Did Human Beings Evolve Outside The Garden Of Eden When God Created Adam & Eve?

            Science and Historical Christianity have seemingly been at odds with each other. The study of Historical Adam & Eve is a topic that contributes a good deal to this conflict.

            Dr. Joshua Swamidass’¹ recent book The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry, however, strives to bridge the gap between evolutionary science and the conservative understanding of Adam and Eve.

            Proponents of evolutionary science believe that humans evolved as a population sharing common ancestors with apes and chimpanzees. On the other hand, a traditional or conservative understanding of the book of Genesis is the belief that Adam and Eve were created by God. They were the first humans. All of mankind descended from them.

            These two views contradict each other (or so it seems). 

            Dr. Joshua Swamidass’ position is that there is enough room to accommodate both these views and that they do not necessarily contradict each other.

            How is this possible?

            First, Dr. Swamidass establishes the distinction between genetics and genealogy within the context of ancestral study. Upon establishing that distinction, he posits the Biblical narration of Adam and Eve as the genealogical ancestry and that of science as the genetic ancestry.

            Second, he posits the presence of human beings outside the Garden of Eden. In other words, when God created Adam & Eve and made them reside in the Garden of Eden, there were other human beings outside the Garden, who were the products of God guided evolution. Thus he builds a bridge between theology and science.

            It’s quite important to note that Dr. Swamidass is committed to the de novo² creation of Adam & Eve.

            In an interview with Christianity Today, Swamidass explains how these seemingly contradictory views could be true:³

There’s been a lot of conflict about how science expresses its understanding of Adam and Eve. It has to do with misunderstanding the word ancestor. We can understand it in the genetic sense, meaning someone we get our DNA from. Or we can mean it in a genealogical sense, meaning someone whose lineage we descend from.

Genetics works in a very nonintuitive way. For example, my parents are both equally 100 percent my genealogical ancestors, and the same is true with my grandparents and great-grandparents. But my parents are each only one half of my genetic ancestry; my grandparents are one quarter; my great-grandparents are one eighth. Genetic ancestry just dilutes to the point where the majority of our genealogical ancestors pass on no DNA.

Why is that important? Scripture doesn’t tell us about genetic ancestry. It does, however, tell us about genealogical ancestry. Historically, we’ve believed that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of everyone. We can ask: Does this mean genetic ancestors or genealogical ancestors? Well, Scripture can’t possibly be talking about genetic ancestry. It has to be talking about genealogical ancestry.

That recognition really opens up an immense amount of space for theology. As Christians, we’ve had a lot of anxiety over what science is telling us about Adam and Eve. But these conflicts are based on what science says about our genetic ancestors. If we focus on genealogical ancestors instead, there might be far less conflict than we first imagined.

…If we keep straight what the science is actually saying, the story of Genesis could be true as literally as you could imagine it, with Adam being created by dust and God breathing into his nostrils and Eve being created from his rib. But evolution is happening outside the Garden, and there are people out there who God created in a different way and who end up intermingling with Adam and Eve’s descendants. It’s not actually in conflict with evolutionary science [Emphasis Mine].

            While there seems to be a point of convergence between evolutionary science and Historical Christianity, there could be a number of theological conundrums.⁴

            First, the Bible seems to unequivocally imply that there were no humans before the creation of Adam and Eve (cf. Genesis 1 26-29, 2:18, 20b, 3:20). Dr. William Lane Craig explains, “When you look closely at the text itself, the text is pretty clear that there weren't any other people around. Genesis 2 says there was no man to till the ground and therefore God created Adam out of the dust of the Earth. And when it comes to finding a suitable mate for Adam, God parades all these animals before Adam and there was no one found that would be a suitable partner until God created Eve. And what was she then given the name? She was called “the mother of all living.” So I think that the story itself says pretty clearly that Adam and Eve were the only human beings around.”⁵

            Second, if there were humans outside the Garden, then, Dr. Swamidass cannot refer to Adam & Eve as the universal ancestors of mankind. At most, Adam & Eve would be the ancestors of their descendants.

            It is highly plausible that the humans outside the Garden would have had their own children and they would have had their own descendants. A part of these descendants would not, in any way, be connected with the descendants of Adam & Eve (they would not have interbred with the descendants of Adam & Eve).

            These people are then totally disconnected from Adam & Eve. If so, Adam & Eve cannot be the ancestors of these people. Therefore, according to Swamidass’s view, Adam & Eve cannot be the universal ancestors of all mankind. To consider Adam & Eve as the universal ancestors of all mankind would be incorrect.

