15 Questions About the Age of the Earth Controversy (Questions 11-15)

This is the final part of my three-part series on the age of earth controversy. In this post, I will be answering another five questions related to this debate. Part one can be found here, and part two here. As with the last two articles, I can only scratch the surface of these debates and outline the most important points. Still, due to the subject matter, this article is quite a bit longer than my previous ones. Due to the length, if you are more interested in certain questions, I suggest you skip to them. The questions addressed in this post are as follows:

11. What are the essentials that a Christian must hold to about creation?

12. Must evolutionary creationists deny biblical inerrancy?

13. Intelligent Design: What is it and is it science?

14. How does Darwinism function as an ideology?

15. Is it intellectual suicide to deny the theory of evolution?

—————————————————————————————————————

11. What are the essentials that a Christian must hold to about creation?

For starters, when I use the word essentials, I am not saying that a person who does not hold these views is not a genuine Christian. However, I am saying that not holding to any of these following points is theologically dangerous.

The most contested essential, and the area I will primarily write on for this question, is the belief in a historical Adam and Eve. Genesis 1 is not the only place that is highly contested in the creation debates. It is important to note that the entire section of Genesis 1–11 is unique and needs to be interpreted carefully.

That said, newer research in genomics is driving even more debate about whether a historical reading of Genesis 2 and 3 is credible. It should be noted that this is not only an entirely new phenomenon and there is some early church evidence for non-historical interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis.¹ Nonetheless, there are massive doctrinal difficulties that result from denying that human beings have descended from a historical Adam and Eve. Note that there is a difference between affirming Adam and Eve as historical compared to affirming a literal interpretation of them. It is possible to have a non-literal view of Adam and Eve while still believing they were real historical people. 

This debate has similarities to the Copernicus Conflict, and Christians need to carefully consider the various lessons learned there. Natural evidence has every right to make us go back to the Word and see if perhaps we have been interpreting something literally that need not be. However, unlike geocentrism, the reinterpretation of Adam and Eve requires substantial doctrine shifts and there is strong Biblical evidence against it. Here is a quick breakdown:

• The New Testament (NT) clearly teaches that through one man sin entered the world and contrasts this with the work of Christ. A historical Adam and a historical Christ go hand in hand (Romans 5:12-21, I Corinthians 15:40-49).^2,3
• Nearly all NT scholars agree that Paul believed that Adam and Eve were historical persons.⁴
• The doctrine of Original Sin is vitally important for our understanding of who we are as humans, what is wrong with the world, and what is the nature of our relationship to God.
• Not only did Paul believe in a historical Adam, but also Jesus, our Savior and the Son of God, believed it as well (Matthew 19).
• The genealogies in Scripture begin with Adam. One of the purposes of these genealogies is to ground Jesus Christ in history. A Christian is entering dangerous territory if they believe that the start of that historical genealogy is a mythical man.

We could go on, but the above points help to demonstrate that there are significant biblical reasons not to do away with a historical Adam. It should also be said that just because a Christian embraces Evolutionary Creationism (EC) does not necessitate that they deny a historical Adam and Eve. Denis Alexander, Vernon Bauer, and Kenneth Kemp all hold to a form of EC that still embraces a historical Adam and Eve.⁵ For these EC believers there are still unresolved questions scientifically and interpretively, yet they maintain the importance of holding fast to the historicity of humanity’s first parents. More will be said about this in the following question.

Other essentials in creation are the goodness of original creation, that God created all material things ex nihilo (out of nothing), and that God is completely sovereign over all creation. Yet in our current moment, these are not nearly as debated as a historical Adam and Eve.

12. Must Evolutionary Creationists deny biblical inerrancy?

The hinges of Christianity do not swing on evolutionary theory. A holistic understanding of the Bible’s central message leads one to the knowledge that the true hinges from which Christianity lives or dies swing on the historicity of the physical death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To confess Jesus as Lord and to believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead is the essential belief for becoming a Christian (Romans 10:9). B.B. Warfield, who coined the term biblical inerrancy, once said, “Calvin’s doctrine of creation is, if we have understood it aright, for all except the souls of men, an evolutionary one.”⁶ There is some debate on how far Warfield took this,⁷ but C.S. Lewis and Billy Graham⁸ are two other very notable and influential believers who have embraced complete EC in the past (“complete” meaning embracing common descent). 

