[Special Note] – These articles on Evolution OR Creation or any of the others for that matter, may appear to some, as directed against Catholic Church teaching and the authorities within the Church. However, this author wishes to clarify that this is definitely not the intention of any articles that I write. (In fact wherever Catholic Teaching is in harmony with the Word of God, the same has been quoted as well). The sole reason for the existence of this blog-site is to publish truth as best as I understand it from God’s Word and the evidence of sound empirical science (wherever required). In the pursuit of this Truth, it might often be necessary to state things which are contrary to what others in high office have stated. Keeping in mind the constitutional right to freedom of expression that we all have, such truth is shared in love and with respect as per the scriptural norm. Hence, my special request to you therefore, is to read carefully with the above in mind.
Catholicism & Genesis
A review of The Doctrines of Genesis 1–11:
A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins by Fr Victor P. Warkulwiz (Catholic Priest)
The Catholic Church’s belief about Genesis 1–11 has been confusing for a long time—ever since uniformitarianism and evolution came on the scene. Most seminaries regard this essential part of God’s Word as a Myth. This situation is similar to Protestant churches, sadly, for both liberal and conservative ones. Within the ‘traditionalist’ churches, the above book (by Fr. Victor P.W), is a welcome addition to the book Genesis, Creation and Early Man by the Russian Orthodox heiromonk Seraphim Rose, who documented that the Church fathers of Eastern Orthodoxy from the fourth century until the present almost all taught a young earth, a literal six-day creation, a global Flood, and the origin of languages at the Tower of Babel. Warkulwiz’s book focuses on the traditional teachings of the Catholic church from the early and medieval church fathers and comes to the same conclusions. The book was endorsed with a foreword by Bishop Robert Francis Vasa of Baker, Oregon.
Who is Fr. Warkulwiz?
Fr. Warkulwiz is well qualified to write such a book. Not only is he a Catholic priest, but also he has a PhD in physics from Temple University and has worked in industry for a number of years. He has taught science, philosophy, history, astronomy, logic, chemistry, physics, mathematics and creationism versus evolution at Magdalen College in the U.K. He entered the priesthood late in life and received an M.Div. and M.A. in theology and was ordained in 1991. He is also theological reviewer for the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, a Catholic young-earth creation organization.
About the book
Blending this diversity of fields, Fr Warkulwiz has written a 519 page book not only on the scientific arguments for young-earth creationism, but also he has added a lot of history, philosophy, and theology. The book consists of 16 doctrines derived from Genesis 1–11, such as:
- God created the world from nothing,
- God created each thing in the world immediately,
- God created each living creature according to its kind,
- God created the world in six natural days,
- God created the world several thousand years ago,
- The whole human species descended from the first man and woman and
- God destroyed the world that was – with a worldwide Flood.
He quotes extensively from the early and medieval fathers of the church, especially Augustine, Aquinas and Bonaventure. He drives home the main point that traditional Catholic teaching has always been young-earth creationism. It is only under the influence of the so-called Enlightenment that Catholic theologians and scholars have strayed. The influence of evolution culminated in the teachings of Jesuit priest, Pièrre Teilhard de Chardin, who mesmerized numerous Catholics to believe in evolution with his ‘theological fiction’.
[Re light before the Sun’s creation on Day 4] Light is not tethered to a source. Once a photon of light leaves its source it is free and has an existence of its own. So modern physics has no problem with the idea that God created light without a source.— Victor Warkulwiz
From his field of physics, Warkulwiz has some good insights into many supposed problems of Genesis 1–11, for instance, he says in regard to the source of light for the first three days:
‘A possible source for the light could have been chemical and nuclear reactions in the raw matter of earth itself. But according to modern physics a source really isn’t needed. Light is not tethered to a source. Once a photon of light leaves its source it is free and has an existence of its own. So modern physics has no problem with the idea that God created light without a source … ’ (p. 173).
Old-earthers make a huge issue out of the nature of light before the sun was created on Day 4, trying to justify their old-age interpretation. It is as if God were powerless, and there were no other alternatives.
