The Age Of The Earth And Religious Zealotry by Allan Turner


The Age Of The Earth And Religious Zealotry

Physicist Paul Davies, Professor of Natural History at the University of Adelaide in Australia, author of over twenty books on science, including The Mind of God and God and the New Physics, says:
There are religious zealots to this day who declare that we cannot trust our clocks or our senses. They firmly believe that the universe was created by God just a few thousand years ago, and merely looks old (Paul Davies, About Time, 1995, p. 39).
Although I do not think of myself as a religious zealot, I suppose I must plead guilty to Davies' charge. But I want to make it clear that I do so out of my respect for the Bible, which I believe to be inerrant in conveying the mind of God to His creation. As such, there seems to be no legitimate way of denying that the continuum begun with the six days of Creation occurred in the not too distant past — somewhere in the vicinity of 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.
What I Preach
Therefore, when I preach on Genesis One, I feel compelled by the text to speak of six, consecutive, twenty-four hour days of Creation. To modern science, such an idea is, of course, so scientifically deficient as to be absolutely laughable. Even so, there is no way I can teach, as do old-Earth creationists (OECs), that the Universe and Earth came into existence over a period of billions of years. On the contrary, it is by faith, and faith alone, that I believe God created everything in six, consecutive, twenty-four hour days, and this is why I admit to being a young-Earth creationist (YEC). When it comes to the Bible, this is the only position I can conscientiously defend. So, if I'm to be called a "religious zealot" because I believe the Bible to be the infallible, inerrant word of God, then so be it!
My OEC brethren counter that the days of Creation could have been something other than twenty-four hour days, and I suppose they could have been, as the Hebrew word (yôm) translated "day" does not mean only a twenty-four hour day. But when one takes into consideration that in the first 35 verses of Genesis we have a number + a day + a sequence of morning and evening, then it seems rather compelling that the Author intended to convey the idea of six, consecutive, twenty-four hour days. Therefore, when six days of Creation, the genealogies and life spans of pre-Flood people, along with the genealogies given for the post-Flood people, et cetera, are taken into consideration, it seems like we have enough information to establish a fairly accurate age of the Earth. So, although I don't subscribe to Ussher's 4004 B.C. date (or Lightfoot's date of October 23, 4004 B.C. at nine o'clock in the morning) for Creation, I really don't think it was all that far off either. This is why I've admitted to believing the Earth is somewhere in the vicinity of six to ten thousand years old — and closer to six than to ten!
If the Earth is six thousand years old, and this seems to be the best reading of the text, then the findings of modern science, which claim the Universe is 15 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, is clearly at odds with the Bible. This incompatibility seems to set up the classic confrontation between science and religion that most everyone has come to expect today. Consequently, the YEC position is strong biblically, but weak scientifically. On the other hand, the OEC position is strong scientifically, but weak biblically. The discussion referred to above is typical of the debate between these two groups. Well, who's right? The answer to this question depends on whether you're a YEC or an OEC. If you're a YEC, then YECism is right; but if you're an OEC, then OECism is correct. But suppose, if you will, that YECs and OECs are both right? In other words, is there any way that six, consecutive, twenty-four hour days can also be 15 billion years? I know this sounds preposterous, but there are several physicists who say this is precisely the case.
Could It Literally Be Six Days And Fifteen Billions Years Simultaneously?
Gerald L. Schroeder, Ph.D., author of Genesis And The Big Bang and The Science Of God is a physicist (he studied at MIT) and theologian who argues effectively that the billions of years that cosmologists say followed the Big Bang and those of the first six days described in Genesis are, in fact, the same — identical realities described in vastly different terms. Dr. Schroeder, who is a devout Jew, rejects macroevolution with its amoeba to man scenario, but he cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called a "scientific creationist." On the other hand, he can accurately be described as an OEC. As such, he honestly admits the age of the Universe is particularly bothersome because it has, he thinks, been proven by various independent sources, such as radioactive dating, Doppler shifts in starlight, and the isotropic "3 degrees above zero" radiation background. At the same time, he cannot deny that the "six days" of Genesis are found within uncompromisingly explicit statements that refer to phenomena that are readily measurable by modern archaeological, paleontological, and cosmological instrumentation. He argues that it seems the first chapter of the Bible was deliberately included to make it difficult for scientifically oriented people who want to believe the Bible. Nevertheless, there it is right up front, challenging us in the very dimension that seems to rule our lives — the passage of time. No one, he argues, is immune from the effects of its unrelenting flow into the future. Some may question whether its flow can be slowed or accelerated, as did Einstein, and two hundred years before him, Newton; but none of us can fail to feel the brevity of six days.
Dr. Schroeder understands there is just no way to avoid the issue: The Bible says God created man, along with all the material produced in the Creation, in just six days. Current cosmology claims (proves) that nature took some 15 billion years to accomplish the same thing. Which is correct? Again, Dr. Schroeder says: "Both are. Literally. With no allegorical modifications of these two simultaneous, yet different, time periods" (Genesis And The Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible, 1990, 29). He claims that misplaced fossils and changes in radioactivity (which creationists use to argue against marcroevolution) are not needed to reconcile science and theology because the same single sequence of events that encompasses the time period from "the beginning" to the appearance of mankind did take six days and 15 billion years — simultaneously — starting at the same instant and finishing at the same instant.
Personally, I do not agree with many of his conclusions (the "six days" are God's time and the 15 billion years are our time), but I think the overall idea has merit. Obviously, I found both his books to be very interesting, and I found the latest one, The Science Of God, to be extremely fascinating, even though I probably disagree with his conclusions here the most. For those interested in Dr. Schroeder's theory, you will need to read his books. I mention him here because, as a physicist, he is one who believes the consensus of modern science concerning the age of the Universe is in harmony with the fact that God created it all in just six, consecutive, twenty-four hour days.
A Controversial YEC Position
D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., author of Starlight And Time: Solving The Puzzle Of Distant Starlight In A Young Universe, is, by everyone's accounting, a scientific creationist with impeccable scientific credentials. Since receiving his Ph.D. in physics in 1972 from LSU, he has worked in the High Voltage Laboratory at GE and the Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project.
Dr. Humphreys cites the same evidence for a 15 billion year-old Universe as does Dr. Schroeder. Consequently, he challenges some of the traditional creationist theories (like Morris' vapor canopy). This has caused him to be seriously criticized by his fellow creationists. Nevertheless, Humphreys, who believes in a very straightforward reading of Scripture, advances a young-Earth cosmology that challenges the commonly accepted Big Bang theory. Having heard of Schroeder's work in Israel, he wrote to him to see if they had come to the same conclusions. The response from Schroeder was that they did not. However, there certainly are some similarities in the cosmologies proposed by these two men. Of primary importance is that both men, who respect the integrity of Scripture, attempt to harmonize the six days of Genesis with the 15 billion years of science.
Basically (very basically, in fact), Humphreys rejects the unbounded Universe and randomness of philosophical naturalism, which is called the "cosmological principle" or "Copernican principle," in favor of a bounded Universe in which there is a center of mass and a net gravitational force. This view, according to Humphreys, permits one to consider the time-distorting effects of gravity on a massive scale, which is set forth by Einstein's general theory of relativity (GR). GR, which says that gravity affects time, has been well established experimentally. For instance, the atomic clock at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, England, ticks five microseconds per year slower than an identical clock at the National Bureau of Standards in Boulder, Colorado, with both clocks being accurate to about one microsecond per year. The difference is exactly what GR predicts for the one-mile difference in altitude. So, which clock is showing (or running at) the right time? Both are — in their own frame of reference. In other words, there is no longer any way to say which is the "correct" rate at which time runs, as it all depends on where one is in relation to a gravitational field.
Consequently, GR, the physics framework for all modern cosmologies, is the basis for Humphreys' new cosmology which demonstrates that gravitational time distortion in the early universe would have meant that while a few days were passing on Earth, billions of years would have been available for light to travel to Earth. This means that although God created the Universe in six ordinary days only a few thousand years ago, we must ask: Six days measured by what clock? In what frame of reference? Therefore, Humphreys argues that the mathematics of this new theory shows that while God makes the Universe in six days in the Earth's reference frame ("Earth Standard Time," if you will), the light from distant stars has ample time in the extra-terrestrial reference frame to travel the required distances.
I do not know whether Schroeder or Humphreys is correct, or even on the right track for that matter, but I certainly appreciate the efforts of both men. If their theories are ultimately falsified, then so be it. In the meantime, those who argue as if most everything we know about time is settled appear to be manifesting their own short-sightedness on this subject, in that they seem to have no idea what time really is — a creation of God. However, it does not seem all that prudent to speak, as Schroeder does, of "God's time," since the Creator, who sees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10; Revelation 22:13; John 8:58, etc.) actually exists outside of time. As such, time is a created feature of the Universe, just like matter and space. And while we're on this subject, it is interesting to note that the equations of GR have long indicated that, in fact, time had a beginning, just as is taught in the very first verse of the Bible.
Time Is "Disturbing, Disorienting And Startling"
For the Bible-believer, certain things about time are settled. As sure as we believe time had a beginning, we believe it will have an end. These facts may be open to scientific inquiry, but for us they are already settled. Nevertheless, the modern world believes the truth about anything lies not in the Bible, but in science. Many, therefore, seem to think that science has been very enlightening when it comes to time. It hasn't been! In his 1995 book, entitled About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution, Paul Davies, the physicist I mentioned at the beginning of this article, makes it clear that the scientific study of time has proved to be "disturbing, disorienting and startling" (p. 10). He goes on to call it "befuddling," goes so far as to warn his readers that they will probably be even more confused about time after they read his book. In fact, Dr. Davies honestly admits that he was more confused on this subject of time after writing his book than he was before. Such candor is much appreciated, as it seems to be almost a forgotten commodity in today's world.
Einstein's "Spacetime" And The "Big Bang"
Newton plucked time right out of nature and gave it an abstract, independent existence. In the Newtonian world view, time existed to keep track of motion mathematically (i.e., it didn't actually do anything). Einstein restored time to its rightful place at the heart of nature, as an integral part of the physical world. According to Davies, Einstein's "spacetime" is, in essence, just another field to be studied, along with electromagnetic and nuclear force fields. As such, it was a monumental first step. However, it did not solve the "riddle of time." That is, what is time? Einstein's time has no arrow (->): it is blind to the distinction between past and future. That is, it does not flow, if you will. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that something vital is missing from the equations, or even that there is more than one kind of time. The revolution begun by Einstein is not over by any means; it has, in fact, just begun.
Nevertheless, Einstein did make contact with one ancient aspect of time that is of paramount importance to theists: the traditional association between Time and Creation. In fact, modern cosmology is the most high-reaching enterprise to emerge from all his work. Exploring the implication of Einstein's time for the Universe as a whole, scientists have made one of the most important discoveries in the history of human thought: that time, and thus all of physical reality, must have had a definite beginning in the past. If time is flexible and mutable, as Einstein demonstrated, then it is possible for time to come into existence, and also for it to pass away again — that is, there can be a beginning and an end to time. In scientific parlance, the origin of time is called "the Big Bang." Bible-believers, of course, call it "the Creation." So, scientists and theists are on the same page when it comes to time: it has an alpha and omega. Curiously, Einstein remained steeped in Newtonian thinking and did not, himself, draw this conclusion. Instead, he clung to the idea that the Universe is eternal and essentially unchanging in its overall structure. He later described this as the biggest blunder of his life and reluctantly agreed that the Universe may not have existed forever, but probably came into existence in a big bang some billions of years ago.
Today, big-bang theory has become the orthodox cosmology, but as Davies so aptly points out, it faces a major hurdle in providing a convincing account of how the Universe came into existence from nothing through natural processes. Of course, both YECs and OECs know, by faith, that it didn't. We also believe there is scientific evidence for this, but tell that to a naturalist. Furthermore, there is no greater obstacle to this theory than how time itself can originate naturally. Again, both YECs and OECs know it didn't. Does science, as defined today, have the capacity to explain the beginning of time? I don't think so, even though Stephen Hawking et al. have tried. However, time has always existed just outside the realm of quantum physics, and the efforts so far to incorporate it end up, paradoxically, by eliminating it altogether. In other words, time vanishes!
So, despite its popularity, the big-bang theory has not been without its credible detractors. Right from the start, attempts to "date the creation" ran into serious trouble. The age kept coming up wrong! That's right, even with the billions of years postulated, there simply wasn't enough time for stars and planets to come into existence as they presently are. Worse yet, there were some astronomical objects that appeared to be older than the Universe, which is clearly absurd. However, since 1992, when the Cosmic Background Explorer Satellite (COBE) provided cosmologists with measurements of the slight ripples (anisotropy) in the background heat of the Universe, these scientists have been able to inject a new level of precision into their cosmological modeling. But once again, there's a snag that has resurrected the age issue once again — the COBE data themselves! Some astronomers believe that, with a bit of adapting and fudging, the time scales can all be made to jibe. Others disagree, and reject the entire big-bang scenario.
Now I know that old-Earthers will say, "But, Allan, we're not talking about thousands of years here." That's right, you're not. But if you can't get this time issue settled, then don't come pontificating to me about what science has proven about the age of the Universe. Science hasn't proven the Universe to be 15 billions years old or the Earth 4.5 billion. So, refer to me as a "religious zealot" because I believe the Earth is relatively young, if that's what you want to do, but I think my OEC brethren ought to be willing to admit their own religious zealotry as well.
In the end, time will tell. In the meantime, science presses on, and I'm all for it. 

"THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY" Chapter One by Mark Copeland

                    "THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY"

                              Chapter One


1) To notice the great love that existed between Paul and Timothy

2) To examine the exhortations to faithful service given by Paul to 

3) To contrast the people who abandoned Paul, with a faithful friend 
   like Onesiphorus


The apostle Paul begins this letter to his "beloved son" with a prayer
for grace, mercy and peace in his behalf.  Thankful to God for the
unceasing memories that he has of Timothy in his prayers night and day,
Paul greatly desires to see the young man.  Seeing him again will bring
great joy as Paul is mindful of Timothy's tears and his unfeigned faith

Paul's purpose in writing begins in earnest with a series of 
exhortations toward steadfast service.  He encourages Timothy to stir 
up the gift of God which was in him by the laying on of Paul's hands, 
to not be ashamed of the testimony of the Lord nor of Paul His 
prisoner, and to hold fast the pattern of sound words which he had 
heard from Paul, keeping it by the indwelling Holy Spirit.  Timothy is
then reminded of those who had forsaken Paul, but also how Onesiphorus
had proven to be a true friend and brother by virtue of his courage, 
diligence, and service (6-18).



   A. SALUTATION (1-2a)
      1. From Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ (1)
         a. By the will of God
         b. According to the promise of life in Christ Jesus
      2. To Timothy, his beloved son (2a)
      3. Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus
         our Lord (2b)

      1. Thanks offered to God by Paul (3)
         a. Whom he serves with pure conscience, as did his forefathers
         b. For without ceasing he remembers Timothy in his prayers 
            night and day
      2. Greatly desiring to see Timothy (4-5)
         a. For he is mindful of Timothy's tears
         b. For Paul himself desires to be filled with joy
         c. For he remembers the genuine faith that is in Timothy
            1) Which dwelt first in his grandmother Lois and his mother
            2) And which Paul is persuaded is in Timothy also


      1. Which was in him through the laying on of Paul's hands (6)
      2. For God has given a spirit, not of fear, but of power, love,
         and a sound mind (7)

   B. DON'T BE ASHAMED (8-12)
      1. Of the testimony of our Lord, nor of Paul His prisoner (8a)
      2. Share with Paul in the suffering of the gospel according to 
         the power of God (8b-12)
         a. Who saved us and called us with a holy calling (9-10)
            1) Not according to our works
            2) But according to His own purpose and grace
               a) Given to us in Christ before time began
               b) But has now been revealed by the appearing of our 
                  Savior Jesus Christ
                  1/ Who abolished death
                  2/ And brought light and immortality to light through
                     the gospel
         b. For the gospel Paul was appointed a preacher, apostle and 
            teacher (11-12)
            1) For such things he suffers
            2) But he not ashamed
               a) For he knows Whom he has believed
               b) And is persuaded that He is able to keep what Paul 
                  has committed to Him until that Day


