The Triunity Report

Science and the Bible

Creation

• Does Genesis place insects as being created last?
• How does the Bible explain cavemen?
• Was the Sun really created after the plants?
• Isn't there a contradiction between the Genesis and nature?
• Creation or evolution -- What is truth?
• Is creation or natural process evolution responsible for life?
• What is the probability of evolution occurring?
• Is it possible for life to evolve by natural means?

The Flood

• How could Noah's ark hold all those animals? Part 1
• How could Noah's ark hold all those animals? Part 2
• Might Noah's ark still be found on Mount Ararat?

Does Genesis place insects as being created last?

Radio Spot

The Biblical creation account tells us that the creatures that creep along the ground were created on the sixth day, toward the end of the creation sequence. Many have interpreted these creeping creatures as insects and, therefore, have concluded that the Genesis record of creation is out of synch with the scientifically established facts.

Let's look more closely at the text. The creeping creatures are mentioned as a sub-set of a broader category of animals referred by the Hebrew noun nephesh. This word, translated as "soulish animal," refers to those creatures endowed with the capacity to think and feel and choose.

These are the animals we domesticate or choose for pets. Birds and mammals would fit the meaning of nephesh. Therefore, the creeping creatures of Genesis must be mammals. Insects are ruled out. Most likely the reference is to rodents, prairie dogs, rabbits, and the like, creatures which have appeared relatively recently according to the fossil record.

So, the order of events in the first chapter of Genesis is in perfect accord with the established facts of nature. This is just one of many evidences that the Bible is the error free word of God.

To contact Reasons To Believe, send us an email or write:

How does the Bible explain cavemen?

Radio Spot

By cavemen I mean not the recent cave-dwelling humans, but earlier creatures such as Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, and the Australopithecines. These man-like creatures did exist. The fossil evidence is undeniable. However, these species went extinct before God created Adam and Eve. The planet was empty of them when God specially created Adam and Eve.

The key distinguishing feature which separates modern man, Adam and Eve, from these prehistoric hominids is the quality called spirit. Spirit is what drives man to worship, to ponder the meaning of life, and to distinguish right from wrong. The hominids were mammals, but only Adam and Eve and their descendants qualify as spirit creatures. This conclusion is confirmed by anthropology. The oldest religious relic ever uncovered dates back only 8 - 24,000 years. This time frame is in agreement with the best Biblical date for the creation of Adam, namely, 8 - 45,000 years ago.

Why would the Bible omit mention of the hominids? I don't believe it does. They are included with the other mammals. They simply do not warrant special mention among the top eleven creation miracles selected for discussion.

To contact Reasons To Believe, send us an email or write:

Was the Sun really created after the plants?

Radio Spot

Some people think that's what the first chapter of Genesis says. After all, it does say that plants were created on the third day, and the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day. Let's look closely at the text.

The first verse of Genesis states that the heavens and the earth were created in the beginning. This would include the stars, one of which is the sun. The second verse indicates that the creation story will be told from the perspective of planet earth, more specifically from the perspective of an observer on the surface of the earth's ocean under the atmospheric layers.

What happened on the fourth day was not the creation of the sun, but rather a change in the earth's atmosphere from translucent to transparent. The continuous overcast now broke, and now the form, and not just the light, of the sun, moon, and stars became visible. The Hebrew verb nathan is the one used in reference to the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day. From Hebrew lexicons we learn that one definition of that verb is to "cause to appear."

To contact Reasons To Believe, send us an email or write:

Isn't there a contradiction between the Genesis and nature?

Radio Spot

Do you know what excuse people give more than any other for rejecting the Bible? According to our surveys, it's the seeming contradiction between the creation story and established facts.

What they need to know is this: as each year goes by, more and more evidence accumulates to confirm not only the fact that God created, but also that the Biblical record of His creation is totally accurate. There is no conflict between the facts of science and the words of the Bible. The same God is responsible for both. The problem lies with our misunderstandings of one or both.

Here is an example. Bible commentaries typically place the viewpoint for Genesis One out in the heavens, looking down on the earth. But, the second verse of Genesis One tells us that it's under the clouds, down on the surface of the waters. That one small correction eliminates the contradiction between the Biblical order of events and the scientific order.

To contact Reasons To Believe, send us an email or write:

Creation or evolution -- What is Truth?

Radio Spot

Definitions here are important. Evolution means change with respect to time; evolutionism or Darwinism has come to mean changes by natural means only; while creation means that at least some of the changes come by supernatural means. Natural process evolution adequately describes, for example, the formation of rain drops and the burning of stars. It cannot explain the origin of the universe, the capacity of the earth to support life, or the origin of life. In fact, in all three of the latter cases, well established facts of science prove beyond any reasonable doubt that supernatural input was required. This does not mean, however, that natural-process changes never occur. Nor does it negate God's superintendence over the natural processes.

The most recent supreme court statement on the teaching of creation and science emphasized the importance of teaching only that which is based on established fact. Research breakthroughs of the last four years powerfully confirm that the established facts of science perfectly match the account given in the Bible. Let's focus our attention and efforts on teaching those facts.

To contact Reasons To Believe, send us an email or write:

Is creation or natural process evolution responsible for life?