Fr Warkulwiz understands the fallacy of the documentary hypothesis, which assumes evolution, and which the Catholic Church borrowed from liberal Protestants. He sees the problems with the big bang hypothesis for the origin of the universe and that it contradicts the Bible. He strongly believes in the inerrancy of the Bible:
‘The principle of inerrancy is all-inclusive; it includes everything the Bible says. To deny this and to allow Sacred Scripture to err even in some small matter opens a Pandora’s box of skepticism that leads to the total discrediting of God’s Word’ (pp. 12–13).
Church Fathers almost universally interpreted Genesis literally
The book adds much information that refutes the idea that the early church fathers were wishy-washy on the subject of origins, suggesting a variety of possible ‘interpretations’ for Genesis 1–11. This is a point made by a number of modern opponents of biblical creation such as the progressive creationist Hugh Ross and the theistic evolutionist Howard Van Till, who has subsequently apostatized—at no great surprise to anyone who knew him.
The principle of inerrancy is all-inclusive; it includes everything the Bible says. To deny this and to allow Sacred Scripture to err even in some small matter opens a Pandora’s box of skepticism that leads to the total discrediting of God’s Word.— Victor Warkulwiz
It is true that Augustine and Aquinas seemed to have some unorthodox beliefs, but often these Church fathers, as well as others, simply interpreted passages both symbolically as well as literally. They were fond of adding a spiritual meaning to events in Genesis 1–11, interpreted both individually and in terms of the Church. They still believed in the literal meaning. Augustine did stray from a literal six-day creation, but instead of believing in long ages, he believed creation took place in only one day! Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini states that Augustine did explain too many things figuratively which he later thought he should have taken more literally (p. 166). Aquinas believed in spontaneous generation, as did most other scholars of his time, but he also believed in created kinds. It is only by superficial analysis of the writings of the Church fathers that some old-earthers and theistic evolutions can claim that some early church fathers left the questions of origins open.
I was favourably impressed by some of the insights that the early Church fathers had in regard to origins. Many of their ideas seemed modern. But at other times it seems like they theologically hypothesized beyond the state of the evidence. For instance some of the Church fathers believed that Adam and Eve lived in the garden like sexless creatures (p. 304). Most of the time Fr Warkulwiz points out these misinterpretation and mistakes, but other times he does not comment, which leaves the impression that he believes some of these hypotheses.
Popes, cardinals and councils upheld a literal Genesis — until recently
Another interesting aspect of the book is that Fr Warkulwiz quotes several Church councils, a few cardinals and a number of popes who reinforced the traditional Catholic teaching on a literal Genesis. I was favourably impressed with the many statements quoted. For instance, the Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1909 rejected arguments that denied the literal history of Genesis 1–3.
Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini points to the conclusion that Adam must have been specially created because Eve was specially created from Adam’s side:
‘But if it is true, as the transformists are good enough to concede, that the body of woman was formed directly by God and thus does not come by way of evolution, who will be persuaded that man’s body, the virile sex, comes from the brute beast? What an absurdity!’ (p. 269)
A few popes of recent times have made statements that seem to support evolution. … such pronouncements are beyond the range of authority of the popes and are not official church doctrine. Moreover, these popes are dependent upon their scientific advisors, who have succumbed to evolution, an old Earth, and the Big Bang.
However, a few popes of recent times have made statements that seem to support evolution. Warkulwiz states that such pronouncements are beyond the range of authority of the popes and are not official church doctrine. Moreover, these popes are dependent upon their scientific advisors, who have succumbed to evolution, an old earth and the big bang. So, it is no wonder that some of the recent popes have made unbiblical statements supporting an old earth or evolution. (Source)
The Testimony of the Magisterium from the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission
It is interesting and necessary to note here some of the important points that Fr. Victor (above) has pointed out from the Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1909. (The reader is invited to click the link alongside and read for himself/ herself).
The Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) rulings on the interpretation of the book of Genesis are—together with Humani Generis, but even more so—some of the last authoritative magisterial statements on the subject. In the Motu proprio, “Praestantia Scripturae,” on November 18, 1907, Pope St. Pius X declared that no one could contest the rulings of the PBC without “grave sin.”
The PBC’s answers to several questions establish certain truths unequivocally.
Its reply to Question I establishes that the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis cannot be called into question.
Its reply to Question II establishes that Genesis contains “stories of events which really happened, which correspond with historical reality and objective truth,” not “legends, historical in part and fictitious in part.” In short, the PBC definitively excludes the possibility that even a part of the Genesis 1-3 narrative could be fictitious and non-historical.