   A. BE STEADFAST (13-14)
      1. Hold fast the pattern of sound words (13)
         a. Which he had heard from Paul
         b. In faith and love which are in Christ Jesus
      2. Keep that good thing (14)
         a. Which was committed to you
         b. Keep it by the Holy Spirit who dwells is us

   B. BE LOYAL (15-18)
      1. All in Asia have turned away from Paul, including Phygellus 
         and Hermogenes (15)
      2. In contrast, the example of Onesiphorus (16-18)
         a. May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus
            1) For he often refreshed Paul
            2) He was not ashamed of Paul's chains
            3) Arriving in Rome, he sought Paul diligently and found
            4) He also ministered to Paul in many ways at Ephesus
         b. May the Lord grant mercy to Onesiphorus in that Day


1) What are the main points of this chapter?
   - Introduction (1-5)
   - Exhortations to zeal and courage (6-12)
   - Exhortations to steadfastness and loyalty (13-18)

2) How does Paul describe Timothy in his salutation? (2)
   - My beloved son

3) How did Paul serve God? (3)
   - With a pure conscience, as did his forefathers

4) What two things came to Paul's mind when concerning Timothy? (4-5)
   - His tears
   - The genuine faith that was in him

5) What two women had this genuine faith before Timothy? (5)
   - His grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice

6) What did Paul remind Timothy to stir up? (6)
   - The gift of God which was in him through the laying on of Paul's

7) What had God given Paul and Timothy? (7)
   - Not the spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound

8) What two things did Paul not want Timothy to be ashamed of? (8)
   - The testimony of our Lord
   - Paul His prisoner

9) How has God saved us and called us with a holy calling? (10)
   - Not according to our works but according to His own purpose and

10) What has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ?
   - God's purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ before 
     time began

11) What two things has Jesus done according to verse 10?
   - Abolished death
   - Brought life and immortality to light through the gospel

12) To what three functions had Paul been appointed relating to the 
    gospel? (11)
   - Preacher, apostle, teacher

13) Though Paul suffered, why was he not ashamed? (12)
   - He knew Whom he had believed
   - He was persuaded that He is able to keep what he had committed to
     Him until that Day

14) What was Timothy to hold fast? (13)
   - The pattern of sound words heard from Paul

15) How was he to keep that good thing that was committed to him? (14)
   - By the Holy Spirit who dwells in him

16) Who had turned away from Paul? (15)
   - All those in Asia
   - Including Phygellus and Hermogenes

17) What four good things are said about Onesiphorus? (16-18)
   - He often refreshed Paul
   - He was not ashamed of Paul's chains
   - When he arrived in Rome, he diligently sought until he found Paul
   - He ministered to Paul in Ephesus in many ways

18) What two things did Paul desire of the Lord? (16,18)
   - Mercy be granted to the household of Onesiphorus
   - Mercy be granted to Onesiphorus in that Day

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker 

"THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY" Introduction by Mark Copeland

                    "THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY"


AUTHOR:  The apostle Paul, as stated in the salutation (1:1).  The 
references of a personal nature also confirm this, especially when 
compared to other Pauline epistles (cf. 4:9-12; Col 4:7-14).

RECIPIENT:  Timothy, Paul's "beloved son " (1:2; cf. 1Ti 1:2,18).  We
are first introduced to Timothy in Ac 16:1-3, where we learn that his 
mother was Jewish and his father Greek.  From this epistle we also 
learn that his mother and grandmother had been believers in Christ, who
raised Timothy in the Scriptures (1:5; 3:14-15).  Well spoken of by the
brethren at Lystra and Iconium, Paul desired that Timothy travel with 
him and therefore had him circumcised to accommodate Jews they would 
seek to evangelize.

This began a long relationship of service together in the work of the 
Lord, in which Timothy served Paul as a son would his father (Php 2:19-
24).  Such service included not only traveling with Paul, but remaining
with new congregations when Paul had to leave suddenly (Ac 17:13-14), 
going back to encourage such congregations (1Th 3:1-3), and serving as
Paul's personal emissary (1Co 16:10-11; Php 2:19-24).  He had the honor
of joining Paul in the salutation of several epistles written by Paul
(2Co 1:1; Php 1:1; Col 1:1; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1), and from such epistles
we learn that Timothy had been with Paul during his imprisonment at 
Rome.  Such faithful service also resulted in his being left in Ephesus
as Paul's personal representative (1Ti 1:3).  He may have still been 
in the area when this letter was penned.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING:  The general consensus is that following his
first imprisonment in Rome (cf. Ac 28:16,30-31) Paul was released and
allowed to travel for several years before being arrested again.  It 
was during this second imprisonment that Paul wrote this epistle from
Rome (cf. 1:16-17).  Every indication is that he did not expect to be 
released (cf. 4:6-7) and shortly after this letter was put to death by
Nero.  Since Nero was killed in 68 A.D., Paul would have died a short
time earlier.  This letter can therefore be dated around 66-67 A.D.

PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE:  This epistle contains Paul's stirring words of
encouragement and instructions to Timothy, his "beloved son."  Longing
to see him (1:4), Paul writes this letter to have Timothy come quickly
to Rome, and to bring along Mark, a cloak that was left at Troas, and 
some books and parchments (4:9-13).  He uses the occasion, however, to
write concerning those things that are most heavy on his heart related
to Timothy's work.  Therefore, Paul writes to encourage Timothy:

   * To stand strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus (2:1)

   * To commit to others what Paul had taught him (2:2,14)

   * To preach the Word! (4:1)

   * To endure hardship and afflictions (2:3; 4:5)

   * To fulfill his ministry as an evangelist (4:5)

THEME OF THE EPISTLE:  With all the exhortations and instructions 
related to his work as a minister of the gospel of Christ, an 
appropriate theme for this epistle might therefore be:

                      "FULFILL YOUR MINISTRY!"

KEY VERSE:  2 Timothy 4:5

   "But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the
   work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."















   A. PAUL'S END IS NEAR (4:6-8)


CONCLUSION (4:19-22)


1) Where do we first read about Timothy?
   - Acts 16:1-3

2) What was the name of his grandmother and mother? (2Ti 1:5)
   - Lois (grandmother)
   - Eunice (mother)

3) How did Paul affectionately regard Timothy? (1:2)
   - As his beloved son

4) What is the general consensus for the time and place that Paul wrote
   this letter?
   - Sometime around 66-67 A.D., at Rome shortly before his death

5) What were Paul's circumstances in Rome? (4:6,10-11)
   - Near the time of his execution
   - Forsaken by Demas, others have gone, only Luke is with him

6) What two purposes does Paul have in writing this epistle?
   - To ask Timothy to come quickly
   - To exhort Timothy in his service as an evangelist

7) What is the theme of this epistle, as suggested in the introductory
   - Fulfill Your Ministry! 

8) What is the key verse?
   - 2Ti 4:5

9) According to the outline proposed above, what are the main points of
   this epistle?
   - Exhortations to steadfast service
   - Exhortations to sound doctrine
   - Exhortations to come quickly

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker 

Are You Informed About Islam? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Are You Informed About Islam?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