            Third, there is an ontological likelihood of a flagrant divergence between the humans outside the garden and Adam & Eve. While Adam & Eve were created in the image of God, the other humans, who were evolving outside the Garden would not be in God’s image.

             This then leads to another theological conundrum. Those created in the image of God are worthy of honor and respect; he is neither to be murdered (Genesis 9:6) nor cursed (James 3:9). Being made in the image of God also attributes characteristics such as ‘righteousness,’ ‘holiness’ (Ephesians 4:24), and ‘knowledge’ (Colossians 3:10) to man. Furthermore, those created in the image of God and those who believe in Christ are to be conformed to the likeness of Christ (Romans 8:29) and will one day be like Christ (1 John 3:2).

            Those evolved humans outside the Garden would have none of the above characteristics since they were not created in the image of God. Therefore, the evolved humans cannot be the recipients of God’s grace and beneficiaries of Christ’s atoning death.

            Here is Dr. Craig’s explanation of the situation, “What it would imply is there are people who are just like me and you in every way (rational, self-conscious, self-reflective, trying to do right and wrong, loving their children, having an aesthetic appreciation of beauty and ugliness, of right and wrong) and yet they are not in the image of God and therefore are not truly human and therefore are not recipients of God's grace or beneficiaries of Christ's atoning death. And I find that unconscionable…”⁶

            Dr.Craig also reminds us that if such humans do exist now, then evangelizing to them is totally futile.

            Fourth and finally, the traditional or conservative understanding of the term human is to reference it with the image of God i.e. every human is created in the image of God. But Dr. Swamidass disagrees with this definition, “One of the other surprising things in dialogue with theologians through this . . . one of the key things that I wrote was a chapter explaining how the term “human” has no precision in science to the point that really there's really no claim that scientists have to be normative in that discussion. Theologians really have the right to define “human” on their own terms. Right? But the problem is you go talk to theologians and they can't define “human” in an agreement with one another! They have a broad, broad range of views. One way to do it, which I actually don't think is a most helpful way, is by equating human with the image of God – saying if someone's in the image of God then they are human, and if they're not in the image of God then they aren't. I think that that's a problem actually. I don't think that that makes sense…”⁷

            Dr. Craig rejects Dr. Swamidass’ view that humans are merely descendants of Adam and Eve i.e. that humans cannot be defined as those made in the image of God, “I think this attempt to drive a wedge between the image of God and human is unacceptable. Listen to the words of Genesis 1:26 and following: “and God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion . . .” Then it says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.” That's clearly not just referring to Adam. That's referring to man generically. I think Mike was quite right in his comments. “Adam” is not used as a proper name in Genesis until later in the story, but here we're talking about adam meaning “man,” and it's used with regard to a plurality – male and female, them. So we mustn't, I think, try to drive this wedge between being in the image of God and being human. On the contrary, what makes us human is that we are in the image of God unlike all the rest of animal creation. No other animal in Genesis 1 is created in the image and after the likeness of God. That's what makes us human. Now, Josh says to be human is simply to be a descendant of Adam and Eve. In this way he can approximate the traditional view of Adam and Eve that in fact they are the parents of every human being that has ever lived but only at the expense of having these folks outside the Garden who look like human beings, act like human beings, but they're really not human. And that just gives me the chills frankly.”⁸

            To conclude, Dr. Swamidass’s endeavor to bridge the conflict between evolutionary science and Historical Christianity remains untenable. For instance, the four theological conundrums that are presented, which are the consequences of his theological position, deeply undermine the essence of Historical Christianity. In other words, Historic Christianity would be substantially diluted doctrinally, if Dr. Swamidass’ views are to be upheld.

            A liberal Christian or the doctrines of liberal Christianity (which has already compromised the core doctrines of Historic Christianity) may agree with Dr. Swamidass’s position. But the doctrines of Historic Christianity remain in conflict with his views. Hence, it could be reasonably concluded that Dr. Swamidass’ stand about the historical Adam & Eve does not reflect the essence of Historic Christianity.

Endnotes:

¹A Computational Biologist, who uses artificial intelligence to explore science at the intersection of biology, chemistry, and medicine.

²In the beginning, out of dust and a rib.

³https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/january-web-only/genealogical-adam-eve-evolution-joshua-swamidass.html

⁴Much of the information for this section has been sourced from Dr. William Lane Craig’s critique of Dr. Josh Swamidass. This is from two articles entitled Josh Swamidass on Adam and Eve – Part 1 and Part 2.

⁵https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/josh-swamidass-on-adam-and-eve-part-1/

⁶https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/josh-swamidass-on-adam-and-eve-part-2/

⁷Ibid.

⁸Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 28^th March 2020.

Why Do Scientists Reject Darwinian Evolution?

            Darwinian evolution is marketed as if it is absolutely right and that the contending claims of the Creation and Intelligent Design community are absolutely wrong.  But the fact remains that the Darwinian evolution and Neo-Darwinism are light years away from adequately and reasonably explaining the origin of life.

            You are wrong if you think that all scientists believe in Darwinian evolution. Not all scientists believe in evolution (macroevolution). Quite a few reputed and credible scientists reject evolution.

            You are very wrong if you think that scientists who believe in God and Creation are the ones to reject evolution. Although Christian Research Journal mentions a few nonreligious scientists who reject evolution, I present two nonreligious scientists for your consideration:¹

…Another nonreligious scholar who is both a skeptic of Darwinian evolution and an ID sympathizer is David Berlinski. Trained in philosophy at Princeton, and later a postdoctoral fellow in molecular biology and mathematics at Columbia University, he is also a senior fellow at Discovery Institute. In 2009, Berlinski published a volume titled, The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays, offering critiques of biological and chemical evolution…

…Berlinski elegantly and comprehensively critiques Darwinian theory. First, he tackles the fossil record:

The facts in favor of evolution are often held to be incontrovertible: prominent biologists shake their heads at the obduracy of those who would dispute them. Those facts, however, have been rather less forthcoming than evolutionary biologists might have hoped. If life progressed by an accumulation of small changes, as they say it has, the fossil record should reflect its flow, the dead stacked up in barely separated strata. But for well over 150 years, the dead have been remarkably diffident about confirming Darwin’s theory….there are gaps in the graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms but where there is nothing whatsoever instead.45

Berlinski observes that the complexity of the cell is “insignificant in comparison with the mammalian nervous system; and that far impossibly ahead, there is the human mind, an instrument like no other in the biological world, conscious, flexible, penetrating, inscrutable, and profound.”46 In his view, these complex features imply design: “We never attribute the existence of a complex artifact to chance. And for obvious reasons: complex objects are useful islands, isolated amid an archipelago of useless possibilities….An artifact is the overflow in matter of the mental motions of intention, deliberate design, planning, and coordination. The inferential spool runs backwards, and it runs irresistibly from a complex object to the contrived, the artificial, circumstances that brought it into being.”47

According to Berlinski, “Darwin’s theory of evolution rejects this counsel of experience and intuition,” and instead relies on “sheer dumb luck.”48 After quoting scientists who doubt Darwinism, he notes that evolutionary theory is “in the doubly damned position of having compromised the concepts needed to make sense of life—complexity, adaptation, design—while simultaneously conceding that the theory does little to explain them.”49

...Another famous atheist who supported ID was Fred Hoyle (1915–2001), a theoretical physicist at Cambridge University. His 1983 book The Intelligent Universe maintained, “Darwinian theory is wrong because random variations tend to worsen performance, as indeed common sense suggests they must do.”52 Elsewhere Hoyle famously stated, “If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design.”53 (Emphasis Mine).

            Furthermore, Dissentfromdarwin.org lists reasons that compel scientists to reject Darwinian evolution:²

Genetics — Mutations Cause Harm and Do Not Build Complexity: Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by a blind, unguided process of natural selection. This undirected process has no goals. Being random, it tends to harm organisms and does not improve them or build complexity. As biologist Lynn Margulis, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences until her death in 2011, said: “New mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”1 Similarly, the past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, contended that “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity’” because “[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”2

Biochemistry — Unguided and Random Processes Cannot Produce Cellular Complexity: Our cells are like miniature factories using machine technology but dwarfing the complexity and efficiency of anything produced by humans. Cells use miniature circuits, motors, feedback loops, encoded language, and even error-checking machinery to decode and repair our DNA. As Bruce Alberts, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Science, observed: “[t]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”3 Darwinian evolution struggles to explain the origin of this type of integrated complexity. Biochemist Franklin Harold admits in a book published by Oxford University Press: “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”4

Paleontology — The Fossil Record Lacks Intermediate Fossils: The fossil record’s overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, and generally lacks plausible candidates for transitional fossils, contradicting the pattern of gradual evolution predicted by Darwinian theory. This non-Darwinian pattern has been recognized by many paleontologists. University of Pittsburgh anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz states: “We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus — full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations.”5 Likewise the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr explained that “[n]ew species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.”6 Similarly, a zoology textbook observes: “Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group.”7