The PBC’s answer to Question III establishes that the literal and historical truth of the following facts cannot be called into question:
1) “The creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time”
Comment: This passage upholds the Lateran IV doctrine that all things were created by God “in the beginning of time.”
2) “The special creation of man”
Comment: This excludes any process in the formation of man and requires that the creation of man was immediate and instantaneous.
3) “The formation of the first woman from the first man”
Comment: This, too, excludes any process in the formation of the first woman and requires that the creation of Eve was immediate and instantaneous.
When, in 1948, Cardinal Suhard attempted to get the PBC to renounce its earlier rulings on Genesis, he was rebuffed and told that the PBC did not wish to issue “new decrees on these questions” (Denz, 2302). Consequently, the next magisterial document dealing explicitly with the historical events recounted in Genesis 1-3, Humani Generis, must be understood in the context of the 1909 PBC rulings. It is in this context—and ONLY in this context—that Pope Pius XII’s permission to inquire “into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter” can and should be understood. In view of the Vatican’s refusal to change its 1909 decrees on Genesis One, Catholics are still bound by them. Pope Pius XII himself in Humani Generis condemned those who transgress legitimate freedom of discussion, acting as if the origin of the human body from previously existing and living matter, were already certain and demonstrated from certain already discovered indications, and deduced by reasoning, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this thinking (DZ, 2327).
Although Pope Pius XII charged “exegetes” with the task of determining in precisely what sense the first eleven chapters of Genesis are history, he insisted that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are “a kind of history” and that they contain a popular description of the origins of the human race and of the chosen people. He also upheld the constant teaching of the Church that these chapters are “free from all error” (DZ, 2329).
ENCYCLICAL – HUMANI GENERIS – (Pope Pius XII).
As interesting as the above statements made by the Pontifical Commission, the encyclical Human Generis (points 5 & 6) has this to add:
- If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
- Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
Could God Have Used Evolution?
Where does this question come from? I believe it is largely generated by the fact that many Christians find themselves in a bit of an apparent dilemma. They certainly believe in God and view the Bible as being his inspired Word, but they are also under the impression that scientists have virtually proven that evolution is a fact. They may also believe that science just deals with facts and you can’t really argue with that, because it is what it is. On the other hand, they reason that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways and it doesn’t matter so much what we believe about creation, as long as we at least believe in Jesus. The easiest way to resolve this apparent conundrum is to simply merge the two together. “God used evolution. Case closed! No need to argue with either side.”
On the surface this seems like the best solution and I believe that most Christians who hold to this position do so in all sincerity. It also may seem like it is really taking the “higher ground” position… not completely rejecting either side. I personally believe that evolution and religion are very compatible. Really? Yes, really. What’s the catch? Here’s the catch… Evolution and religion are very compatible, but not evolution and Christianity! Religion is largely “man’s” idea of God (or “a” god).
There are so many different religions because there are so many different people and they all have their own ideas about who or what God is, why we are here and what he wants from us, etc. Christianity, on the other hand, is “God’s” idea of God. I personally believe that what God chose to tell us about himself and his creation, rules out the evolutionary theories being taught in schools and universities today. I think that non-Christians often recognize this more readily than Christians, as evidenced in the following quote from Professor David Oldroyd:
“People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together. But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic. Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process…” [Professor David Oldroyd, (School of Science and Technology Studies at the University of New South Wales, Australia.) writing in The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20–21 March 1993, p. 5.]
Atheist G. Richard Bozarth wrote:
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” [G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.] Source
One of the most obvious biblical issues would be the fact that the creation account is very straightforward and does not describe evolutionary processes. Most people readily recognize that Genesis chapters 1-2 recount a simple progression of miraculously creative acts during a period of six solar days. Therefore, if they wish to adhere to modern evolutionary biology, they simply relegate the first few chapters of Genesis as allegory, poetry or some other non-literal interpretation. The Bible unmistakably contains passages that are poetic and allegorical in nature and each time it is greatly evidenced by the context. However, Genesis 1-2 was not written in this fashion, but rather, as “historical narrative”. Space prohibits listing all of the evidence for this, but volumes have been written along these lines. Realizing that the text itself does not support evolutionary theories, some religious leaders have gone as far as to dismiss Genesis altogether in favor of current secular views. The inherent danger with this is “Why stop at Genesis? Why not take it to its logical conclusion and start questioning other portions of Scripture?”