With the advent of 9/11, our world, and the way we view it, has been forever altered. As you well know, Islam has not only captured international attention, it is expanding its influence and making extensive encroachments into American culture. Over 1,200 mosques dot the American landscape—most built within the last two decades. Influential American authorities, from politicians to public school educators, are promulgating the equal acceptance and pluralistic promotion of Islam in public life. The first Muslim in recent American history was elected to theU.S. House of Representatives and took the oath of office on a Quran (Warikoo, 2007). The Democratic National Committee recently invited a Shi’ite Imam to lead the opening prayer at their winter meeting (“Imam Leads...,” 2007).
The time is here. Christians, and for that matter, Americans, can no longer afford to be uninformed about the threat that Islam poses to Christianity and the nation. It is imperative that Christians recognize the critical need to influence the expanding numbers of Muslim converts in our prisons as well as those entering the country. We simply must “be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).
Allow me to remind you that Apologetics Press has produced a book that will both inform you about Islam, as well as prepare you to help Muslims see the truth. The Quran Unveiled examines Islam’s holy book with a view toward ascertaining whether it is, in fact, of supernatural origin. If the Quran is from God, it must possess the self-authenticating attributes and characteristics of divine inspiration. If it is not from God, though it may possess certain positive, even valuable, qualities, it must be rejected as disqualified to legislate human behavior in an absolute and ultimate sense.
The Quran Unveiled provides the reader with a meticulous assessment of several significant teachings of the Quran. Here are some of the critical questions answered in the book:
  • Does the Quran teach that a man may have up to four wives?
  • Does the Quran teach that Christians are “infidels”?
  • Does the Quran endorse violence and killing in order to advance Islam?
  • Does the Quran teach that Jesus is the Son of God—or simply a human prophet?
  • Does the Quran teach that virgins await those who enter Paradise?
Allowing the Quran to speak for itself, The Quran Unveiled provides sufficient evidence to bring the reader to the firm realization that the Quran and the Bible stand in stark contradistinction to each other.
Many people refuse to consider the beliefs of others, and simply stick with those beliefs to which their family and cultural environment exposed them. But in order to grasp the full extent of the chasm that exists between the Bible and the Quran, one should read both thoroughly. Muslims should read the Bible, and Christians should read the Quran. The disparity between the two is monumental.
Apologetics Press continues to pursue its cutting-edge articulation of New Testament truth as it relates to current culture. The Quran Unveiled is one more important resource in the “A.P.arsenal” in our ongoing defense of the Christian Faith and our warfare against the forces of Satan. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. We urge you to secure your personal copy today. Or, if you prefer, we also have available The Islam Seminar DVDs that allow you to view a live lecture and PowerPoint presentation of much of the material contained in the book.


“Imam Leads Democrats in Prayer of Conversion” (2007), World Net Daily, February 3, [On-line],URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54085.
Warikoo, Niraj (2007), “Ellison: Quran Influenced America’s Founding Fathers,” Detroit Free Press, January 5, [On-line], URL: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070105/NEWS01/70105032/ 0/NEWS02.

The Conquest of Canaan: How and When? by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.


The Conquest of Canaan: How and When?

by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

The biblical description of the conquest of Canaan has been shrouded in a cloud of doubt for many years. How and when this monumental event occurred are questions that continue to seize scholastic attention and create controversy. If we accept as factual the biblical description of the conquest, these questions are not difficult to answer. In some instances, the conquest was not complete (Judges 1:27-36), which led to an uneasy cohabitation with the indigenous population. However, the Bible is clear that an impressive military campaign achieved forceful penetration into Canaan (Joshua 11:15-23).
Additionally, the Bible offers some chronological insights into when the conquest occurred. According to 1 Kings 6:1, 480 years transpired between the Exodus and the fourth year of Solomon’s reign—the year in which he began to build the temple. We can date Solomon’s reign with reasonable confidence at 971-931 B.C., which places his fourth regnal year at 967 B.C.These figures, therefore, suggest that the Exodus occurred about 1447 B.C. Allowing for the 40-year wandering prior to the Israelites’ invasion of Canaan, the initial stages of the conquest occurred around 1407 B.C. Also, Judges 11:26 provides another chronological marker. This text indicates that the Israelites had occupied Canaan for 300 years before the time of Jephthah, who is commonly dated at 1100 B.C. Once again, using these figures, the conquest would have occurred around 1400 B.C. (see Bimson and Livingston, 1987, 13[5]:42).


It would seem, given the above information, that the question of the conquest is a simple matter, with little room for controversy. Not so! There are primarily two areas of disagreement between the biblical text and mainstream scholastic models of the conquest.

Time of the Conquest

At the turn of the century, the biblically consistent date of 1400 B.C. was the generally accepted date for the conquest. As a rule, scholars considered the Bible as the standard for historical truth, though the historical-critical school, which questioned the integrity of the Scriptures, was making its scholastic mark (see Brantley, 1994). This began to change in the 1930s when John Garstang and William F. Albright excavated at Jericho and Beitin, respectively.
Initially, both Garstang and Albright held to the earlier date of the conquest (1400 B.C.). However, during excavations at Beitin, which he assumed was biblical Bethel, Albright faltered and finally moved to a later date for the conquest (c. 1250 B.C.; Albright, 1957, p. 13). He made this reversal because he attributed a thick destruction level at Beitin, which he dated at about 1250 B.C., to the invading Israelites (though the Bible does not mention Bethel among the cities Israel destroyed; see Livingston, 1988, 1[3]:14). Due to this evidence and similar finds at other sites, coupled with Albright’s pervasive influence, the date of 1220-1230 B.C. for the conquest has prevailed since the 1950s (cf. Hester, 1962, p. 139; Stiebing, 1985, 11[4]:58-69).
Kathleen Kenyon’s meticulous and prolonged excavations at Jericho (1952-1958) further blurred these once-clear chronological lines. John Garstang found biblically consistent evidence in the ruins of Jericho that there was a violent conflagration at that location around 1400 B.C., which he attributed to the Israelites. Kenyon’s conclusions, however, sharply contradicted Garstang’s interpretations. She dated this destruction level at 1550 B.C., and contended that there was no city with protective walls for the Israelites to destroy in 1400 B.C. (Kenyon, 1957, p. 259). Additionally, and in agreement with Garstang, she found no evidence of occupational activity on that site in the 13th centuryB.C.—the period in which most current scholars believe the conquest actually occurred. Hence, Kenyon’s conclusions supported neither the early (1400B.C.) nor the late date of a military conquest (1230-1220 B.C.).

The Method of the Conquest

These chronological disagreements about the conquest spawned methodological disputes concerning this event. Exactly how did Israel emerge in Canaan? As noted, the Bible indicates that there was a large-scale military incursion into Palestine. This biblical scenario, however, has been discarded by a growing number of archaeologists who contend that such an Israelite invasion of Canaan is inconsistent with the archaeological record (see Silberman, 1992). In fact, some scholars argue that there is no factuality at all to the biblically described conquest. To them, the stories of conquered cities (like Jericho) were embellishments of pre-Israelite traditions, which provided a mythological explanation of Israel’s origin in, and right to, the land (Cross, 1992, 8[5]:24).
Consistent with this view, William Dever, addressing a prestigious academic gathering, argued that the central events in Israel’s history—the Exodus, wilderness wandering, military conquest, God’s miraculous deliverance of fortified Canaanite cities, and the gift of the land—did not happen that way at all. Dever concluded that the Bible’s account in this regard is simply groundless and wrong (Shanks, 1987, 13[2]:54-55).
Among such scholars who hold a low view of the historical reliability of the Bible, there are two popular theories explaining the emergence of Israel in Canaan. The first is the “peaceful infiltration” model, which is associated with the German scholars Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth. Appealing to ancient Egyptian records (e.g., the Tell el-Amarna letters), they concluded that the Israelite settlement of Canaan was due to a gradual immigration into the land, not a military offensive. Alt and Noth further theorized that the Israelites must have been pastoral nomads who slowly filtered into the settled land from the desert, seeking pastures for their sheep. After a long period of uneasy coexistence with the indigenous population, the Israelites eventually overran, and destroyed, the Canaanite city states (Silberman, 1992, 2:25; see Zertal, 1991). This “peaceful infiltration” theory has gained in popularity and influence through the years, but clearly is at odds with the Joshua record.
Second, the combined efforts of George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald introduced and popularized the “peasant revolt” theory that actually redefines the ethnic origin of the Israelite nation. This model suggests that there was no external conquest of Canaan; it was an indigenous liberation movement among depressed Canaanite peasants living in the countryside. These peasants, who formed the lowest level of their culture’s highly stratified social order, engaged in an egalitarian rebellion, overthrew their urban overlords, and became “Israelites.” This theory, which repudiates the biblical scenario, has its outspoken defenders who argue that it is most compatible with archaeological data (see Shanks, 1987, 13[2]:55).

Problems With Theories

Though these anti-biblical theories have gained popularity in certain circles, and their advocates speak with an authoritarian voice, they have some significant difficulties. First, these theories must explain the biblical tradition to the contrary. Adherents to these views argue that the archaeological data—not textual information—must be primary. Accordingly, archaeological interpretations take precedence over, and stand in judgment of, the biblical text. However, the fact remains that, even if one rejects its divine inspiration, the Bible is an ancient historical witness. By virtue of that fact, it should be taken as seriously as any other document of antiquity. To brush aside the biblical account as a “pious fraud” simply will not do.
Second, there are reputable archaeologists who feel that these theories are inconsistent with the evidence. Abraham Malamat, for example, argued that the archaeological evidence demonstrates that a number of Canaanite cities were destroyed, and subsequently settled, by the Israelites (1982, 8[2]:24-35). Additionally, Yigael Yadin, the late distinguished archaeologist, suggested that the picture painted by archaeological finds is consistent with the biblical portrait: fortified Canaanite cities were destroyed and replaced by a new culture (1982, 8[2]:19). Though these archaeologists were/are committed to a late date of the conquest, and allowed for some errors in biblical details, their interpretations of the physical evidence support the general outline of the biblical presentation of the conquest. Thus, the archaeological evidence in support of the “peaceful infiltration” or “peasant revolt” theories is not as conclusive as some would suggest. In fact, Max Miller of Emory University opined that the wide variety of views regarding Israelite origins in Palestine, with each view appealing to archaeological support, illustrates that “...the archaeological evidence is ambiguous, or essentially neutral, on the subject” (1987, 50:60). In short, the limited nature of archaeological inquiry forbids a dogmatic rejection of the biblical record of the conquest.


In light of the foregoing, we must ask: Is there any support that the conquest happened when and how the Bible says it occurred? Keeping in mind the limited nature of archaeological evidence, there is a large body of data that supports the biblical account. Archaeologists generally recognize the heavy importance of ancient inscriptions, as evinced by the excitement over an inscribed stone fragment recently found at Dan (see Shanks, 1994; Wood, 1993). Artifactual data (e.g., potsherds, war implements, architecture, etc.) typically are inconclusive on historical matters, and are subject to a wide variety of interpretations (Miller, 1987). There is, however, an impressive body of ancient literature that lends support to the biblical picture of the conquest, which includes the following.

Ancient Egyptian Maps

The Bible provides specific information regarding the locations at which the Israelites camped along the final stage of the exodus route just prior to their entering Canaan. Numbers 33 describes in detail the northward, Transjordanian route the Israelites took as they traveled to the location at which they miraculously forded the Jordan river. Several places are mentioned on their journey from the desolate region south of the Dead Sea to the plains of Moab: (1) Iyyim; (2) Dibon Gad; (3) Almon Diblathaim; (4) region of Mt. Nebo; (5) Abel Acacia Grove; and (6) the Jordan River. The extraordinary specificity and precision of this text has made it vulnerable to criticism.
Some critical historians suggest that this list demonstrates the historical inaccuracy of biblical writers, since there is no archaeological indication that these cities existed at that period. For example, excavation efforts at Tell Dhiban (the Dibon Gad mentioned in Numbers 33:45b-46a), indicate that there was no city at that site in the Late Bronze Age II (c. 1400-1200 B.C.). Though some remains dating to around 1200-1100 B.C. were discovered on the summit of the mound, there is no evidence that a city existed there before the ninth century B.C. This has led some to conclude that the “...Biblical writers knew nothing about events in Palestine before the tenth century B.C.E.” [Before Common Era (B.C.E.) is a religiously neutral way of referring to history before Christ (B.C.), currently employed by many scholars—GKB] (Gosta Ahlstrom, as quoted in Krahmalkov, 1993, 20[5]:55-62,79).
Though no physical evidence has yet been found to verify this location, there is an impressive literary witness of its presence in this period. During the Late Bronze Age (c. 1560-1200 B.C.), Egypt ruled Palestine. In the course of its 300-year jurisdiction over this region, Egypt exhaustively mapped the area, including the main roads of Palestine. Among the ancient maps is an important, continuously used route through Transjordan, linking the Arabah and the Plains of Moab. Three partial maps describing this road have been preserved. Though no individual map is complete, each provides supplementary information, which provides a reasonably complete description of this road. Interestingly, these maps mention four stations from south to north: Iyyim-Dibon-Abel-Jordan—the exact order in which these names appear in the Bible (Krahmalkov, 1994, 20[5]:57). These ancient Egyptian documents corroborate the biblical description.

Merneptah Stela

The famed Egyptologist, William F. Petrie, discovered the “Israel” Stela of King Merneptah at Thebes in 1896. This stela (an inscribed stone monument), which dates from c. 1210 B.C., contains the only extant extrabiblical reference to Israel in the pre-Monarchic period. The stela contains a poetic eulogy that praises Merneptah’s military exploits (see Pritchard, 1958, p. 231). Of special interest is the context in which “Israel” is mentioned. The inscription bears two major groupings of locations whose destruction is attributed to Merneptah. The first is a group of four city-states: The Canaan (Egyptian name for Gaza), Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yeno’am. The second group, which appears before and after these isolated city-states, lists the names of national entities such as Tehenu (Libya), Hatti (Hittites), and Kharu (a general designation for Syria-Palestine; Wood, 1989).
It is in this second group that the name Israel appears, suggesting that it was considered a national entity on par with the powerful Hittites. Accordingly, by about 1210 B.C. this Egyptian monument gave Israel a measure of international standing. The importance of this implication cannot be overstated. The generally accepted date for the conquest is about 1230-1220 B.C.Yet, the Merneptah Stela implies that in 1210 B.C. Israel was well established in Canaan and a formidable force with which to reckon. Some objectors point out that the Merneptah Stela’s sole purpose was to aggrandize the military campaign of this king and should not be considered as historically accurate. While this was the purpose of the inscription, it is still the case that Israel was perceived to be a formidable force in Canaan. Surely, Merneptah would have gained little in prestige by boasting about conquering an insignificant, disunited band of pastoral nomads! The Merneptah Stela is a powerful witness that the conquest occurred when the Bible said it did (cf. Archer, 1974, p. 181; Wood, 1991, 4:110).

Tell el-Amarna Letters

In 1887, an Egyptian peasant fortuitously discovered a large cache of clay tablets at Tell el-Amarna. Dating from 1400-1370 B.C., these tablets were written in Akkadian cuneiform (wedge-shaped writing)—the then-accepted language for international correspondence. The tablets were urgent letters sent from Canaanite kings to the Egyptian king, requesting immediate military assistance in dealing with fierce invaders. These letters also reflect an anxious disunity among the various Canaanite kings, and an eager tendency for them to forsake their Egyptian alliance and become politically affiliated with the invading Habiru or ‘Apiru (see Pritchard, 1958, p. 276). Many scholars associate the Habiru with the biblical Hebrews (cf. Archer, 1974, pp. 271-279; Harrison, 1969, 318-322).
Thus, an analysis of these documents suggests that they reflected a Canaanite perspective of the Israelite conquest. There are some significant parallels between the general information in these letters and the biblical narrative. A communication from Megiddo mentioned that several towns located in the region of Arad in the south had already fallen to the invaders. According to Numbers 21:1-3, the Israelites destroyed many cities in this southern region. Also, there were no letters found from the first cities destroyed during the Israelite incursion (e.g., Jericho, Gibeon, et al.).
If the Habiru mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna letters actually were the invading Hebrews (and there are good reasons to believe they were), then these documents provide secular confirmation of the biblical description of conquest, both chronologically and methodologically. Since these letters date from 1400 B.C., they suggest that the initial stages of the conquest occurred in the 15th, not the 13th, century B.C. Additionally, they corroborate the view of a concentrated military penetration into Canaan. In both instances, they support the biblical record of the conquest.


No doubt the interpretations of archaeological data and the biblical text will continue to clash on occasion, primarily because the new generation of biblical archaeologists places more importance on discoveries than on the text. Accordingly, in the estimation of some, archaeology will serve to critique, illuminate, and correct the Bible, but the question of biblical confirmation is no longer a general concern (Davis, 1993). The above evidence, however, demonstrates that archaeology has provided solid evidence supporting the historical reliability of the Bible.
Yet, we must always keep in mind the limitations of archaeological inquiry and the oftentimes inconclusive nature of its evidence. Such data can be ambiguous, and subject to a variety of interpretations. Therefore, we should listen with cautious skepticism when archaeologists’ interpretations disagree with biblical information (see Brantley, 1993). Also, though in many instances the Bible’s historical reliability has been confirmed by the archaeologist’s spade, the lack of such evidence does not prove the Bible wrong. More importantly, we must recognize that, though the Bible offers valuable and historically accurate information, its primary purpose is to proclaim the sovereignty of God, Who is Lord of history. It is a volume affirming divine activity in human history, the truth of which archaeology is inadequate to judge. By faith, we acknowledge that the same God Who brought the Israelites out of Egypt, and gave them the promised land, is still the sovereign Lord of our own history—even in these anxious times.