Although the unfortunate trend is for complete EC to give up on inerrancy, there are some believers who do not do this. Some more liberal approaches simply reinterpret things allegorically and claim that it is not an error if a Biblical author like Paul believed in a literal Adam, even though he never existed. Such EC believers look more at the author’s intent and the meaning of what they were saying being true than all the facts necessarily collaborating with truth. However, this is a far cry from a compelling form of what it means for a text to be without error. We all have to decide what is to be taken literally and vice versa, but the level at which this is employed can quickly lead one to theological liberalism if not kept in check.

Others, like John Stott, make distinctions between Homo sapiens (humans) and Homo divinus (humans made in God’s image). They argue that when God breathed the breath of life into Adam, he was using a human who was already in existence (formed from the dust is interpreted as God molding humans through the long process of evolution) and then breathing the image of God into him, and finally setting him aside in the garden where the fall then resulted.⁹ Other EC argue for Adam and Eve still being historical figures, yet they are better represented as federal heads of humanity than the biological parents of all. Again, the separation of Homo sapiens from Homo divinus is vital for these interpretations to have any merit.

It should be said that some of these models do answer some questions that YEC and OEC models do not. Obviously, there are more answers to the genetics, but there are also some biblical answers provided, such as where Cain got his wife, why he was afraid of being killed by others, and how he founded a city (Gen 4:17). Yet, these EC models typically create more problems than they solve, both theologically and scientifically. In addition, at times, their methodology is highly questionable.

Keathley and Rooker put it well, “Evolutionary creationists appear to be starting with a scientific conclusion and then looking for a biblical sanction. Most scientists would not want to do science the way evolutionary creationists seem to be asking theologians to do theology.”¹⁰ Even the president of BioLogos, Deborah Haarsma, shows great candor when she says, “Not satisfied with any of these scenarios? Neither are we! All of the Adam and Eve scenarios discussed in this chapter seem to have significant scientific or theological challenges or both.”¹¹ Such honesty and desire not to disregard the Bible is appreciated. Yet, clearly, if there is biblical credibility to EC models, much work is still to be done.

In church history these things have a way of working themselves out over time. The magnitude of some of these interpretations has caused a lot of tension on all sides, but I do not believe that EC need to disregard inerrancy, nor a historical Adam and Eve for that matter. YEC and OEC should engage with EC with grace, love and truth. All three groups must be examples of Christian love and seek wisdom on when rebuke is needed and when grace should be extended.

Believers on all sides should also take time to: Be still and know that He is God; He will be exalted among the nations, He will be exalted in the earth (Psalm 46:10). And to remember “we see in a mirror dimly,” and now “we know in part” (I Cor. 14:12). Jesus is seated at the right hand of God and knows exactly how all of this comes together. May the church be captive to His Word, patient as we work through these interpretive differences, and oh so cautious to move away from historical understandings that affect key doctrines.

13. Intelligent Design: What is it and is it science?

Intelligent design (ID) is often mocked by some Christian and non-Christian scientists as not being a true scientific endeavor, yet that is not the case. ID is really the only organized strictly scientific movement which is aggressively attacking the materialistic evolutionary paradigm that has unjustifiably held such dominance within the scientific community for years.

ID is nothing new. It actually goes as far back as Plato and Socrates, who argued that the evidence of design in nature demanded a designer.¹² However, the modern ID movement developed in the 1980s, as more and more scientific details were being discovered that challenged Darwin’s theory. Discovery Institute is now the leader of the ID movement and many of their scientists have published peer-reviewed articles supporting ID.

ID is primarily focused on attacking Darwin’s understanding of natural evolution, arguing that with the modern scientific evidence at hand, it is not a sufficient theory to explain all the science. ID advocates typically consist of Christians on all camps of creationism (YEC, OEC, and EC), and even people of other religions. Ironically, people from all of those camps are also known to heavily criticize ID.

One of the most common criticisms is that ID is not science because it fails to offer sufficient alternative explanations for the theories or findings that it criticizes. Essentially, the argument goes something like this: Naturalistic evolutionary position “A” holds to the position based on evidence “B.” An ID scientist takes evidence “B” and dismantles evidence “B” to where position “A” appears untenable. Yet, ID scientists do not always offer alternative detailed explanation “C.” Therefore, it is not considered science.

Such thinking is unwarranted. Christians are commonly told that we hold to a “God of the Gaps” line of thought, (which is not true of a large portion of Christians¹³), and yet when ID comes in and shows the major difficulties of a current naturalistic explanation, many critics of ID then end up using a “Naturalism of the Gaps” explanation.

J.P. Moreland defends ID as science like this:

ID theory really is science because (1) it generates positive and negative test results; (2) it actually explains facts in scientifically standard ways; (3) it can be confirmed by facts; and (4) it solves internal conceptual problems that evolution doesn’t solve. These are four things that a scientific theory ought to do, and ID does all four.¹⁴

Although ID can be helpful, Christians ought not to make their faith hinge on the success of any given group of arguments such as these. This is a recipe for unending doubt. While answers can commendably be sought, we must always place our faith in Jesus Christ first and foremost. As Tim Keller wrote:

What if God hasn’t given us a watertight argument, but rather a watertight person? Jesus is saying, ‘I am that person. Come to me. Look at who I am. Look at my Cross. Look at my resurrection. No one could have made this up! Come to me, and you will find rest for your souls.’ Ultimately, faith and certainty grows as we get to know more about Jesus, who he is, and what he did.¹⁵

ID is very useful in challenging those who think that the Darwinistic evolution that is typically employed by the Neo-Atheist movement is a proven fact. Some of the ID’s findings are simply awe-inspiring, and I personally find the science very interesting and entertaining. Creation does testify of God’s craftsmanship, and it is good to find pleasure in researching the depths of it.

14. How does Darwinism function as an ideology?

Darwinism functions as a comprehensive worldview and is the leading worldview within academia, though arguably not as pervasive as is commonly thought. Darwinism is not merely the belief in evolution. Just believing in evolution does not make one a Darwinist. Darwinism is a belief in common descent, combined with random variation and natural selection, along with the belief that these all came about by natural means only.¹⁶

Darwinism completely rejects any kind of direct creation, all species are fully mutable. It completely rejects design, arguing that things in nature only appear designed. And it rejects teleology, which is the argument for purpose and intent. Teleology is different from design, as design shows intelligent thought and teleology shows purpose.¹⁷ Darwinism is antithetical to Christianity.

Darwinism naturally leads to support of eugenics, which is selective breeding of humans.¹⁸ It has been well documented that Darwinistic thought heavily influenced Nazi Germany’s view of humanity.¹⁹ Even the subtitle of On The Origin of Species is very revealing: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Many who embrace Darwinism try to distance themselves from its philosophical implications, yet such resistance is ironically irrational. Those who embrace it while continuing to resist its implications tend to hold positions relating to morality that contradict their worldview. There is something to be said about the Neo-Atheists like Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Alexander Rosenberg, who bluntly describe the implications of their beliefs and, if anything, seem to be the logically consistent Darwinists.

Rosenberg describes his beliefs as follows:

Is there a God? No. What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is. What is the purpose of the universe? There is none. What is the meaning of life? Ditto. Why am I here? Just dumb luck… Is there free will? Not a chance. What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them. Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral. Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don’t like forbidden, permissible, or something obligatory? Anything goes.²⁰

Now, most Americans aren’t jumping up and down and embracing this bleak picture of reality. Yet, the vast majority have accepted Darwinistic evolution, but given little thought to its true implications.

There are several problems with Darwinism, however. Some will be discussed in the question below, but I will take on a few here that relate more specifically to Darwinism than evolution in general.

First, Darwinism does not capture what humanity is, which is why I think so few humans end up really embracing it. The theory is extremely inadequate in its ability to capture the complicated nature of what humanity seems to be. Many of the actions of humans are contrary to Darwin’s theory. Selfishness is seen as the primary motivation of all humans in everything they do, and yet, humans are constantly doing things that harm themselves for the good of others. Is there a major aspect of selfishness within humans? Of course, yet Darwinistic explanations for altruism and other human virtues are still wrapped in the selfishness paradigm.

Secondly, there is a logical inconsistency within the ideology itself. Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga has pointed out that a Darwinist must place his faith in his human brain and yet the human brain has evolved from a strictly irrational process, so there is no justification for trusting the rational thoughts of an irrational process. Darwin himself expressed this concern when he wondered if the mind of man could be trusted.

Third, there is another flaw in thinking that reductionism proves complete causality and fully determines what a thing is. Essentially, if I describe neurons firing in my brain as simply a scientific process that only involves those neurons firing but fail to consider that a thought has been created with the firing of those neurons, I have not described the process accurately. To just reduce thinking to firing neurons is to fail to get the entire picture of what is going on.

Furthermore, it fails to consider how previous thoughts have all developed to then create this thought. Plasma physicist and Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT, Ian Hutchinson, puts it like this:

It might well be true that a human is a complex mixture of compounds of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, calcium, phosphorus, and so on. But it is highly misleading to say that a human is ‘nothing but’ such a mixture. I am an assembly of electrons and quarks interacting through quantum chromodynamics and the electroweak forces; I am a heterogeneous mixture of chemical elements… I am a system of biochemical processes guided by genetic codes; but I am also a vast and astounding complex organization of cooperating cells; I am a mammal, with hair and warm blood; I am a person, husband, lover, father; and I am a sinner saved by grace. I am not all of these things, and not one of them is less true than any other. In no case is it correct to say I am nothing but one of these descriptions.²¹

Fourth, ultimately Darwinism is a faith-based position. As Robert Wright, author of The Moral Animal, and advocate for Darwinism, puts it:

The theory of natural selection is so elegant and powerful as to inspire a kind of faith in it — not blind faith, really, since the faith rests on the theory’s demonstrated ability to explain so much about life. But faith nonetheless; there is a point after which one no longer entertains the possibility of encountering some fact that would call the whole theory into question. I must admit to having reached this point.²²

C.S. Lewis wrote about his original acceptance and eventual rejection of materialistic evolution in The Funeral of a Great Myth. He says:

That, then, is the first proof that popular Evolution is a Myth. In making it Imagination runs ahead of scientific evidence. ‘The prophetic soul of the big world’ was already pregnant with the Myth: if science has not met the imaginative need, science would not have been so popular. But probably every age gets, within certain limits, the science it desires.²³

15. Is it intellectual suicide to deny the theory of evolution?

There are many Christians who have embraced a type of evolutionary theory. They are typically called believers in theistic evolution, though they prefer to be called Evolutionary Creationists (EC). Personally, I am unpersuaded by the biblical defenses presented by EC, and I am certainly not persuaded that evolution is as scientifically proven as it is so commonly portrayed to be. Having gone to public school, evolution (with complete naturalism assumed) is all that I was ever taught. I cannot remember a single time in all of my education where any of the weaknesses in the theory were discussed—not even mentioned. I will mention a few.

Many people point out that so many scientists believe in evolution that it must be true. However, even a brief survey of scientific history should destroy this argument. Just one example is Newtonian physics, which was thought to explain pretty much everything, but found itself overturned by Einstein’s theory of general relativity²⁴ (which is also is facing some hard questions due to its incompatibility with quantum mechanics).²⁵ A majority opinion can only hold so much weight. It matters, but it by no means proves the point. 

Almost no one denies micro-evolutionary events, such as seen in animal breeding. Yet, what is highly debatable is any hard proof of macro-evolution. As Oxford mathematician, John Lennox, argues: “to appeal to examples of micro-evolution as evidence for macro-evolution is to assume what you hope to prove.”²⁶  Furthermore, biochemist Michael Behe states in Darwin’s Black Box, that evolutionary theory has yet to describe how complex, irreducibly complex, structures found in life came to be. The theory has no explanatory power for origins and simply appeals to mystery or lack of scientific knowledge.

Natural selection is a fact, but as microbiologist Douglas Axe says:

However strong the desire is to portray selection in glowing terms, the reality confronting scientists who work with it in the laboratory is much more humble… The modest view isn’t entirely negative. Selection does one thing reasonably well, in fact. Having failed as an inventor, it has managed to prove itself as a fiddler.²⁷

To ascribe the level of inventing power to natural selection that many evolutionists do is to overstep what is scientifically observable.

Darwin’s theory of evolution contained three major predictions that simply did not come true. These consist of predictions within the geological record, predictions regarding the complexity of cells, and predictions on how natural selection functioned.

Darwin was quite sure that the geological column would have to show an enormous number of intermediate links for his theory to hold. He wrote, “And this, perhaps, is the most and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”²⁸ The curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History is frank when he says, 120 years later, “The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like…the record… still does not yield a finally graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates.”²⁹

In addition, events like the Cambrian Explosion are unexplainable within the commonly understood view of evolution. In a geological second, 30 phyla appear. This is essentially an explosion of information from nowhere. Some arguments that were given previously by evolutionists were that there must have been soft-bodied animals that simply did not fossilize or that the environmental conditions did not allow for life to fossilize. However, that position is harder to hold now with recent geological evidence found in southern China that shows soft-bodied embryo sponges prior to the Cambrian Explosion period. If these tiny embryos could fossilize, there is little reason to doubt that other forms of life, if present, could fossilize as well.³⁰ What’s more, is that there are other events described as “morphogenetic explosions” that mimic the Cambrian Explosion found in later parts of the geological record that do not harmonize with current evolutionary theories.³¹

It is not just anti-evolutionary believers who interpret the fossil record as very problematic for natural selection theories. Evolutionist and former paleontologist at Harvard, Stephen Jay Gould, described Darwin’s theory as dead and could not reconcile the fossil record with natural selection alone. He came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which described how nearly all species remain constant and then suddenly new species appear. He was highly critical of the Neo-Atheist’s defense of Darwin.

Eventually, he found he was not able to defend his own theory by any other means than a face-value look at the fossil record and eventually simply accepted natural selection despite the evidence.³² Punctuated equilibrium was forced by the evidence against a gradual natural selection theory, but found nothing to ground itself in. It must be pointed out that “gradualism is the hinge component of Darwinian evolution, and the theory is wounded (perhaps mortally) without it.”³³

Moving on from geology, Darwin was greatly mistaken in his understanding of cellular complexity. He and other biologists of his day believed that the cell was extremely simple, but modern science has revealed that cells are perhaps the most complicated structure that we know of. This, combined with coming to the realization that genetics are not as malleable as once thought, is very problematic to Darwin’s theory of natural selection. EC Charles Foster admits that there are problems with the limits on how much a species can vary.³⁴ John Lennox points out that we have bred thousands of generations of fruit flies and over 25,000 thousand generations of E. coli bacterium, and, guess what? They are still fruit flies and still E. coli with little to no innovative changes.³⁵

In addition to all of this, the evidence for observable natural selection does not coincide with Darwin’s theory. For instance, many people say Darwin’s view of natural selection is observable in bacteria as they respond to antibiotics. But as James Shapiro observes, the bacteria actually horizontally transfer DNA from other organisms that allow them to neutralize the antibiotics. This is not natural selection taking place. The bacteria “evolve by natural genetic engineering rather than by localized mutation.”³⁶ Essentially, they evolve by their own design not by random acts. Certainly, Darwin’s theory leaves a lot to be desired. 

Now one might ask: What about the other empirical evidence in favor of evolutionary theory? Many evolutionists argue for the evidence of common features within life. Common features equal common descent. Yet, this is not a good argument, as it could just as easily be used by ID proponents: Common features equals a common designer.

It gets more complicated when species who are not considered close relatives share very complicated common organs like a human’s eye compared to an octopus’ eye.³⁷ In addition, “orphan genes” are an unexpected phenomenon that has been revealed in the field of genetics. Within standard evolutionary models, the preponderance of the “orphan genes” is unlikely if common descent were true. Yet, we are finding more and more of these genes which do not show the similarities with “shared” relatives as we would expect.³⁸

It can’t be denied that there are major genetic similarities between species, especially between humans and apes. However, there are substantial differences between them as well. The steps required for this difference to arise with a common ancestor go against what we currently understand nature to be capable of.³⁹ One “fact” that most people have heard is that humans and chimps share 99% of their genetic code. Yet, that stat should not be taken at face value. When it is used, it refers only to that DNA where matching sequences can be found. 28% of human DNA is not considered in that statistic because no alignment or similarities can be found.⁴⁰ 

Many evolutionists used to contend that the vast majority of DNA was “junk DNA.” Following the well-known Human Genome Project, the ENCODE project began and concluded that at least 74% to 93% of human DNA is routinely carrying out functions within the human body. It was previously thought that 3% was the magic number and that over 90% of our DNA was strictly junk. Again, this is contrary to what is expected from natural selection and is consistent with many of our findings that most of the adaptions in life are nearly optimal.⁴¹

When all this evidence is considered, a type of progressive creationism seems like the most reasonable deduction. I can certainly say that none of this opposing evidence was ever presented to me in school. Evolution was presented as a chance event with a natural cause. If I wanted to believe that God was behind it all, that was fine, but it was against the science. Or, so I was taught. Evolution was presented as a fact and not a theory. In the average person’s mind, they are convinced that evolution is the only defensible position. Well, as Alvin Plantinga says, “Evolution requires God in order to work. If evolution is true then naturalism must be false.”⁴²

As I have said before, I do not think evolution of a certain type is incompatible with Christianity and I would not force my beliefs on how God created on someone exploring Christianity. I would point them to the Cross. These questions can be difficult, but they are being asked by believers and unbelievers alike. And although I disagree with his conclusions on evolution, I think it fitting to end this series with a quote by Ian Hutchinson who reminds us that, “Thinking deeply and with nuance is part of the Christian understanding that in addition to being the way and the life, Jesus is the truth.”⁴³

Notes

1. Ian Hutchinson, Can a Scientist Believe in Miracles?: An MIT Professor Answers Questions on God and Science (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2018), 172-173; Hutchinson, who is an EC, sites Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Victorinus, Origen and Augustine in his defense of taking larger parts of Genesis non-literally. A sophisticated modern defense of a nuanced reading of Genesis 1-11, that is historical, with a very careful analysis of interpreting literally vs literarily is Reading Genesis Well by C. John Collins. 
2. Albert Mohler and Bryan Chapell, “Were Adam and Eve Really Historical Figures?” The Gospel Coalition, March 10, 2017, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/podcasts/tgc-podcast/were-adam-and-eve-really-historical-figures/
3. Tim Keller, “Sinned in a Literal Adam, Raised in a Literal Christ,” The Gospel Coalition, June 6, 2011, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sinned-in-a-literal-adam-raised-in-a-literal-christ/
4. Kenneth D. Keathley and Mark F. Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2014), 240
5. Ibid. 241
6. Quoted in: Hutchinson, Can a Scientist Believe in Miracles? 175
7. Fred G. Zaspel, “B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution,” Themelios, Vol. 35 (Issue 2),  http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/b.-b.-warfield-on-creation-and-evolution
8. Keathley and Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, 241
9. Ibid. 380-384
10. Ibid. 385
11. Quoted in: Ibid. 385
12. Ibid. 387
13. Consider Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s words: “It has again brought home to me quite clearly how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back—and that is bound to be the case—then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.” Quoted in: Ernie Laskaris, “The New Atheist Sledgehammer: Like Epistemological Air Boxing,” Themelios, Vol. 43 (Issue 3)  http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-new-atheist-sledgehammer-like-epistemological-air-boxing)
14. Quoted in: Keathley and Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, 394
15. Timothy Keller, The Reason for God (New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2008), 232
16. Keathley and Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, 330-333
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Quoted in: Mitch Stokes, How to be an Atheist: Why Many Skeptics Aren’t Skeptical Enough (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 35
21. Hutchinson, Can a Scientist Believe in Miracles? 32
22. Quoted in: Keathley and Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, 342
23. C.S. Lewis, Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1967), 105
24. Keathley and Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, 363
25. See: Stokes, How to be an Atheist, 119-130
26. Keathley and Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, 363-364
27. Douglas Axe, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life is Designed (New York, NY: Harper One, 2016), 103
28. Quoted in: Keathley and Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, 366
29. Quoted in: Ibid. 366
30. Michael Horton and Stephan Meyer, “Stephan Meyer on Darwin’s Doubt,” The White Horse Inn,  https://www.whitehorseinn.org/show/stephen-meyer-on-darwins-doubt/ (15:20)
31. Keathley and Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, 367
32. Ibid. 345-348
33. Ibid. 348
34. Ibid. 368
35. Ibid. 370
36. Quoted in: Ibid. 370
37. Ibid. 371
38. Ann Gauger, “About Orphan Genes — What’s the Big Problem for Evolution?” Science and Culture, November 6, 2018, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/11/about-orphan-genes-whats-the-big-problem-for-evolution/
39. Keathley and Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, 372
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid. 372-374
42. Quoted in: Ibid. 374
43. Can a Scientist Believe in Miracles?, Ian Hutchinson, 254

Photo by Johann Siemens on Unsplash

Further Reading 

• Were Adam and Eve Biologically Immortal? 
• Reading Genesis 1 as Science Dishonors the Text and Distracts the Reader 
• An Analogical Interpretation of Genesis 1