Commenting on the idea of God using evolution, atheist Carl Sagan logically stated:
“If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn’t he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why is he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there’s one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He’s not good at design, he’s not good at execution. He’d be out of business if there was any competition.”
Evolution represents a very random, inefficient process with lots of death and disease. This hardly seems to be the work of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving Creator. God is not the author of confusion (I Cor 14:33), but of wonder, power and majesty. I think Carl Sagan noted and saw the illogic of God using evolution better than some Christians.
One other person who seems to understand the fallacy of compromising Scripture with modern evolutionary views is Richard Dawkins who is one of the world’s leading evolutionists and a very outspoken atheist. He commented regarding Christians who try to take Genesis as just an allegory and not literal:
“Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.” [Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 25] (Source)
Wow! From an avowed atheist that too. I couldn’t have put it better myself.
There are many other scientific problems with the whole story of evolution, but I personally feel the biggest argument against theistic evolution isn’t really related to science (as many problems as there are), but to what God told us He did. If He truly did use evolution, it would have been no problem at all for him to describe it in general in Genesis… but He didn’t. He told us Adam was created from the dust of the Earth, Eve, from the side of Adam, etc… not at all what modern evolutionary science purports. We all have to decide what our ultimate source of authority is… man or God. “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight.” – (1 Cor 3:19)
From an Evolutionist’s Perspective
The leading humanist of Darwin’s day, Thomas Huxley (1825–1895), eloquently pointed out the inconsistencies of reinterpreting Scripture to fit with popular scientific thinking. Huxley, an ardent evolutionary humanist, was known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” as he did more to popularize Darwin’s ideas than Darwin himself. Huxley understood Christianity much more clearly than did compromising theologians who tried to add evolution and millions of years to the Bible. He used their compromise against them to help his cause in undermining Christianity.
In his essay “Lights of the Church and Science,” Huxley stated,
I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of the passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the ‘ten words’ were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the Story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the Creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated: And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?
Huxley made the point that if we are to believe the New Testament doctrines, we must believe the historical account of Genesis as historical truth.
Huxley was definitely out to destroy the truth of the biblical record. When people rejected the Bible, he was happy. But when they tried to harmonize evolutionary ideas with the Bible and reinterpret it, he vigorously attacked this position. (Source)
The “Y” Chromosome Shock
Researchers were unprepared for what they would find when they recently completed sequencing of the chimpanzee Y chromosome, and compared it to the human Y chromosome.
“The Y is full of surprises,” said David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He and his team had just found that the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans are “horrendously different from each other”.
Why did Dr Page use the word “horrendously”? Because he believes evolution—that chimps are our closest evolutionary relatives. But Page’s team found that the chimp Y chromosome has only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human Y chromosome and only 47% as many protein-coding elements as humans. Also, more than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome and vice versa.
Upon seeing these and other stark differences between the respective Y chromosomes, Page now says “the relationship between the human and chimp Y chromosomes has been blown to pieces”. (Source)
A Brief Thought on God “As A Magician”:
About the account of creation in Genesis, the pope stated, “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magus (magician), with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so . . . God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life . . . Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.” Additionally, Pope Francis said that “God is not afraid of new things.”
Now, of course God is not a “magician.” Nothing in Scripture ever hints that He is—especially not in the creation account. Scripture portrays God as the all-powerful Creator who is capable of making anything, whether that’s creating the universe out of nothing, parting the Red Sea, saving people from a fiery furnace, walking on water, or raising the dead! God even says the following:
Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is there anything too hard for Me? (Jeremiah 32:27)
Because God created nature and natural laws, He alone has power over them. The God of Scripture who can do anything (Job 42:2; Matthew 19:26) is absolutely able to create out of nothing, just as He said He did: “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” (Hebrews 11:3). And most importantly, God does not change (James 1:17).
A statement made by the pope earlier this month at a large gathering on St. Peter’s Square just after the Synod on the Family ended – “God is not afraid of new things.” What the pope and many other religious leaders are saying is that God—and His Word—is open to change as society’s opinions change. But is this what God’s Word teaches? Absolutely not. In His Word, God says, “I am the Lord, I do not change” (Malachi 3:6) and “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent (change His mind). Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19). Of Scripture, God says, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away” (Matthew 24:35) and “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8).
God and His Word are not open to arbitrary change simply because society changes as it is influenced by false religions. God’s Word “endures forever” (1 Peter 1:25) and is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) regardless of the generation.
Creation Scientists Tend To Win Debates With Evolutionists:
Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970’s particularly in the United States. Given the lack of evidence for the evolutionary paradigm and the abundant evidence for biblical creation, this is not surprising. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the “creationists tend to win” the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy. In August of 1979, Dr. Henry Morris reported in an Institute for Creation Research letter: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.” Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.” Generally speaking, leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists because creation scientists tend to win the debates. In addition, the atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins has shown inconsistent and deceptive behaviour concerning his refusal to creation scientists. Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the Christian apologetic website True Free Thinker which declared: “Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties…” In an article entitled Are Kansas Evolutionists Afraid of a Fair Debate? The Discovery Institute states the following:
“Defenders of Darwin’s theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not.”
In 1994, the arch-evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott made this confession concerning creation vs. evolution debates:
“Why do I say this? Sure, there are examples of “good” debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually “to defend good science” or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can’t figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution — and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.” (Source)
The 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer:
- How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
- How did the DNA code originate?
- How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
- Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
- How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
- Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
- How did multi-cellular life originate?
- How did sex originate?
- Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
- How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
- How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
- Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated as ‘science’?
- Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
- Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as the operational science?
- Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? (Source)
What Does The New Testament Say About Creation?
So what do the New Testament writers say about Genesis? (Indeed, does the New Testament teach ‘New Testament onlyism’?) Did they believe that Genesis, as written, is real straightforward history, or did they believe it to be poetry or myth?
Matthew, who wrote his Gospel to show that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, records that an angel told Joseph that Mary would have a son who would save His people from their sins. This son would be conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit in fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 1:22–23). The immediate prophecy is that of (Isaiah 7:14), but the first prophecy about this was given to Adam and Eve as a real historical event in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:15).
In Matthew 4:3 there is a most unusual testimony to this fact—that of Satan. During the temptation of Christ, Satan said: ‘If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.’ Or, in short, ‘If you are God … create!’ Satan was challenging Christ to duplicate in miniature form the instantaneous and fiat (i.e. commanded) creation that happened during Creation Week. For this temptation to have had any meaning, Satan must have believed that Christ was able to do it. Why? Because it would have been no temptation at all to any of us!
At the right time, Jesus did use His creative powers, inter alia, wine from water (John 2:1–11); lots of food from a little (Mark 6:35–44; 8:1–9); healthy organs in lepers (Luke 5:12–13), the blind (Matthew 9:27–30), and paralytics (Luke 6:6–10); and life from the dead (Luke 7:11–16; Lk 8:41–42; John 11:1–44). These miracles all happened immediately, as would be expected from the God who is the creator of time and thus not bound by it, and in response to Christ’s command. Not one happened through any chance random evolutionary process.
In John 1:1, 3, 10, John refers to Jesus as the Creator of all things, including the world. John calls Christ the Word (Greek: logos). One reason for this is that Genesis 1 records that the Creator God called all things into being by means of His spoken word—not by any evolutionary process.
What did Jesus explicitly teach about creation?
An especially significant confirmation of the historicity of Genesis is seen when Jesus was asked about divorce. (Mark 10:6) records that He replied by quoting from Genesis 1 & 2. ‘But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female” (Genesis 1:27). “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, “and the two shall become one flesh”’ (Genesis 2:24). The Lord Jesus Christ was no evolutionist! He was there at the beginning, and He says that man and woman were there ‘from the beginning’ too, i.e. within six days of the beginning, not billions of years later).
Notice that Jesus was quoting from Genesis chapters 1 and 2 in the one context. And unlike liberal theological institutions, He did not regard these two chapters as contradictory accounts but as complementary. So here the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, as recorded by Mark, affirms the literal, historical accuracy and fundamental authority of the Genesis record of Creation, i.e. that it means what it says.
(Luke 3:23–38) traces the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam through some 42 ancestors. The ages of these people given in the Old Testament amount to a few thousand years, not millions of years.