Albright, W.F. (1957), From the Stone Age to Christianity (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Archer, Gleason (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Bimson, John and David Livingston (1987), “Redating the Exodus,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 13[5]:40-68, September/October.
Brantley, Garry (1993), “Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical Credibility,” Reason and Revelation, 13:81-85, November.
Brantley, Garry (1994), “Biblical Miracles: Fact or Fiction?,” Reason and Revelation, 14:33-38, May.
Cross, Frank Moore (1992), “The Development of Israelite Religion,” Bible Review, 8[5]:18-50, October.
Davis, Thomas (1993), “Faith and Archaeology, A Brief History to the Present,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 19[2]:54-59, March/April.
Harrison, R.K. (1969), Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hester, H.I. (1962), The Heart of Hebrew History: A Study of the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).
Kenyon, Kathleen (1957), Digging Up Jericho (New York: Praeger).
Krahmalkov, Charles (1994), “Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 20[5]:55-62,79, September/October.
Livingston, David (1988), “Exodus and Conquest,” Archaeology and Biblical Research, 1[3]:12-17, Summer.
Malamat, Abraham (1982), “How Inferior Israelite Forces Conquered Fortified Canaanite Cities,”Biblical Archaeology Review, 8[2]:24-35, March/April.
Miller, Max (1987), “Old Testament History and Archaeology,” Biblical Archaeologist, 50:55-63.
Pritchard, James (1958), The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (London: Oxford University Press).
Shanks, Hershel (1987), “Dever’s Sermon on the Mound,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 13[2]:54-57, March/April.
Shanks, Hershel (1994), “ ‘David’ Found at Dan,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 20[2]:26-39, March/April.
Silberman, Neil (1992), “Who Were the Israelites?,” Archaeology, 45:22-30, March/April.
Stiebing, William H., Jr. (1985), “Should the Exodus and the Israelite Settlement be Redated?,”Biblical Archaeology Review, 11[4]:58-69, July/August.
Wood, Bryant G. (1989), “Merneptah and the Israelites,” Archaeology and Biblical Research, 2:82, Summer.
Wood, Bryant G. (1991), “Recent Discoveries and Research on the Conquest,” Archaeology and Biblical Research, 4:104-110, Autumn.
Wood, Bryant G. (1993), “New Inscription Mentions House of David,” Bible and Spade, 6:119-121, Autumn.
Yadin, Yigael (1982), “Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable?,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 8[2]:16-23, March/April.
Zertal, Adam (1991), “Israel Enters Canaan,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 17[5]:28-47, September/October.

The Law of Biogenesis [Part II] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


The Law of Biogenesis [Part II]

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the January issue. Part II follows below, and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

“Well, I know it’s impossible, but maybe…”

How do atheistic evolutionists get away with teaching a viewpoint that so brazenly contradicts the scientific evidence? Concerning this question, Wald said:
Most…biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. [Actually, they “are left” with God.—JM] I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously underpresent conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer (1954, pp. 46-47, emp. added).
So, pre-biotic planetary conditions were different? Conditions which would allow for the spontaneous generation of life? On what is this conjecture based? Has any evidence been brought to light which proves that there are any possible conditions that could lead to abiogenesis? No. Else scientists would be able to create life in a laboratory. Conclusion: “different conditions” = evidenceless speculation. Abiogenesis is impossible, but life is here and had to come from somewhere. We, the atheistic, evolutionary community, refuse to consider the God option. That leaves us with the assumption that Earth’s planetary conditions must have allowed for the miracle of abiogenesis in the past. There is no evidence for such speculation, but who cares? In his next breath, Wald went on to admit:
To make an organism demands the right substances in the right proportions and in the right arrangement. We do not think that anything more is needed—but that is problem enough. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede thatthe spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossibleYet here we are…. (1954, pp. 46-47, emp. added).
Evolutionists write, in essence, children’s fables—full of wild speculation, theories, and conjecture about the possible pre-life planetary conditions, but ultimately their viewpoint is “inaccessible to the empirical approach” (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1978, p. 26). Richard Dickerson agreed with Wald. Writing in Scientific American under the heading of “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” he remarked that when speculating about Earth’s pre-biotic conditions we have “no laboratory models: hence one can speculate endlessly unfettered by inconvenient facts” (1978, p. 85, emp. added). He went on to concede: “We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imagination so far has not been very helpful” (p. 86, emp. added). So, basing theories upon imagination is now considered scientific!
Notice from this discussion that in holding to such a position about “pre-biotic conditions,” atheistic evolutionists have nonchalantly moved away from the standard evolutionary model—recognizing that it simply cannot account for the existence of life. Evolutionary theory has historically been based on uniformitarian principles, which assume that geological processes existing today on Earth have existed throughout the past as well (Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary, 2003). Theorizing conditions that are not in existence today is, in effect, a rejection of standard evolutionary assumptions. It is the creation model—not the evolutionary model—which has historically rejected uniformitarianism. Sadly, in today’s scientific community, it appears that evolutionists have been given the freedom to cherry-pick what their standard assumptions will and will not apply to. How can such be deemed scientific?

“Watch us convert young minds to the Church of Evolution, in spite of the evidence!”

Some 50 years ago, in Frontiers of Modern Biology, George Wald admitted:
As for spontaneous generation, it continued to find acceptance until finally disposed ofby the work of Louis Pasteur—it is a curious thing that until quite recently professors of biology habitually told this story as part of their introductions of students to biology. They would finish this account glowing with the conviction that they had given a telling demonstration of the overthrow of mystical notion by clean, scientific experimentation. Their students were usually so bemused as to forget to ask the professor how he accounted for the origin of life. This would have been an embarrassing question, because there are only two possibilities: either life arose by spontaneous generation, which the professor had just refuted; or it arose by supernatural creation, which he probably regarded as anti-scientific (1962, p. 187, emp. added).
So, according to Wald, in 1962 the demise of spontaneous generation was openly taught in biology classes “until quite recently,” and then, with the next breath, the teacher would proceed to engage in self-contradiction by teaching evolutionary theory with its abiogenesis myth. Though this statement was made years ago, the same is still the case a half century later.
According to evolutionists, the planetary conditions must have been different in the distant past—more conducive to abiogenesis. Enter the endless speculation about the pre-biotic world. Consider an example of how such speculation plays out in the high school biology classroom. In one high school biology textbook from the 1990s, published by the popular company Prentice Hall, immediately after explaining how Pasteur, Redi, and Spallanzani disproved spontaneous generation, the authors queried: “If life can come only from life, how did life on Earth first arise?” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 342). The book proceeds to speculate with profound certainty what conditions were like on Earth billions of years ago. The observant student, who is able to see through all of the jargon, will notice that throughout the ensuing discussion about these hypothetical conditions, subtle disclaimers are made. “No one can say with certainty…”; “Somehow these earliest life forms appeared…” (p. 343, emp. added). While discussing the experiments of Miller and Urey conducted in 1953, the textbook says, “Thus, over the course of millions of years, at least some of the basic building blocks of life could have been produced in great quantities on Earth” (p. 344, emp. added). The authors proceed to admit concerning the experiment’s products: “A collection of organic molecules such as amino acids is certainly not life” (p. 344, emp. added).
Next, as if emphasizing the power of intelligent design, the authors briefly discuss the experiments of Russian scientist Alexander Oparin and American scientist Sidney Fox and the round droplets (deemed “protolife”) they “created” in their lab, which can “perform tasks necessary for life” (p. 344). However, they admit that, “we would still not say that these droplets are alive” (p. 344, emp. added). So, recapping the evolutionary rhetoric to this point: evolutionary theory’s explanation of the origin of life is based on words and phrases such as, “no one can say with certainty,” “somehow,” “some,” “could have,” “certainly not life,” and “still not say that these droplets are alive.” Recall that the original point of the authors’ discussion was to explain how life could have spontaneously arose in the past. The authors, in spite of several paragraphs of “explanation,” have yet to answer the question. Assuming they have a brilliant answer coming in the following paragraphs, the ambitious student reads on.
Unfortunately, by now, the authors have likely “lost” the typical student. At this point, these students, probably not catching the authors’ disclaimers, will tend to “zone out” and just take the evolutionist’s word for it—“So, we came from goo. Please move on.” However, now the authors actually start to make candid, significant admissions. Under the heading “From Proto-life to Cells,” the authors concede:
The next step in our story is the most difficult to understand completely. From the jumbled mixture of molecules in the organic soup that formed in Earth’s oceans, the highly organized structures of RNA and DNA must somehow have evolved. Scientistsdo not know how these vital information-carriers formed, but there are several interesting hypotheses (pp. 344-345, emp. added).
The authors then imaginatively give several potential suggestions for how matter could have arranged itself in preparation for life to spring into existence, liberally sprinkling in words like “could have arisen” and “might have combined.” They finish off the section stating, “This is one piece of evidence supporting this interesting, but as yet unprovenhypothesis” (p. 345, emp. added). Notice that the authors still have yet to prove, or even attempt to explain, how spontaneous generation could have occurred. They spent their time presenting imaginary ways matter allegedly could have randomly and accidentally arranged itself in ways that might prepare it for life—although they have no way of knowing whether that arrangement would help or hinder the process, since abiogenesis has never been observed to occur. No evidence was given for how matter could have actually sprung to life.
Finally, the authors simply skip over the question of how the spontaneous jump from inorganic matter to living cells occurred, perhaps correctly realizing that most of the dazed and confused students will not catch this subtle sleight of hand. The authors boldly state, “Although the origin of the first true cells is uncertain, we can identify several of their characteristics with certainty” (p. 345, emp. added). So, the student is quickly distracted and led away from the original question. According to the authors, scientists do not know how living cells actually spontaneously generated, but they assert they know “with certainty” what those cells were like once they mysteriously sprang into life. The authors state this assertion as if they have decisively answered the original question about how life arose. They then proceed to speculate concerning the nature of these living cells, never answering the question of how they originally came to life. In all fairness, how could they answer such a question? Spontaneous generation has already been disproven—scientifically—and they admitted as much on previous pages. Yet they have conveniently failed to come to grips with the import of their own admissions.
The 2006 edition of the textbook did not rectify the problem. The authors acknowledge the work of Spallanzani and Pasteur, unabashedly stating that Pasteur’s work,
convinced other scientists that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was not correct. In other words, Pasteur showed that all living things come from other living things. This change in thinking represented a major shift in the way scientists viewed living things (Miller and Levine, 2006, pp. 12-13, emp. added).
Sadly the evolutionary community has not allowed Pasteur’s findings to “shift” the way they view living things and their origins.
In this same, more recent edition, the authors “wisely” separated the discussion of Pasteur’s and Spallazani’s work from the discussion on the origin of life by 415 pages. This helps students to forget that evolution contradicts the scientific evidence found by these scientists’ work. In discussing the origin of life, the authors once again fail to accept the implied conclusion from Pasteur’s work regarding the origin of life, stating, “As you will see shortly, researchers stilldebate such important questions as precisely how new species arise and why species become extinct. There is also uncertainty about how life began” (p. 386, emp. added). Undaunted, the authors proceed to engage in the same hapless speculation they engaged in 15 years earlier. Similar to the previous edition, they discuss the findings, or rather non-findings, of the Miller-Urey experiments. A significant change in the 2006 edition was a candid admission about those experiments which was couched in the midst of the discussion: “Scientists now know that Miller and Urey’s original simulations of Earth’s early atmosphere were not accurate” (p. 424, emp. added). If such is the case, one might rightly ask why the experiments are still discussed at all. The answer lies in the embarrassing fact that evolutionists still have absolutely no evidence that can corroborate abiogenesis. Leaving the discussion out would highlight the unscientific nature of evolution. Leaving the discussion in the textbook creates the impression with youth that some hidden support remains for the abiogenesis postulate in the Miller-Urey experiments—support that is somehow too advanced to discuss with them at their current competency. After all, many youth are more likely to believe the teachers and textbooks they have been trained and taught to believe than they are to think critically about the material actually being presented.
In the next section, under the heading, “The Puzzle of Life’s Origins,” the authors admit, “A stew of organic molecules is a long way from a living cell, and the leap from nonlife to life is the greatest gap in scientific hypotheses of Earth’s early history” (p. 425, emp. added). And that’s it. Proof for abiogenesis is not presented. A scientific refutation of the Law of Biogenesis is not conducted. Once again, the authors fearlessly launch into pages of speculation concerning the origin of the building blocks of life, liberally using qualifying language to subtly admit that nothing the authors are saying has been proven. Concerning proteinoid microspheres, which have some cell-like characteristics but which are not considered living entities, the authors note: “Microspheres are not cells, but they have some characteristics of living systems…. Several hypotheses suggest that structures similar to proteinoid microspheresmight have acquired more and more characteristics of living cells” (p. 425, emp. added). Such unending speculation, not backed by any proof whatsoever, is being allowed to fill the minds of unsuspecting youth, causing them to lose faith in the biblical model of life origins—which, in reality, is the origin model actually in keeping with the scientific evidence. The authors proceed to admit once again, “Another unanswered question in the evolution of cells is the origin of DNA and RNA” (p. 425, emp. added). So, in their pointless trek to prove evolutionary theory, evolutionists cannot even reach the abiogenesis chasm of impossibility that they must cross in order to prove their theory. They are still hampered by the chasms that exist much earlier in their mythical journey.
 Structure of a Cell
Notice that the phrase “unanswered question” can be misleading to a young biology student. It leaves the subtle impression that scientists have answered many questions about how life arose, and those answers are established fact. In actuality, the “unanswered question” is not referring to the question of whether or not evolutionists know anything about how life or its building blocks arose on the planet. The question is referring to the fact that there are questions regarding the feasibility of the origin of life that evolutionists cannot answer, but which must be answered in order for the theory of evolution even to be a possibility, much less the true, factual scientific explanation of the origin of life. Still, many unashamedly—and unscientifically—tout evolution as a fact.
In spite of the truth, sadly, with the wave of a hand, the typical biology student becomes an evolutionary disciple, not realizing that he has just succumbed to the longest, evidence-less leap into the dark that he may ever make in his life. Such vague speculation, substanceless hope, and blind “faith” can hardly be dignified as scientific. One might rightly ask, “Why are Americans allowing their children to be subjected to such anti-scientific propaganda? Why are parents not outraged that their students are wasting valuable class time learning about such speculation, rather than learning true science?”


An Unreasonable Assumption which Leads to Contradiction of the Evidence

There is no scientific evidence in nature that life can come from non-life. Not one experiment has been conducted which can boast an exception to this rule. One must start with the assumptionthat there is no Creator and that only nature exists in order to even consider abiogenesis—in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Again in his lecture series, Origins of Life, Robert Hazen said:
In this lecture series I make a basic assumption that life emerged by some kind of natural process. I propose that life arose by a sequence of events that are completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. In this assumption I am like most other scientists. I believe in a universe that is ordered by these natural laws. Like other scientists, I rely on the power of observations and experiments and theoretical reasoning to understand how the cosmos came to be the way it is (2005, emp. added).
[Notice the fact that Hazen contradicts himself by claiming that he relies “on the power of observations and experiments” in his belief on the origin of life, while also admitting in his lecture series that he and all evolutionists are “woefully ignorant” concerning the origin of life, and that likely, “any scientific attempt to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure; such a successioncould not be duplicated in a program of lab experiments” (2005, emp. added). He claims to rely on “observations,” “experiments,” and “reasoning” to arrive at his scientific conclusions—one of which is abiogenesis. However, he accepts this belief without reason since it is not, and cannot be, backed by observation or experiment, and according to his own words, such may not ever even be possible.] Hazen states that he considers himself to be in line with “most other scientists” in his self-contradictory assumption regarding the naturalistic origin of life. Of course, he means “atheistic evolutionists” when he speaks of such “scientists” and is absolutely correct in his assertion.
Atheistic evolutionists begin with the biased assumption that there is no God, regardless of its contradictory and unsubstantiated nature. Atheistic evolutionist, prominent science writer, and director of the Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at M.I.T., Boyce Rensberger, admitted:
At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire foracceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position (1986, pp. 17-18, emp. added).
Rensberger’s overgeneralized statement certainly does not describe all scientists’ approach to their day-to-day research, but it is clear from its handling of the matter of origins that such a statement certainly describes the evolutionary mindset—hardly “objective and dispassionate,” and often given to “wild guesses.” Regardless, with the assumption in place that only the physical or natural exists—no Creator exists—abiogenesis must be true, since life is here and had to start somehow. Thus, if abiogenesis is true, biogenesis cannot be a law. [Note: Rather than making assumptions that do not contradict the scientific evidence, evolutionists resort to unscientific assumptions—assumptions that contradict scientific laws which have been time-tested to be scientifically accurate 100% of the time.]
Consequently, some scientists have become increasingly uncomfortable with calling biogenesis a “law,” since a scientific law, by definition, is “a regularity which applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena,” and abiogenesis would constitute an exception, thus removing it from “law” status (McGraw-Hill…, 2003, p. 1182, emp. added). What once was commonly taught in textbooks due to its universal support by the scientific evidence is being systematically stripped from biology courses in spite of its continued universal support. In the commonly used middle school/junior high textbook, Life Science, the text’s authors do not even mention the word “biogenesis,” much less, “The Law of Biogenesis.” Instead, under the heading, “Life Comes From Life,” the authors explain the work of Redi and Pasteur and proudly proclaim:
Living things arise from living things through reproduction…. The mistaken idea that living things can arise from nonliving sources is called spontaneous generation. It took hundreds of years of experiments to convince people that spontaneous generation does not occur (Coolidge-Stolz, et al., 2005, pp. 36-37, emp. added).
So, the truth of biogenesis still stands as law, though now stripped of its appropriate scientific designation: “Living things arise from living things”; “[S]pontaneousgeneration does not occur.” Unfortunately, it seems that evolutionists, like these very authors, still have not gotten the memo. One would think that the admission, “spontaneous generation does not occur”—clearly implying there are no exceptions to this rule—would mean that biogenesis is still a law. After all, the same statements were made when it was considered a law. The only change appears to be the removal of the word “law,” while still teaching the same truth. Starting on page 170, the authors proceed to teach evolutionary theory, never even addressing the question of how life could have come about—a question which must be able to be answered before the impossible theory of evolution could even begin its “work” millions of years ago.
Other textbooks still use the term “biogenesis,” but have lowered its standing from that of a law. Under the heading, “Spontaneous Generation and Biogenesis,” another prominent life science textbook briefly explains the work of Pasteur, stating that he “provided enough evidence to disprove the theory of spontaneous generation. It was replaced with biogenesis, which is thetheory that living things come only from other living things” (National Geographic…, et al., 2005, p. 19, emp. added). Notice the sly adjustment from a “law” to a “theory.” Why change biogenesis to a “theory” instead of a “law,” particularly since the same textbook defines a “scientific law” as “a statement about how things work in nature that seems to be true all the time” (p. 10)—a statement which perfectly describes biogenesis? Based on this definition, has scientific investigation over the last several years nullified biogenesis as being a “law”? As we have already seen above, the answer to that question is a resounding, “No.” There is absolutely no evidence for abiogenesis. Thus, biogenesis, by all rights, is still a law, not a theory. Only the biased evolutionist would  proclaim otherwise.
Again, in spite of “hundreds of years of experiments,” in an attempt to lighten the certainty and implication of biogenesis, others are now calling it a “principle,” instead of a law. Has experimentation proven there are exceptions to its validity? No. Quite the contrary is true. However, if it is considered to be a law, then atheistic evolution cannot be true, and one must then concede the existence of God. In their textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Moore and Slusher discuss the Law of Biogenesis. In a footnote, they say:
Some philosophers call this a principle instead of a law, but this is a matter of definition, and definitions are arbitrary. Some scientists call this a superlaw, or a law about laws. Regardless of terminology, biogenesis has the highest rank in these levels of generalization (1974, p. 74, emp. in orig.).
In truth, calling Biogenesis a “principle” instead of a “law” does absolutely nothing to aid the evolutionary model, other than making its proponents falsely feel more comfortable with the self-contradictory viewpoint they embrace. After all, the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines a “principle” as “a scientific law which is highly general or fundamental, and from which other laws are derived” (2003, p. 1671, emp. added). Evolutionists simply cannot escape the truth of the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution cannot be true, and the Law of Biogenesis also be true. Why go against the scientific evidence in support of an unscientific whim?

A Recent Quibble

Today’s evolutionist tries to side step the abiogenesis problem by contending that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather is a theory which starts with life already in existence and explains the origin of all species from that original life form. However, this is wishful thinking. Historically, evolutionists have recognized that abiogenesis is a fundamental assumption inherent in evolutionary theory. Recall that Kerkut listed abiogenesis as the first assumption in a list of non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is founded (Kerkut, 1960, p. 6). Recall further that atheistic evolutionist Robert Hazen admitted that in his assumption of abiogenesis, he is “like most other scientists” (2005). After all, without abiogenesis in place, there is no starting point for atheistic evolution. One would have to concede, at the very least, some form of theistic evolution. However, proposed theistic evolutionary models have been found to be untenable as well (cf. Thompson, 2000). Further, evolutionists themselves often use the term “evolution” as a generalized catchall word encompassing all materialistic origin models, including those dealing with the origin of the cosmos, not just the origin of species. Creationists are merely using the evolutionists’ terms in the same way they use them. The truth is, one cannot logically commence a study of Life Science or Biology—studies which are intimately linked with the theory of evolution by scientists today—without first studying the origin of that life which allegedly evolved from a single-celled organism into the various forms of life on Earth today. The two are linked and logically cannot be separated. The reality is that since macroevolution cannot harmonize with true theism (cf. Thompson, 2000), that theory is left alongside abiogenesis as a fundamental plank of atheism. The two are intimately linked and stand or fall together.
One wonders why some “scientists” are so unscientific in their view of origins. Why pick the view that is, by their own admission, “impossible”? Why not look at the scientific evidence and allow it to lead to a conclusion that is in keeping with that evidence—regardless of whether or not they wish to accept it, and regardless of whether the ultimate Cause of life can be directly observed? Would not such an approach be the reasonable one? Would not such an approach be the scientific one? Why should the assumption be made that there is no Creator? Recognizing the existence of a Creator allows for an explanation of the origin of life that is in keeping with the scientific evidence—unlike abiogenesis. The late, renowned British philosopher and former atheist, Antony Flew, after decades of promoting atheism, decided at the end of his life to accept the evidence and concede the existence of a Supreme Being. He wrote, “The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind” (2007, p. 132). While his willingness to stand against the overwhelming tide of false science in becoming somewhat of a deist is certainly commendable, coming to such a conclusion should not be difficult. An unbiased examination of the scientific evidence on the matter shoutsthe truth to the unbiased mind.


If it could be said that the Law of Biogenesis contradicts the scientific evidence, it would be false. However, such is not the case. It is in keeping with all the evidence. Consider, though, that if one rejects the Creation model, the Law of Biogenesis must be false, since without the Creation model, life had to come from non-life—in violation of that law. The atheistic evolutionist’s conclusion: all of the scientific evidence over the centuries which has proven, according to the evolutionists themselves, the impossibility of abiogenesis, should be discarded in support of a theory which has no scientific support.
Evolution is not in harmony with true science. Creation, however, is. If abiogenesis is not true according to science, special creation, which does not contradict the Law of Biogenesis, must, of necessity, be true. Science, once again, is the friend of God and His Word and the enemy of the atheist.


Coolidge-Stolz, Elizabeth, Jan Jenner, Marylin Lisowski, Donald Cronkite, and Linda Cronin Jones (2005), Life Science (Boston, MA: Prentice Hall).
Dickerson, Richard E. (1978), “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 239[3]:70-110, September.
Flew, Antony and Roy Varghese (2007), There Is No God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne).
Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).
Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1978), Lifecloud (New York: Harper & Row).
Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.
Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph Levine (1991), Biology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph S. Levine (2006), Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall).
Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary (2003), http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.
Moore, John N. and H.S. Slusher (1974), Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
National Geographic Education Division, Lucy Daniel, Peter Rillero, Alton Biggs, Edward Ortleb, and Dinah Zike (2005), Life Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill/Glencoe).
Rensberger, Boyce (1986), How the World Works (New York: William Morrow).
Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Wald, George (1954), “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191[2]:44-53, August.
Wald, George (1962), “Theories on the Origin of Life” in Frontiers of Modern Biology (Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin).