by Charles Wallace

Nearly 150 years after Charles Darwin published his book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” the United States of America is still plagued by the conflict between evolutionary science and the Christian religion. Fundamentalist Christians oppose any teaching that conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible. The Biblical story of creation claims that God created mankind in His own image, as a direct and separate creation from the rest of life. The scientific theory of evolution through natural selection demonstrates that all modern life, including man, descended over hundreds of millions of years from a common ancestor. Christians who accept the Biblical creation stories as literal history are called creationists. In an attempt to make their faith-based claims sound more plausible, the creationists often refer to their beliefs as “creation science.”

Creationists have for decades attempted to force the American public school system to teach the Biblical view of creation in its science classes. As early as 1925 the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee passed House Bill No. 185 (the Butler Act) that stated:

…that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”

It wasn’t until 1968 that the law was repealed by the U.S. Supreme Court since it was found to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prevents Congress from making a law that establishes a religion. Another blow to creationism came in 1987 when the Supreme Court ruled against a Louisiana law that required “creation science” to be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

Having failed to entrench their beliefs into the U.S. school system, creationists changed their tactics. In 1989 the book “Of Pandas and People” was published, and it is considered the first book on “Intelligent Design.” (ID) During the editing of the book all references to creationism in the draft were changed to “Intelligent Design.” By eliminating direct references to the Bible, to God, and to Christianity, creationists now believed they could force the public school system to teach ID instead of, or alongside, evolution. In December 2005 eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania sued the Dover Area School District over a requirement that a statement supporting ID be read aloud in the ninth-grade science classes where evolution was taught. Here is the required statement:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

Judge John E Jones III determined that the goal of the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) is to ‘“defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”’ Judge Jones III held that:

Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

While this ruling was devastating to the IDM, they are still actively pursuing their goal to eliminate the teaching of evolution, or to force ID to be taught alongside evolution, in all science classes in the public school systems of the United States.

Back in 1995 I was given a copy of Thomas Kindell’s, “Evolution on Trial: With Evolutionists at the Witness Stand.” According to one biography Mr. Kindell received “advanced training in scientific creationism through the Graduate School of the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, California.” Since creationism is a religious belief and not a science, I am confused as to what Mr. Kindell’s advanced degree is actually in. My personal friends know that I am an amateur paleontologist, an amateur astronomer, and am an amateur historian of early Christianity.  In response to reading his book, I wrote a sixteen-page letter to the person who gave it to me. Over the years many people have expressed interest in my views on creationism and intelligent design. Since over a decade has passed since I wrote my letter, I decided to re-write it. The current form is what you are reading now.

Creationists believe that the Bible is the inerrant and divine revelation of God. Creationists are found in any of the three hundred or more denominations of the Christian religion that exist today, although many are fundamentalist Protestants. While their literal interpretation of scripture might seem extreme, it is not. For over a thousand years Christianity has regarded the Bible as the inerrant and inspired word of God. In the preface of a New International Version of the Bible, written in the late 20^th century, it states: “In working towards these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form.” The early Catholic Church also shared this view. In this paper the term “Catholic Church” will mean the universal church as used by St. Ignatious, Bishop of Antioch in 107 A.D., and not the Roman Catholic Church.

The first part of my paper will examine the creation and flood myths of the Bible as interpreted by the Catholic Church. One cannot understand Christian theology until one understands the relevance of the myth of creation to the Christian doctrine of original sin. Then I will examine what modern science teaches about the origin of the world and life and compare that to the Biblical teachings. Finally, I will demonstrate that the Bible is anything but inerrant, and that the Christian doctrine of original sin is inherently flawed.

Before beginning, I must explain my usage of the word myth. The term myth carries with it some negative connotation to many people. They feel that this word inherently means that the story is untrue. It is used here to describe any story whose underlying purpose is to teach or explain something. However, since nearly every religion and culture has their own myths of origin, and they do not agree with one another, it would be extraordinary to automatically assume that any one myth is the only true one. Confirmation of a myth’s historical accuracy must come from historical or scientific evidence.

     Both the Catholic Church and Judaism believe that God revealed Genesis (a part of the Torah, or “Old Testament”) to Moses. Genesis explains how God created the world. Genesis 1:2 states that the earth was formless and void, and the Spirit of God brooded over the chaotic waters of the deep. In Genesis 1:3-2:1 God brings order to the dark, empty, and chaotic waters already in existence. It takes God seven days to bring order from the chaos. Many believe that the seven days are literal because the word “yowm,” which means day, is used, rather than any of the other Hebrew words that would mean epoch, period, or eons. Secondly, the primary reason for the Sabbath is to remember God’s rest on the seventh day of the week of creation. The sequence in which God creates the earth will be important to our comparison of Biblical and scientific views.