Radio Spot

A good test is to study what's happening right now. This is a fair test because physicists and astronomers confirm that physical conditions now are largely the same as they have been since life has been around. Recently, ecologists have determined that one species of life goes extinct every hour. Obviously, many of these extinctions result from man's activities pollution, deforestation, and the like. However, these same ecologists concede that at least one species goes extinct every year without man's influence.

The question is, how many new species do we see coming into existence every year? The answer: zero. The emergence of a new animal species in nature has yet to be documented. This means that life is not in natural balance.

If it were not for God's involvement during His time of creating, His supernaturally replacing the species that naturally go extinct, our planet would have been void of life long ago.

To contact Reasons To Believe, send us an email or write:

What is the probability of evolution occurring?

Radio Spot

When you walk out your front door on a warm summer morning, do you worry about your blood turning to ice in your veins? I doubt it. My guess is that you've never thought for a moment about that prospect even though it is a mathematical possibility. You don't have to think about it because the laws of heat and motion are so reliable, and that possibility is very remote. The laws of thermodynamics are so dependable that we easily, in fact reasonably, take them for granted. Did you know that it's possible to demonstrate to your skeptical friends that the Bible is every bit as reliable as those laws.

Simply on the basis of fulfilled prophecies and accurately forecasted scientific discoveries, we can show that the Bible is a surer bet than those laws of heat and motion on which we daily gamble our lives? If you wonder how I can make such a bold claim, please put me to the test.

To contact Reasons To Believe, send us an email or write:

Is it possible for life to evolve by natural means?

Radio Spot

Evolution of anything, organic or inorganic, by natural processes alone can be seen as a reasonable conclusion only if we can demonstrate the existence of the following four essentials:

1. the existence of physical mechanisms or processes to generate all the necessary changes
2. the existence of reasonable physical conditions for the mechanisms to work both before and after the changes
3. the existence of sufficient results per unit time from the mechanisms; that is, enough surviving individuals of the new type to ensure their survival
4. the existence of real-time observational and statistical verification of the natural change process and mechanisms

We can demonstrate that these essentials are present for rain drop and star formation. We can demonstrate that none of them exist for the formation of life. Therefore, we can conclude that rain drops and stars form by natural processes, but we must conclude that strictly natural causes are insufficient to explain either the introduction of life or the subsequent development of life.

To contact Reasons To Believe, send us an email or write:

How could Noah's ark hold all those animals? Part 1

Radio Spot

Have you ever wondered how Noah's ark could possibly have held all the species of life on the earth? The ark was big, nearly the size of an aircraft carrier. However, even a boat of such size would be too small to hold the millions of animal species found on planet earth, let alone a fourteen-month food supply.

Don't panic. I'm not saying that the Bible is wrong on this point. What you need to know is that the Bible does not claim that every animal species on earth was aboard the ark.

In Genesis 6, 7, 8, and 9 two Hebrew words, nephesh and basar, are used to describe the animals on board the ark. The word nephesh includes birds and mammals only. The word basar refers more specifically to those birds and mammals that contribute to man's livelihood. Further, the word for world refers to mankind and the area he occupied rather than the entire globe.

Several hundreds of species, at most a few thousand, were indeed brought on board the ark. In any case, the ark was plenty big enough, both for the animals and their food supply. And, Noah's family of eight would be fully capable of caring for these animals on board.

To contact Reasons To Believe, send us an email or write:

How could Noah's ark hold all those animals? Part 2

Radio Spot

Did all the creatures of Earth really fit on Noah's ark? No ship we can imagine would be big enough to house over 2,000,000 species. And, besides, how could just eight people care for all of those animals? The Bible tells that Noah's ark was roughly 500 feet long. That's big, but still inadequate to house pairs of 2,000,000 species plus their food. The crucial point, here has to do with the purpose of God's judgment.

God's stated purpose was to cleanse the earth from the infection of wickedness. So, His destruction would only reach as far as the people and animals irreparably affected by man's rampant sin, namely. Only two Hebrew words are used in the Genesis flood account to refer to the animals taken on board the ark. These are nephesh and basar.

The word nephesh refers to birds amd mammals, the only creatures on earth whose behavior can be affected by man's sin.

The word basar is specific to those birds and mammals that have actual contact with man.

So, the number of animals on board the ark probably numbered in the hundreds, certainly no more than a few thousand. The ark, then, would have been adequate, and eight people could have cared for all the animals.

To contact Reasons To Believe, send us an email or write:

Might Noah's ark still be found on Mount Ararat?

Radio Spot

Some Christians have suggested that Noah's ark still rests on top of Mt. Ararat and that its discovery will provide definitive proof of the Genesis Flood. What does the physical evidence say, and what does the Bible say?

First, the Genesis account does not say that the ark came to rest on top of Mt. Ararat. Rather, it says "the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat." The Hebrew word for mountains, har, has a very broad definition, from a 50-foot high hill to Mt. Everest. Thus, the expression "the mountains of Ararat" would encompass more than 100,000 square miles of territory north and east of Ninevah.

Second, the dove that Noah released came back to the ark with an olive leaf. Olive branches would be found on the lower hills of Ararat but not on the high mountains. If the ark came to rest on the foothills of Ararat, we can reasonably conclude that its wood was used up long ago for construction projects in and around Mesopotamia.

To contact Reasons To Believe, send us an email or write: