Basic HTML Version
Creatlon-Bible Vlew
When God describes himself as
Creator, no alternate construction
is possible- just the one!
"1
have
made the earth, and created man
upon it: 1, even my hands, have
stretched out the heavens, and all
their host have 1 commanded" (lsa.
45:
12).
Then in verse 7 this Creator God
states: "1 form the light, and create
darkness: 1 make peace and create
evil: 1 the Lord do all these things."
There is no allowance for any other
theoretical construction from those
strong statements: just
one- God
IS THE CREATOR.
Scientific theories are the cre–
ative inventions of the imagination
of men. Could God's creation even
be considered a "scientific theory"
in the light of this strong state–
ment, for example, in Jsaiah 55:8-9,
"For my thoughts are not your
thoughts, neither are your ways my
ways, saith the Lord. For as the
heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your
ways, and my thoughts than your
thoughts"?
Those who propose theories of
creation, whether they be creation–
ists or theistic evolutionists, are
chided by God, "W.ho hath
ascended up into the heaven, or
descended? who hath gathered the
wind in his fists? who hath bound
the waters in a garment? who hath
established a11 the ends of the
..., earth? what is his name, and what
is his son' s name, if thou canst
tell ?" (Prov. 30:4.)
Even Job, who was an accom–
plished engineer and scientist of his
day, was told that he could not
understand God's methods because
he was not present at the time.
"Where wast thou when 1 laid the
foundations of the earth? declare if
thou hast understanding....
Knowest thou it, because thou wast
then born? or because the number
of thy days is great?" (Job 38:4,
21.)
The physical creation surely
proves to the reflective mind God's
existence (see Romans 1), but that
does not prove how God made it.
No human can understand the
method by which the environment
March 1982
carne into being because no human
was present at that time. This is
why it is necessary for scientists,
whether they are evolutionists
or
creationists, in proposing scientific
theories of origins, to assume the
principie of uniformitarianism to
ation be considered a scientific
the–
ory
(as distinct from
scientific)?
C learly it cannot!
Creation must require a Creator
and the only possible Creator is the
God who has
revealed
himself in the
Bible. He changes not- " . . . with
Because evolutionary scientists insist
on treating their theories as dogma should not
cause those who understand the revealed
knowledge of creation to treat creation as a
mere scientific theory.
make their imaginative excursions
into the past.
God even tells us that this kind of
research into origins is destined to be
fruitless no matter how intelligent or
wise the researcher: " .. . he hath set
the world in their heart , [yet] so that
no man can find out the work that
God maketh from the beginning to
tbe end" (Ecc. 3:11 ).
And, "Then 1 beheld all the work
of God ... that is done under the
sun: because though aman labour to
seek it out, yet he shall not find it;
yea further; though a wise man think
to know it, yet shall he not be able to
find it" (Eccl. 8: 11). Obviously this
is part of the "secret things" that
were not going to become part of the
fund of man's physical knowledge:
"The secret things belong unto the
Lord our God: but those things
which are
revealed
belong unto us
and to our children for ever, that we
may do all the words of this law"
(Deut. 29:29).
Theorles Change-God Does Not!
Scientific theories are always
changing as new evidence dic–
tates--or they should, at least. Any
scientific theory of creation-as
distinct from theories of sponta–
neous generation- would then be
subject to the same possibility of
change. But God says in Malachi
3:6, "For 1 am the Lord, 1 change
not. ..." and in Hebrews 13:8, "Je–
sus Christ the same yesterday, and
today, and forever." No possibility
of change there. So then can ere-
whom is no variab}eness, neither
shadow of turning" (Jas. 1: 17).
Clearly
scientific theory
and cre–
ation belong in completely differ–
ent disciplines. The subject of ori–
gins and the
how
of creation belong
properly to the discipline of theol–
ogy; evolution belongs to the disci–
pline of
scientific theory.
Evolu–
tion, of course, is
not
scientific but
it has gained acceptance as such.
Rather it is a philosophy that has
acquired the dogmatism usually
associated only with religion .
Because evolutionary scientists in–
sist on treating their theories as
dogma should not cause those who
understand the revealed knowledge
of creation to treat creation as a
mere scientific theory.
It
is a tragedy that evo1utionary
scientists have gotten the foothold
they have in today's education sys–
tem. But
ü
would be a greater trag–
edy if now, to counteract that, cre–
ationists sbould be given an equal
foothold to treat their personal
ideas of creation as a nonreligious
scientific theory!
Muchas it galls sorne to admit it,
it is nevertheless true, as
M
oses sum–
marized it, that "The secret tbings
belong unto the Lord our God: but
those things which are revealed
belong unto us and to our children
forever, that we may do all the words
of this law" (Deut. 29:29). o
Sidney M. Hegvold is a physicist
and faculty member ofAmbassador
College, Pasadena, California.
9