, remember that Paul nor any other writer ever put in these chapters and verses.

Those are distinctions to help us find something. I'm glad they're there, otherwise it would have taken me a very long time. You know, you can't say, hey, turn to that part of Isaiah that talks about this.

You would be there forever, right? So I'm glad they're there, but just keep in mind this is a letter and it was written as a letter, okay? So Romans 5, we're gonna start in verse 12, and I'm probably gonna read to the end of the chapter.

I'll try to be quick, but this just... I don't want to sit here and teach you so you can feel better. I want you to see

God's Word and let it do the work on you. Romans 5, 12. Therefore. Now, when you see the word therefore, you gotta know what therefore is therefore.

Just give you a little context here quickly. This chapter starts off with, since we've been justified by faith, okay?

It goes on to talk about that people don't die for the ungodly, and then verse 8 says, but God shows his unloved toward us, and while we were still sinners,

Christ died for us. By the way, guys, you didn't love God first, he loved you first.

But anyway, while we were still enemies, verse 10, we were reconciled to God by the death of his

Son. How much more will we reconcile shall we be saved by his life, verse 11. More than that, we rejoice in God through our

Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we now have received reconciliation. We've been brought back to God, right? Now that we know that, we've been made right, we've been justified by faith, verse 12.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, sorry gentlemen, notice who

God held responsible, through one man, and death through sin.

So, in this way, death spread to all men, anthropoi, all men, because all sin.

For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted when there's no law, yet from,

I'm sorry, yet death reigned from Adam to Moses. Okay, let me stop there for just a second. So remember the law, right?

God gave the law to Moses. I want you to notice, sin in the world through one man, and death through sin.

What does Romans 5 .12 teach was a result of sin? Death, right? Death is a result of sin.

So, in this way, I think that's key, or and so by this. There's a key term there.

In this way, death spread to all men. So, Romans 5 .12,

and I'll keep reading, but I couldn't, I couldn't stop myself. The result of sin is death, for the wages of sin is death, right?

The result of sin is death. The Bible says, the result of sin is death, and Adam is the one that brought sin into the world.

Okay, now we can talk about the first sin, but we're talking about human sin, right?

Adam brought sin into the world, and the result of that sin was death.

Any theory, any worldview you have where death precedes

Adam, I'm sorry, is unbiblical. Let me, let me say that as clear as I can. Let God say that as clear as he can.

In this way, in this way, death spread to all anthropoid, to all mankind, because all sin.

There can be no death before Adam, because Adam's sin resulted in. Guys, I'm sorry,

Genesis 1 and 2, God saw his creation, saw it was very good, and my God does not see the death of all things as very good.

That includes the very prevalent gap theory, that in between, and I've actually heard it in two different ways, that in between verses 1 and 2, or in between chapter 1 and 2, after verse 31, right?

I've heard it in both ways, that there were millions and billions of years in between those verses, or in between those chapters, but specifically, if you're gonna take the stance that was in between chapter 1 and 2, that's impossibility, because then there would have been death before the sin.

And also, we're talking about, you know, what God said, what

Jesus said, in Mark 10, 13, I think, Mark 10, 6, he's talking about divorce, somebody asked him about divorce, but he says, from the beginning of creation,

God created the male and female. Right. Okay, so he says, from the beginning of creation.

So he validates. So he validates the fact, and that's just one instance. Right. Okay, in Exodus 20, 11, yeah, 20, 11, it says that our, the

Sabbath, and our week pattern, is based on the fact that God created all things in six days, and rested on the seventh.

It's kind of cut and dry right now. I mean, you can't add time in there. Apart, apart from the logical problems with the day -age theory, or,

I'm sorry, the gap, well, and the day -age, a day is like a thousand years, so that means that, you know.

So just, if we just take Romans 5, 12, before we've done any other work. Right. If you are a believer, listen to this right now, and your

Bible clearly shows you that death is a result of Adam's sin, that now blows all that out of the water, if you believe that Romans chapter 5 is an inspired word of God, just like anything else.

Apart, apart from you wanting to take a word like yom, which means day, and you want it to mean 24 hours, the other 5 ,000 times it's used in the

Old Testament, but in two chapters from Moses, who used that word in five other books, you want it to mean one thing.

Ask yourself, why do you want it to be that way? And there is no evolutionary position that does not require death.

Death. Evolution happens, that is the mechanism that progresses evolution. Without death, you cannot get to the next phase.

Yes, death is a good thing in that way, because then something else evolves. And let me clarify something, we made a reference to something called the day -age theory.

Oh yeah, I'm sorry. Let me just clarify that. That, what that's saying is, is that, you know, in Peter it says a day is like a thousand years to the

Lord. Out of context. Right, out of context. And so what they're saying though is, so since the creation took seven days, in reality, a day was not a literal 24 -hour sunrise, sunset.

It was, you know, hundreds of thousands or millions of years for that creation to take place.

For each day, which is so funny because Moses went through the trouble of saying evening and morning was the first day.

Okay, can I bring out this too? Oh no, I got one! I will say that there are a lot of people, this is, once again, this day -age theory in the

Christian community is very prevalent. Yeah, and let me, and then

Dan is gonna say something way more brilliant than I will, but let me say this real quick. Y 'all remember in VeggieTales? Probably. Y 'all remember in VeggieTales?

Yeah, sorry. They call it fibbing instead of lying. The kid lies about breaking the bowling, bowling ball or picture or whatever it was.

Plates. Yeah, okay, the plate, yeah. Okay, and then he's gotta tell another lie to cover that and another lie to cover that?

Yeah. But, okay, and so the idea is that the six -day creation each day represents ten million, whatever, right?

Ten million years. It's not a literal 24 hours, right? We don't believe that, but if you take that just logically for a minute, that means you would say day six is millions of years, right?

The Bible says that Adam lived to be 930. Now, I want you to realize what you now have to do.

I'm laughing, but I'm really not. I'm trying to show everyone what you have to do. You now have to say that the

Bible is not literal when it says Adam was 930 because day six would have been millions of years. Adam would have lived to be millions of years.

Oh, well, no, it's just the first five days. So, you mean to tell, and I'm not trying to mock anybody, but you mean to tell me that you believe

Moses meant the word day to be millions of years for five days, but then on day six and seven he meant it to be 24 hours.

Look at what you have to do, the violence you have to do to the Word of God to make that fit. Ask yourself, why do you have to do that?

Thank you! Thank you! But the thing is, the thing is, evolution is not compatible.

Even the order of events that an evolutionist would propose does not fit with the biblical timeline, even if you allow for long periods of time, okay?

Here's some examples, all right? Okay, just as a reminder, day one,

God created light, right? Day and night. Which is really cool because, well, we won't get into it. Day two, he created sky, okay?

Day three, you have land, sea, and vegetation. Day four, you've got sun, moon, and stars.

That's what I was going to get at. The sun was four days later. Yeah. Day five, you've got sea creatures and flying things, okay?

And then day six, you have land creatures and humans, okay? All right, so let's just think about this.

In the evolutionary idea, you've got this singularity that explodes, okay, the

Big Bang, and it creates the universe, starting with stars, okay?

Before there's anything else, before there's an Earth, before there's anything else, you've got stars, okay? And then things evolve, so you've got the sun because it's a star, and then you've got this big molten mass that is going to become the

Earth, okay? Well, let me just stop there and say that in the biblical account, the

Earth began covered in what? Water, and the Spirit covered over it. Okay, so we have a world beginning in water, or a world beginning in molten lava?

See, there's another version of the change. By the way, Brother Jeff, if we have any comments with questions that someone wants answered, just let us know, okay?

All right, so in evolution, you've got sun before the Earth. That's backwards, okay?

You've got land before sea. That's backwards, okay? That happens at the same time in creation.

He draws the waters together to reveal the dry land, all right? You've got sun before you've got light on Earth, whereas the first thing

God created after creating heavens and Earth, first thing, light, okay? You've got stars before the

Earth. You've got sea creatures before land plants, okay? Which makes sense because we believe that water was there first.

Or did I say it backwards? Say it again. They put sea creatures before land plants. We have all vegetation on day three, and sea creatures on day five.

Sea creatures, okay, I'm sorry, I thought you said the sea. No, no, creatures, all right? They put land animals before trees, but trees should be day three, and animals are day six, all right?

They put reptiles before birds, okay? Reptiles are land animals. Birds are the day before, okay?

And they say, you know, that dinosaurs evolved into birds, right? So, like, all of these things, and I could go on, right?

But there's, even when you take the evolutionary progress that they claim, it is not compatible.

In most ways, there are contradictions to where you can't even try to take

Genesis 1 and just drag it out, expand it out, or you're going against what the scientific consensus says happened in evolution.

Well, I love that there is no scientific consensus. I mean, I had a biologist in college who told me that the reason

Earth has a double core layer is because two planets smashed together and formed one. I had a, my college professor, who is a doctorate, that's what he told me.

And there's no consensus. He's the only person I've ever heard that from. And I'm just, even within evolution, there's so many contradictions and differing beliefs.

It's insane. Well, that's because they're always having to redefine their theory, redefine what happened in order to explain all the things that doesn't make sense and they can't explain.

Right. Professing themselves to be wise. Um, so here's another, I'll give another problem, we'll call it, quote -unquote problem, that's thrown in the face of Christians often.

Um, well, the light of stars, the fact that we can see the stars, right? Um, well, we know the speed of light, and so we also know that this said star is 10 billion light years away.

Which means, because we know, you can do a little math, because we know the speed of light, we know that it would take 50 ,000 years or a million years for the light from that star to return.

So therefore, creation, six -day creation can't be true, therefore it must be evolution.

Right. Alright, so the very first thing is that the Big Bang Theory. You've never heard this one before.

The Big Bang Theory does not account for distant starlight either. Right, right, because it all came from a...

And they have additional problems, the horizon problem, there's a temperature version of that, there's different kinds of things, okay?

But, um, but they have, like rewritten, you might have heard of, um, like inflation, okay?

So the universe is expanding, right? So they would say it started as a singularity, started expanding at a normal rate, and then it, that rate, uh, inflated to be like exponential, and then it went back to normal.

So, um, and that... I call it the Rubber Band Theory. So, so that is an attempt to explain some of these light travel problems, or these, um, the horizon problem is the one that it's called, because you can take two, two spots in the universe and they have the same temperature.

But if they've never been in contact with each other... Because of the explosion. Oh, okay.

So, but to, and it gets, it's really more complicated than that, but, um, to try to do those, they have to rewrite things, but there is absolutely nothing, no evidence, nothing to look for to verify the inflation.

So, like, so really what they're doing when they bring that up as a problem is they're bringing up a problem that is a problem for everybody.

Yeah. And just saying, you have to prove it. Yeah. Okay, so that's a fallacy in and of itself, okay?

But even beyond that, it's based on, um, assumptions, right? So you're assuming that light travels at the same speed...

186 ,000 miles a second, whatever it is. Okay, so you've got a constancy problem, okay? And you've got a rigidity problem.

What do you mean by that? So, it gets way more complicated than we have got time for, okay?

But basically, um, and there's some great articles, like, all of these topics you should go look at the

Answers in Genesis website. AnswersinGenesis .org. They write all sorts of articles on a layman's level that talk about all these things that we've talked about and waiting for...

So people like you and I can understand. Right. And all sorts of things that we've just kind of left by the side in this conversation, okay?

But, um, they specifically deal with this problem as well. But basically, um, we assume that light travels the same speed in all directions, that it has traveled the same speed for all history.

And in every single galaxy and every... Within different gravitational forces. Right. And the gravitational...

I'm not even going to try to go there because it's way too complicated. But, um, they... there is a theory that would say, you know, like, maybe we're in a gravitational well, and so it travels differently when it gets close to the

Earth than it does elsewhere. And things like that, okay? There's also... We cannot measure the speed of light one direction.

Because we can't synchronize watches. We have no way to synchronize clocks in such a way that we can send a beam of light, a particle of light, from here to here, and know for sure that those are precisely synchronized.

So what we're doing, basically, you're telling me I'm wrong, is we're taking our closest star, the

Sun, saying that it's 93 to 95 million miles away. If it takes 7 to 8 minutes to get here, we get the speed of light from there.

But you're saying we can't do that in other galaxies in other contexts? No, what I'm saying is when we... when we measure the speed of light, we're measuring it round trip.

Oh, okay, okay, okay, okay. But that assumes that it travels in both directions the same, okay?

One of the theories... That makes sense. One of the theories... This is just a theory. It's not proven. It's still being worked on and all that kind of stuff.

But you have, like, you have the theory of relativity, okay? So basically, bullet down for this conversation, if you were riding on a proton, and you were a particle of light, and you were going at the speed of light, zero time would pass.

You would get from here to there instantaneously. Because according to the theory of relativity, at the speed of light, time doesn't exist.

That's the basis for every superhero show on TV, right? That's a flash. You're a superman.

Hey, you're showing your nerdness. Stop, okay? Think about it like you get on an airplane at four o 'clock, and you head across time zones for two hours.

You land at four o 'clock. Yeah, I know. It's the same kind of basic idea, okay? So it's it's a relative way to look at time, right?

You've got universal time. You've got local time. Okay. Okay? Okay. So really complicated topic, but boil it down to the fact that we're making a bunch of assumptions.

Yeah. And there are people that have valid and... Christians. There are Christians that have valid and reasonable studies that they are working on to try to see if we can figure out any of these things are true.

One of the theories is that light travels 100 % in one direction and instantaneously in the other.

So like the speed of light, we are taking it round trip, right? But if it takes the 100 % of the speed of light to get there, but then it travels back instantaneously or vice versa, then our calculations would still be correct.

It would still be that constant. Huh. Right? So there's... Thank you for inviting me.

Thank you for inviting me. I know, this is insane. Now, all of these are just things that are being postulized and being studied at a deeper level, okay?

I'm not saying that that is true, but that's a fact. But the point is that the problem exists for all parties.

Right. And it doesn't... No one person can say, well, that's your problem, you have to deal with it.

And creationists are not trying to shy away from the problem. They're trying to solve the problem. They're trying to use the reason and the understanding that God has given us to seek out, can we know more about this?

Right. There's a difference between saying, my God can do miracles and I'm gonna look for the miracle that He did, or between saying, oh, you know, that's for the smarter people to figure out all that stuff.

Well, and it could be a miracle. Yeah. Okay? Because our God does do miracles. And He created everything in a week.

That was not based on scientific laws. Right. He worked supernaturally to create things in six days.

He could have supernaturally created light in transit, is one of the theories. Although the other one was a miracle.

But it could be that He just created things in a sense that it was instantaneous. I didn't think about that.

He could have created light already in transit. There are some problems with that because we see things happening, like stars exploding and things like that.

And so by the time it took to get here, that would mean that He was creating illusions of things that didn't actually happen.

Theoretically. Okay. But that is assuming that He's working inside of time.

Right? He's outside of time. Yeah. So He could have created stuff that did happen outside of our time.

All right. That was great.

That was great. Thank you very much. But no, that is a valid point. If we take

Scripture literally as we all should, then Adam was created as an adult. He was not created as a child to grow up.

Right. So then it's a fair assumption, and it is an assumption, but it is a fair assumption to say, well then that same example could have been carried out to others.

The animals. Right. Adults. Right. The trees and vegetation already in adulthood.

They were already able to perform the tasks that God had required. Exactly. And so it is a fair assumption to say, well then the universe and the stars could have been made in the same capacity.

Right. So that's also, it's assumption, but it's a fair one. But I think we have to wrap up this conversation in talking about the fact that this really is a very significant foundational issue.

Yes. Because it's an authority of God issue. If we can't trust what God says in Genesis, then we can't trust anything

He's written in the Bible. We can't trust the resurrection, or the virgin birth, or anything else. Especially because, even if you want to try to say, you know, that Moses wrote this, and it's a different category, and all this kind of stuff.

But as we mentioned earlier, Jesus referred to this as historical fact. And that right there,

Matthew 22 31. If you've never read Matthew 22 31, go read it. And you guys probably remember this well.

Jesus looks at the Pharisees who were trying to, they were asking Him an unlegitimate question.

They were trying to trap Him, asking about remarriage, and that kind of stuff. Right. And then Jesus said to this thing. Now this is in 30

AD, let's say. Have you not read what God spoke to you through Moses?

Now there's all types of things, but I want you to think about this. Have you not read what God spoke, spoke, spoke to you?

Have you not read what God spoke to you 1 ,500 years ago when Moses wrote it down? That was

God speaking to you. When Moses wrote that down, 1 ,500 years ago, about an event that took place thousands of years before that, have you not read what

God spoke to you? Jesus's view of Scripture. Actually, do you have the same view of Scripture Jesus does?

Because Jesus viewed Moses's writing as the Holy Spirit's authorship.

Do we do the same thing? That is completely applicable to us right now. Yes. I mean, if Jesus can look at someone 1 ,500 years later in a totally different context, hundreds of miles away, and say, have you not read what

God spoke to you? Then, for the New Testament writers, 2 ,000 years later, hundreds, thousands of miles away, we can read this and say, okay, this is literally

Paul writing a letter to a church in Rome, but it is also God speaking to me. I think it is foundational because I really wonder, do we want to do as much twisting with the rest of God's Word as we do with, let's say,

Genesis 1 -11? The last thing I want to talk about, we are running out of time here, so this will be the last thing.

I want to encourage all of you to continue to study this and read this. Specifically, go continue to read in Romans 5.

1 Corinthians 15. What Josiah read there, if you keep reading, it goes on to say this.

It says, so just as death came through that one person, being Adam, so life comes through one person, being

Jesus Christ. Right? And just as the death came through one man, so our salvation comes through one man.

And that man being Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. And if we do not, as we have said, if you deny

Adam and the creation, then you are denying the authority of God. And Paul tells us there that the authority and the effect that Adam had, there is even a greater effect.

It says that if death had this much effect, how much more effect will the life and salvation have for all those who believe?

So I just want you to be encouraged that this is not a small thing that we should brush off or put to the side.

This is a very serious, very legitimate, very prevalent topic and discussion within our world.

I think that other than the deity and the personhood of Christ, this is the most attacked portion of scripture within our society.

Would you agree with that? Other than maybe the personhood of Christ. Well, it kind of is the same thing, what this is in general.

What is this? Authority of scripture. But this is a problem with the authority of scripture.

You're not allowed to... Guys, our job, and I'll shut up after this, our job, according to 1

Peter 3, is not to defend God or defend His Word. Our job is to defend a reasoned defense for the hope that's in us.

But if you don't view this as God's Word and you view it as a collection of works written by four different people and that's all it is, then what hope really do you have to trust it?

And I just want to leave people with that. What is this to you? And if it's God's Word, is it all God's Word or is it not?

Do you have any final words? I think that's where we leave it. Brother Josiah, thank you very much.

Dr. Dana, thank you so much for coming. That'll be it for tonight, guys.

I want to thank everyone for listening in. I would like to encourage you to share this with anyone that you know that might be questioning or wondering or maybe just is curious about this.

Share this. If y 'all have any questions at all, you can go onto our Facebook page and send us a message with any questions.

This video will also be loaded on YouTube as well at Witten Media Ministries. So you can go and watch it more later there or send a link to someone else.

And yeah, that's what I was going to say. On Witten Media Ministry, our YouTube page, our music minister, Brother Andrew Cook, the next day always uploads it on that YouTube and it's edited, looks nice, takes up the part, you know, whatever.

But on that, you can always share that too if you want from YouTube or from Facebook, it doesn't matter.

So thank all of y 'all for joining us tonight and we hope to have y 'all here next week. Thank y 'all very much.