(Luke 11:50–51) also records Christ’s reference to ‘the blood of Abel’, with Abel the first in a long line of martyred prophets whose blood ‘was shed from the foundation of the world’, not billions of years later. Jesus, as reported by Luke, thus affirms that Adam’s son, Abel, was a real person, and that Genesis is a literal historical record that means what it says.
The Apostle Paul
In (Acts 17:24–31), we have the record of Paul’s sermon in Athens to the Epicurean philosophers, who were evolutionists. Here Paul says that God created the world and everything in it; that He gives all men life; that every nation has come from one man; that we are God’s offspring and will one day be judged by God; and that the proof of this is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Notice that Paul was using ‘creation evangelism’ to first change the worldview of these evolutionist Greeks. He tells them that God is the Creator, and that there will be a Day of Judgment. The result: several converts (v. 34), who eventually turned their culture around. Could Paul have said any of this, unless he believed that Genesis means what it says about origins? And unless he believed that the Creator God is also Saviour, as well as Judge?
In (Romans 1:18–25), Paul says that the things we see in nature (rather than suggesting evolution) witness to God as Creator, and that ignoring this evidence leads to idol worship and deviant sexual behaviour. If we have evolved from animals, why not worship animals or engage in deviant sexual activity? The answer is that the God who is Creator is also Lawgiver, and He forbids idol/animal worship, as well as all deviant sexual behaviour (Ex 20:3–4; 22:19); (Leviticus 20:13), (Romans 1:26–27); (1 Corinthians 6:9–10).
In (Romans 5:12), Paul says: ‘…through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned’. The man was Adam, who sinned by breaking a command from God. Death came as a judgment from God because of this act of Adam’s. This invokes the historical truth of (Genesis 2:16–17; 3:6, 17–19).
Paul goes on to present Adam as a contrasting type of Christ, calling Him ‘the last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45). The sin of Adam, which brought condemnation to all men, is contrasted with the righteousness of Christ, which makes redemption available to all. However, if Adam is a metaphor, and Genesis is figurative rather than historical fact, and if death is a part of nature rather than the penalty for sin, the death of Christ on the cross is no longer needed as a sacrifice for sin (cf. Romans 6:23).
In (1 Corinthians 15:26), Paul refers to death as ‘the last enemy’. If death is an enemy, and the result of sin, it could not have been the process over millions of years by which God created Adam. See also how this explains why an all-powerful, loving God allows suffering and death.
In (1 Corinthians 11:8), Paul writes that ‘man did not come from woman’. In (1 Corinthians 15:21–22), Paul irrevocably links the resurrection of Christ to the fact that Adam was the man through whom death came, and in 15:45, 47 he twice refers to Adam as the first man. In (2 Corinthians 11:3), Paul refers to Eve as a real person who was deceived by ‘the serpent’s cunning’. Then in (1 Timothy 2:13–14), Paul again refers to the Fall as a historical event—that God made Adam first, before Eve, and that Eve was the one deceived. These are all literal readings of (Genesis 2:18, 21–22 and/or 3:1–6).
Other New Testament writers
In (Hebrews 4:4 & 4:10), the writer refers to God’s rest on the seventh day of Creation Week as a real historical event. Cf. (Genesis 2:2–3).
(James 3:9) says that we have been made in God’s likeness. This applies to all men and women, both believers and unbelievers, and means that people have a spiritual dimension which animals do not have. James is here taking (Genesis 1:26) to be literally and historically true.
In (1 Peter 3:20), Peter treats the Flood as a real historical event, with a real man, Noah, and literally ‘eight people saved’. Likewise in (Hebrews 11:4, 5, & 7); (1 John 3:12); and Jude 14, the writers all treat Abel, Cain, Enoch and Noah as real historical people and not as metaphors.
Every New Testament writer mentions the events or the people recorded in Genesis, and every New Testament writer sets forth these events and people as real, straightforward history, not as camp-fire stories, allegory or myths. Every writer takes the view that Genesis means what it says, not something different from what it says.
We can believe the Genesis record with confidence. The Gospel is that the first man whom God created sinned and brought judgment upon mankind, but God, in His love, provided His Son to pay the penalty for our sin on the cross. This Gospel has its foundation in the literal, historical truth of Genesis. Christians who tamper with this foundation undermine and sabotage the very Gospel itself. (Source)