Neo-Darwinian Evolution Has Been and Continues to Be Critiqued by Mainstream Scientists: Everyone agrees that microevolution occurs. But mainstream scientific and academic literature is saturated with skepticism about the neo-Darwinian claim that microevolution offers an adequate basis for justifying macroevolutionary claims. Günter Theißen of the Department of Genetics at Friedrich Schiller University in Germany wrote in the journal Theory in Biosciences that “while we already have a quite good understanding of how organisms adapt to the environment, much less is known about the mechanisms behind the origin of evolutionary novelties, a process that is arguably different from adaptation. Despite Darwin’s undeniable merits, explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living beings on our planet originated remains one of the greatest challenges of biology.”8 A 2011 paper in Biological Theory stated, “Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope,”9 and in 2012, the noted atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argued in an Oxford University Press book that “the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false.”10

Evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe likewise describes himself as “a critic of Darwinian evolutionary theory,”11 which he insists “cannot explain origins, or the actual presence of forms and behaviors”12 in organisms. Biologist Scott Gilbert has stated in a report in Nature that “[t]he modern synthesis is remarkably good at modeling the survival of the fittest, but not good at modeling the arrival of the fittest,” and evolutionary paleobiologist Graham Budd admits: “When the public thinks about evolution, they think about the origin of wings and the invasion of the land, . . . [b]ut these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.”13 Eugene Koonin writes in Trends in Genetics about the increasingly undeniable reasons to doubt core neo-Darwinian tenets, such as view that “natural selection is the main driving force of evolution,” indicating that “the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair” and “all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.” He concludes: “Not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone.”14 Because of such criticisms, Cornell evolutionary biologist William Provine believes the Darwinian claim that “Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution” is “false.”15

            In all of this, I have not even mentioned the refutations of Dr. James M. Tour. He is one of the most acclaimed and established scientific minds in existence today.

            I’ll just mention his remarkable credentials, in case you are not familiar with his name:

Professor James M. Tour is Rice University Chao Professor of Chemistry, computer science, mechanical engineering, and materials science. A renowned leader in his field, he is the premier scientist at Rice University, and his work is often cited in leading scientific journals.1 After Nobel Laureate Rick Smalley’s untimely death, the prolific Tour has successfully carried on Smalley’s groundbreaking nanotechnology research. This ‘world-class scientist’ has revolutionized one of the most challenging fields of science.2

Of the more than 720,000 scientists who published chemistry papers in academic journals during the last decade, Tour was among the ten most-cited authors in the world. He authored 135 papers during this time, and the Thomson-Reuters list of research most referenced by other scientists in their scientific work ranked him in the top ten. Tour’s scientific achievement “spans an incredible breadth, from building tiny cars and trucks out of molecules, to making computer memory from graphite, building tiny missiles that carry drugs to tumors and trying to cure radiation sickness.”1 Wade Adams, director of Rice’s Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology, noted that Tour is an “incredibly creative … chemist. He makes molecules dance.”1

One of his most recent achievements to add to his already long list was to convert shortbread into graphene, a high-tech carbon form that is a promising material for high-speed circuits. A single thick layer of graphene is strong enough to hold the weight of an elephant.3”³

            If you wish to read a quick overview of Dr. Tour’s refutation of evolution, please read his article entitled “Origin of Life, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creation and Faith (Updated June 2018).”⁴

            Scientists are under pressure to not question or debunk evolution, “…they face pushback from peers who feel they are betraying science: “We’ve been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring Science into disrepute.”13 They observe that in the ivory tower, “neo-Darwinism is taken as axiomatic,” “literally goes unquestioned,” and contrary views are “ipso facto rejected.”14… Significantly, many of these scholars and scientists share an acute awareness of the hostility faced by critics of the evolutionary consensus. Their stories suggest that neo-Darwinism retains its academic prestige not so much by the power of reason, but by the power of intimidation. One cannot help but wonder how many other Jerry Fodors or Thomas Nagels exist, waiting silently until they have academic freedom to publicly join the ranks of Darwin-skeptics.”⁵

            Finally, here are David Berlinski’s witty yet thoughtful and factual words to conclude this short essay:⁶

…Look — Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.

Look — The remarkable similarity in the genome of a great many organisms suggests that there is at bottom only one living system; but how then to account for the astonishing differences between human beings and their near relatives — differences that remain obvious to anyone who has visited a zoo?

But look again — If the differences between organisms are scientifically more interesting than their genomic similarities, of what use is Darwin's theory since its otherwise mysterious operations take place by genetic variations?

These are hardly trivial questions. Each suggests a dozen others. These are hardly circumstances that do much to support the view that there are "no valid criticisms of Darwin's theory," as so many recent editorials have suggested.

Serious biologists quite understand all this. They rather regard Darwin's theory as an elderly uncle invited to a family dinner. The old boy has no hair, he has no teeth, he is hard of hearing, and he often drools. Addressing even senior members at table as Sonny, he is inordinately eager to tell the same story over and over again.

But he's family. What can you do?

Endnotes:

¹http://www.equip.org/article/non-religious-skeptics-darwinian-evolution-proponents-intelligent-design/

²https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/

³https://creation.com/james-tour-darwin-skeptic

⁴https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

⁵http://www.equip.org/article/non-religious-skeptics-darwinian-evolution-proponents-intelligent-design/

⁶http://www.discovery.org/a/2450/

Websites last accessed on 11^th August 2018.

Dinosaurs And Christianity; Is There A Problem?

            Dinosaurs existed many many years ago. I say ‘many many years ago’ because there is an ongoing debate about the age of our earth and thereby the time or the era when dinosaurs existed.

            Broadly, Christians subscribe to either of the two creation models: (1) The Young Earth Creationism and (2) The Old Earth Creationism. If you believe that the age of the earth is approximately 6000 years old, then you are a young earth creationist. But if you believe that the earth was created millions of years ago, then you are an old earth creationist.

            The young earth creationist or those who believe that the age of the earth is approximately 6000 years would claim that the dinosaurs existed within the past thousand years. But an old earth proponent – a Christian who believes that the earth is millions of years old – would believe that the Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago.

            Is there a problem? Christian apologist, J. Warner Wallace, articulates this dilemma, “Perhaps the most frequent questions asked of me related to the age of the earth are these: What do Christians say about dinosaurs? How do Christians account for dinosaurs and the death we observe in the fossil record? Doesn’t the very existence of dinosaurs in the fossil record, contradict the claims of the Bible? There’s an impression, even amongst Christians, dinosaurs present the Christian community with a true dilemma. There seems to be something contradictory about the archeological record of dinosaur life, and the biblical record of creation…”¹

            A systematic study of this subject should encompass a study of the claims and the counter-claims of the young and the old earth creationists. But because of a self-imposed word restriction for every essay that I publish for your consumption, I shall only consider the response to the dinosaur dilemma from the perspective of the young earth creationists.

            Since this view completely disagrees with the evolutionists, I believe it would be more interesting to study the arguments of the proponents of young age creationism with respect to the dinosaur dilemma. (On the other hand, the old age creationist’s view of the dinosaurs would largely agree with that of the evolutionists.)

            “Answers In Genesis” is a Christian apologetics ministry that believes in the young earth creationism. They believe that the existence of dinosaurs does not disprove the Bible or that of Historic Christianity. Here’s their response to the existence of dinosaurs:²

Did Dinosaurs Really Exist?

Dinosaurs certainly did roam the Earth in the ancient past! Fossils of dinosaurs have been found all over the world, and their bones are displayed in museums for all to see. Scientists have been able to reconstruct many of their skeletons, so we know much about how they may have looked.

When Were Dinosaurs Found?

The story of their discovery began back in the 1820s, when Gideon Mantell, an English doctor, found some unusual teeth and bones in a quarry. Dr Mantell realized there was something very different about these animal remains, and believed that he had found an entirely new group of reptiles. By 1841, about nine types of these different reptiles had been uncovered, including two called Megalosaurus and Iguanodon.

At this time, a famous British scientist, Dr Richard Owen, coined the name “Dinosauria,” meaning “terrible lizard,” for this is what the huge bones made him think of.

When Did Dinosaurs Live?

The story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks is that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs “ruled the Earth” for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.

Other scientists, called creation scientists, have a different idea about when dinosaurs lived. They believe they can solve any of the supposed dinosaur mysteries and show how the evidence fits wonderfully with their ideas about the past, beliefs that come from the Bible…

Although the Bible does not tell us exactly how long ago it was that God made the world and its creatures, we can make a good estimate of the date of creation by reading through the Bible and noting some interesting passages…

…As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years.

Where Did Dinosaurs Come From?

… The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24–31). If God designed and created dinosaurs, they would have been fully functional, designed to do what they were created for, and would have been 100% dinosaur. This fits exactly with the evidence from the fossil record.

Evolutionists declare that no man ever lived alongside dinosaurs. The Bible, however, makes it plain that dinosaurs and people must have lived together. Actually, as we will soon see, there is a lot of evidence for this.

            Another question that deserves a credible answer is, “Did Dinosaurs and Man coexist?” Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs and man did not coexist. In contrast, the young earth creationist claim that they coexisted, “Here, in short, is how we arrive at our conclusion that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time—starting with a straightforward reading of the Bible as the true, eyewitness account of history:

1. Dinosaurs, being land animals, were created on Day 6 of Creation Week. (Genesis 1:24–25)

2. Adam and Eve were created on Day 6 of Creation Week. (Genesis 1:26–30)

3. Thus, dinosaurs and humans lived side by side.6 (Genesis 1:31)”³

            Interestingly, carvings of dinosaurs have been discovered at various locations. Carvings of dinosaurs could only exist if man had seen them, claims an article in the “Apologetics Press,” entitled “Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part II],” “If humans and dinosaurs lived together on the Earth in the past, what would you expect to find to verify their cohabitation? One line of conclusive evidence would be a series of carvings or drawings accurately depicting dinosaur anatomy that could be shown to have been produced before modern information about dinosaur anatomy emerged. The Stegosaurus carving in Cambodia, the dinosaur carving found by Samuel Hubbard, the accurate dinosaur petroglyph on Kachina Natural Bridge, dinosaur figurines discovered by Julsrud and studied by Charles Hapgood, the Ica stones, and various other carvings, figurines, and ancient art that we have not had space to include, converge to form a mountain of physical evidence that is exactly what would be expected if humans saw live dinosaurs. Evolutionists have used dinosaurs long enough to teach their false worldview. It is time we take dinosaurs back, and use them to teach about the awesome power of the One Who created these magnificent creatures.”⁴

            If you desire to dig deeper into this subject matter from the perspective of young earth creationism, then this page⁵ in the ‘Apologetics Press’ website would offer you helpful resources (copy and paste the link found in the endnotes in your browser). Also please visit the website of “Answers In Genesis” to learn more about dinosaurs from the perspective of young age creationism.

            How do the Christians subscribing to old earth creationist model respond to the dinosaur dilemma?

            Reasons.org is a Christian apologetics ministry subscribing to old earth creationism. They claim, “Since dinosaurs were first given a name (“terrible lizards”) in 1841, they have fascinated people. Our testable creation model says God created dinosaurs to roam the Earth roughly 230 million years ago, and many different types of these creatures dominated the landscape. Their time on Earth ended when a 6 mile-wide asteroid impacted Earth 65 million years ago. Some Christians say the Leviathan and Behemoth mentioned in Job refer to dinosaurs, but we disagree. Because humanity arrived on Earth much later, no biblical author would have had contact with dinosaurs. The most popular scientific model claims dinosaurs evolved into birds, but we reject this view also. Instead, we argue that both birds and dinosaurs were specially created by God to fill the livable environments available on Earth during their respective eras.”⁶

            To conclude, sincere Christians endeavoring to study the subject of dinosaurs from within the perspective of Historic Christianity could either agree to the views of the young earth creationists or the old earth creationists. But as Christians subscribing to Historic Christianity, let us not condemn the proponents of the opposing viewpoint.

            The dinosaur dilemma and the various models/perspectives of creation (young earth creationism, old earth creationism etc.) are not essential to the truthfulness of Historic Christianity. In other words, we are not required to take a hard stand on fringe topics such as the creation model or the dinosaurs.

            It would be worthwhile to invest our time and energy into understanding the truth-claims that offer validity to the various essential doctrines of Historic Christianity e.g. Creation over Unguided Evolution etc. This is a better alternative than to pore over fringe doctrines because our belief in the fringe doctrines cannot jeopardize our belief in Historic Christianity.

            Hence, when we study/discuss dinosaurs or creation models, we can always agree to disagree with the opposing view to uphold this timeless saying, “In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity.”

Endnotes:

¹http://coldcasechristianity.com/2012/do-dinosaurs-disprove-the-bible/

²https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/dinosaurs-and-the-bible/

³https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/humans/dinosaurs-man-and-the-bible/

⁴http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=446

⁵https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&topic=59

⁶http://www.reasons.org/explore/publications/tnrtb/read/tnrtb/2011/07/29/rtb-s-position-on-dinosaurs

Websites last accessed on 20^th July 2018.