On day one God creates light. During day two God creates the firmament that separates the waters above the firmament from the water of the deep. On day three God creates the earth, plants, and trees. Concerning the vegetation the Bible states: “The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.”[1] This passage is usually interpreted to mean that a tree species could generate more trees of that species and grasses could generate more grasses of the same species. Lights are created in the firmament on day four. Because of the location of these lights in the firmament, and the use of the Hebrew word kowkab, we know it refers to the stars, the sun, and the moon; not, as St. Augustine would have us believe, to angels. Sea monsters, sea life, and all winged animals are created on day five. Cattle, and all ground creepers are made on day six. Day six is also the day that God creates man, male and female, to rule the earth. Finally, on day seven, the Bible states that “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.”[2] And God rested and hallowed the seventh day. This I interpret, as did the early Christians, to mean that the world was in its final form.

At this time the world was considered to be a perfect place. Augustine claims: “If no one had sinned, this beautiful world could have been filled with created natures that are good.”[3] The perfection of Eden did not last long, for Adam and Eve sinned against God by eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As a result God cursed Adam, Eve, and the natural world. Early Church Fathers believed that through Adam’s sin death came into the world. “Consequently, all Christians who really hold to the Catholic faith believe that it is not by a law of nature that man is subject to bodily death--since God created for man an immortal nature--but as a just punishment for sin.”[4] Nor was there doubt that the events recorded in Genesis were real and physical. In the third century BCE, Hippolytus, a disciple of Irenaeus, writes:

For some choose to maintain that paradise is in heaven, and forms no part of the system of creation. But since we see with our eyes the rivers that go forth from it, which are open, indeed, even in our day, to the inspection of any who choose, let everyone conclude from this that it did not belong to heaven, but was in reality planted in the created system. And, in truth, it is a locality in the east, and a place select.

St. Augustine agrees.

For this reason, there are some who have allegorized the entire Garden of Eden where, according to Holy Scripture, the first parents of the human race actually lived. The trees and fruit-bearing shrubs are turned into symbols of virtues and ways of living, as though they had no visible and material reality and as if Scripture had no purpose but to express meanings for our minds. The assumption here is that the possibility of a spiritual meaning rules out the reality of a physical Paradise. [here allegories are given concerning the possible symbolism of the Garden of Eden] No one should object to such reflections and others even more appropriate that might be made concerning the allegorical interpretation of the Garden of Eden, so long as we believe in the historical truth manifest in the faithful narrative of these events.[6]

What is the Biblical world like? The world is flat, round, and suspended between two bodies of water. Above the solid earth there exists a physical firmament held up by mountain pillars.[7] Above this firmament exists a region of water. When the firmament opens the water seeps through as rain. Another region of water, the primeval deep, exists below the earth.[8] The sun, the moon, and the stars travel through the firmament (see illustration A, courtesy of G.B. Singh). The Egyptians had a similar understanding of the world; only they personified the firmament as the sky Goddess Nut, and the solid earth as the God Set. Amon Ra, the sun God, traveled across Nut.

Illustration A: The Biblical World

Besides the Fall of Man, the Bible records another important catastrophe. God curses the world with a flood, which covers all dry land and destroys all life, except for what exists within Noah’s ark.[9] God instructs Noah to put two of all animals into the ark.[10] After forty days and forty nights of rain, the flood ceases. Soon afterwards the ark comes to rest on the mountains of Ararat. This is the only worldwide flood God has ever sent, and He promises to never send another.

A relative date for God’s creation of the earth can be derived from the scripture, if it is interpreted literally. In 1650 A.D. Archbishop Ussher determined that the universe was created in the year 4,004 BC. How was such a figure arrived at? The answer is quite simple. According to Luke’s record of Jesus’ genealogy there were 76 generations between God’s creation of Adam and the birth of Jesus. And the world was created only five days before Adam.

To summarize, God creates order out of chaos in seven days approximately 6,010 years ago. God creates the world in a specific sequence of events. On Day 1: light; Day 2: the firmament; Day 3: dry land, seas, and vegetation; Day 4: sun, moon, and the stars; Day 5: sea creatures and birds; Day 6: living animals on earth, and man; Day 7: God rests for His creation is in it completed state. During Adam’s lifetime, he and Eve sin against God, and are cursed with death. After nine generations from Adam, God sent a flood that covered all the dry land and destroyed all animal life not on the ark Noah built. From all this we can conclude that Adam and Eve were real people in a real earthly paradise.

Eden can be located by finding the region where the Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates rivers met. Death came to humans, and possibly to nature, solely because of the sin of Adam and Eve. Since God created everything “good,” it is only after the Fall of Man that organisms became deadly. All animal life on land today emerged from the mountain regions of Ararat where Noah’s ark settled. We know all life was created to produce only life that resembles its predecessors.

Now that the Biblical account of creation is clear, let’s examine what science has learned about the creation of the universe, the earth, and the life on earth. When examining scientific theories it is important to remember that the early scientists were creationists. Indeed, until the mid-nineteenth century, naturalists believed each species was created separately. This is known as special creation. It was only after more information was made available, through the pursuit of the sciences, that they were obliged to change their opinions. How old is the universe and the earth and the life on it? Until the discovery of radiometric dating only relative dates could be provided.

Scientists knew that the earth had to be quite old. Individual trees have been discovered in Nevada and California whose tree rings indicate that are over 4,000 years old. Ice core samples from the Arctic give almost a year-by-year account of their formation over 10,000 years ago during the last ice age. Early on naturalists discovered that the different rock layers represented different periods of time, and each layer had distinct fossil communities. If no significant geological forces have altered the formations, one finds the oldest rock layers at the bottom and the most recent at the top. These formations are distinct enough that scientists have given them names and provided relative positions for them in geologic history.

Fossils themselves are a testimony to the passage of time. Fossilization requires periods of time in the millions of years. Certain trace fossils can exist only in one formation that took less than one million years to form. The fossil wood I have collected in Utah is now agate, a form of silica. The shark teeth I found in Colorado demonstrate that there once was an ancient seaway that ran through the center of what is now North America. Our understanding of Plate tectonics shows that the continents of North America and Europe were at one time connected together, and, over millions of years, have drifted apart. They did not, as the Institute for Creation Research teaches, rush apart at 40 mph in one day! I could go on, but the previous examples are more than adequate to demonstrate that the earth and its life had to have existed for millions of years before the present.

The study of radioactivity in the late nineteenth century brought about far more accurate dating techniques for rocks, and the life on earth, than the relative dating of fossils. But, that is only half the age of the earth. There are many different substances that are used for radiometric dating. The most common include: Uranium-238/Lead-206, with a half-life of 4.5 billion, and Uranium-235/Lead-207, with a half-life of 0.7 billion years, both of which can be used to date zircon, uraninite, and pitchblende crystals that are over 100 million years old; K-40/Argon-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years and can date muscovite, biotite, hornblende, glauconite, sanidine, and whole volcanic rock over 30,000 years old; C-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and can date once living organisms under 50,000 years old. By measuring their radioactivity, rocks in the northwestern mountains of Colorado have been dated to 2.3 billion years old.

Creationists often assert that these dating methods produce inaccuracies from 0 to 100 billion years and all results from them are, therefore, meaningless. This is nothing short of absurd. Modern dating techniques using Zircon crystals provide uranium/lead dates with an accuracy of 0.5% or better. Geochemist Roland Mundil of the Berkeley Geochronology Center (BGC) and his colleagues at BGC and UC Berkeley have reported that uranium/lead dating can be accurate to within 250,000 years if found in specially treated zircons from volcanic ash. They have dated the end of the Permian and the beginning of the Triassic periods to 252.6 million years plus or minus 200,000 years. The mere fact that any of these tests produce results over 6,010 years is significant in our discussion about Biblical inerrancy and creation.

Astronomers have discovered that the earth and the universe are ancient. The oldest rocks on earth have been dated to 3.8 billion years. Meteorites have been dated to 4.56 billion years. In 2001 astronomers were able to measure the amount of radioactive isotope Uranium–238 in a star and dated it to 12.5 billion years (+/- 3 billion years). Using the Hubble Space Telescope astronomers dated a white dwarf in the globular cluster M4 to 12.1 (+/- 0.9) billion years. Theoretical physicists using the Hubble Constant estimate that the age of the universe is 13.7 (+/- 0.2) billion years old. Astronomy, geology, and paleontology all demonstrate that the earth and the universe are extraordinarily more ancient than what a literal account of the Bible provides.

How old is life and how did all the species on the planet come about? Neo-Darwinists believe natural selection is the correct explanation of the evolutionary process that produced the diverse life that exists on earth. This theory is based upon the genetic variability of species. Since, in many populations, only a few individuals within the population survive long enough to reproduce, a shift can occur in the frequency in which any given phenotype (the genetic element responsible for a given trait) occurs within the population. This is termed natural selection. Over a long period of time, accumulated changes driven by directional selection can result in a future organism being distinct enough from its ancestor that it can be considered a new species. This model of evolution is called phyletic change.

Another model of evolution, cladogenesis, holds that a small population of species can split from its parent stock and differentiate into different lineages. This would take place rapidly (in geologic time), unlike the phyletic model that requires a long period of time. One example of cladogenesis is island fauna whose modern species originated from a small population of continental species. Over time, the island species differentiated into new species that are unique from the continental ones. Darwin’s finches represent an example of this. Rosemary and Peter Grant have spent nearly twenty years studying these unique finches. Their research has demonstrated that natural selection does occur among finches.[11] A third model, adaptive radiation is a combination of the previous two. Extinction is considered a fourth component of evolutionary change.

Recently a new model of evolution has emerged. This model of macroevolution, punctuated equilibrium, proposes that major changes in evolution take place in small peripheral populations that have undergone speciation. They believe that natural selection works among species, as well as within populations. They feel that the “gaps” in the fossil record regarding intermediary species is predicted by this theory; therefore, the fossil record is fairly complete. It should be noted that while scientists disagree as to what model of evolution is the most accurate, they all agree that macroevolution occurs.

Charles Darwin, one of the first men to form the concept of natural selection, traveled onboard the Beagle to the Galapagos Islands. These tropical islands of the Pacific Ocean were abundant with life, much of which was different from that of the mainland. In fact, each island had different species from the adjacent islands. Some mainland species were altogether missing from the islands. Instead, other species adapted to fill in the empty niches. For example, the islands had no woodpeckers, but there is a woodpecker finch, which doesn’t exist on the mainland. The impact of what Darwin saw on the islands was great. It was one of several things that would lead him to form his theory of natural selection. From where did the life that is on remote islands come? Why are island animals different from mainland animals, if all species came from Noah’s ark? Was God continually creating new species? St. Augustine was aware of the problem in the fourth century.

A question arises how wild animals, propagated by ordinary mating, like wolves and the rest, can be found on the islands far at sea, unless those which were destroyed by the flood were replaced by others descended from the animals, male and female, which were saved in the ark. (There is no problem in regard to domestic animals or to those which, like frogs, spring directly from the soil.)....Another possibility is that, by the command or permission of God and with the help of angels, the animals could have been transferred to the islands. Another hypothesis would be that they sprang up from the earth, as they sprang up in the beginning when God said: ‘Let the earth produce a living soul.’ In this case, if the earth produced the many animals in islands which could not be reached, it becomes clearer than ever that the purpose of all the animals in the ark was less for the sake of replenishing the stock of animals than for the sake of prefiguring the mystery of the Church which was to be composed of so many peoples.[12]

St. Augustine’s arguments would do little to satisfy Darwin let alone modern readers. By Darwin’s time there was a tremendous increase in the number of fossils being discovered, many of extinct animals that had no living equivalents. Darwin would draw upon comparative anatomy to help him understand what processes were at work in nature. He knew of various homologies and remnants that would be best explained if the modern organism had evolved from a more primitive one. He writes:

Organs or parts in this strange condition, bearing the plain stamp of inutility, are extremely common, or even general, throughout nature. It would be impossible to name one of the higher animals in which some part or other is not in a rudimentary condition. In the mammalia, for instance, the males possess rudimentary mammae; in snakes one lobe of the lungs is rudimentary; in birds the "bastardwing" may safely be considered as a rudimentary digit, and in some species the whole wing is so far rudimentary that it cannot be used for flight. What can be more curious than the presence of teeth in foetal whales, which when grown up have not a tooth in their heads; or the teeth, which never cut through the gums, in the upper jaws of unborn calves?[13]

Even today some whales and snakes even have remnant pelvic and leg bones. This information implies that intermediary species should exist with legs in various states of development in the adult animal. This point will be brought up again later when we look at fossils. Other anomalies for creationism are organisms that live in caves that have remnant eyes. Two species of American salamanders, the Texas Blind Salamander and the Georgia Blind Salamander, have functionless eyespots. Several species of blind snakes have small black spots for eyes. Why should they have any remnants of eyes at all if God specifically made for dark cave-dwelling life? When we look at mammals we see that all mammals have seven cervical vertebrae, four limbs, and gill pouches at some stage of their development. Why? God has no need to use hand-me-down patterns to create organisms from scratch. Even man is not free of homologies and remnants. Darwin comments on the bodily structure of man:

It is notorious that man is constructed on the same general type or model as other mammals. All the bones in his skeleton can be compared with corresponding bones in a monkey, bat, or seal. So it is with his muscles, nerves, blood-vessels and internal viscera. The brain, the most important of all the organs, follows the same law, as shewn by Huxley and other anatomists.[14]

Darwin goes on to argue that man and the lower animals are biologically similar, for man can receive and communicate diseases to them; such as, syphilis, cholera, hydrophobia, herpes, and, as we now know, aids and Ebola virus strains. A few remnants that exist in the human body include: the semilunar fold of the eye, which is related to the nictating membrane found in birds, reptiles, amphibians, and sharks; the posterior molars (wisdom teeth), for which most human jaws are unable to provide adequate space, and frequently must be surgically removed; the appendix, that often gets inflamed and can lead to death; and the os coccyx (tail-bone), which, as the name indicates, is the human remnant of a tail. Once again, one must ask why God would give man useless, if not deadly, organs if God created man separately from all other animals.

In 2003 the Human Genome Project completed their work and made the complete human genome sequence available to scientists and researchers. In 2005 the initial sequencing of the chimpanzee was completed and compared to that of humans. Chimpanzees and humans share 96% of their genetic blueprint and are only ten times more genetically different from humans than individual humans are from each other. Humans are 60 times more genetically different than mice. It was concluded that the common chimpanzee and the bonobo are our closest living evolutionary relatives.[15] In another study in 2000 the fruit fly genome was compared to the human genome. It was discovered that nearly 60% of the genes are shared between the two. There is no doubt amongst biologists or geneticists that all life on earth, including humans, evolved from a common ancestor.

Fossils are highly important when testing the theory of natural selection. Although ancient man was aware that fossils existed, they were only methodically collected and studied during the last three hundred years. At first, naturalists thought fossils were of animals that died during the Flood recorded by the Bible. But as more fossils were discovered they realized that the majority of them represented extinct animals. The oldest known fossils are of stromatolites found in Western Australia and date to 3.43-billion-years ago.  Presently, there are only around 2 million species alive on earth. But fossil evidence demonstrates that over 2 billion species have existed on earth. That means around 99.9% of all species on the earth have gone extinct! Many of these extinctions occurred en masse over a short period of time. There have been five mass extinctions, and we are likely living in the sixth. During these extinction events 25-50% of biological families became extinct. At the end of the Permian as many as 96% of all species on land and in sea went extinct.

The Bible wishes us to believe that God purposely created the world and life and in an orderly manner with the creation of man being the ultimate goal. This is contrary to the fossil evidence that show that we live in a world in which life continuously changes and is occasionally nearly wiped out by random chaotic events. The creator of the life on the planet either had no ultimate purpose for it, was blind to the dangers that existed to life, or was impotent when life on the earth was faced with disaster. If humans were the goal of creation it would be absurd to create a complete and mature ecosystem and then wipe it out four times before bothering to make the final ecosystem suitable for the human race. Since we find new life filling in the niches left by extinct organisms, God would also have to be creating new species on an ongoing basis.

As an aside, geological studies have never demonstrated that there ever has been a worldwide flood since life existed. Local severe flooding does occur in Mesopotamia, not Palestine. And one of the earliest myths of the flood, the Epic of Gilgamesh, originated in Mesopotamia. According to the United States Geological Survey, even if the polar ice caps were to completely melt, there would not be enough water to submerge all the land. It would raise the seas only about 262 feet.

Fossils enable scientists to study how life changed over time. The order of life found in the fossil record is different from what is recorded in the Bible. Five hundred and seventy million years ago, long before the first amphibians took to land, the seas were teaming with life. Seed bearing plants began in the Middle Paleozoic.  Mammal-like creatures aren’t found until two hundred and eighty millions years ago, and plants aren’t found until two hundred and twenty five million years ago. True birds appear in the Paleocene, some sixty five million years ago. Human ancestors appear in Africa some five million years ago. Homo sapiens sapiens emerged between 200,000 and 250,000 years ago, and is not even the only species of human to have existed. Tool making species such as Homo neanderthalensis, and possibly Homo floresiensis, went extinct. All of this contradicts Genesis.

According to the scripture life could only reproduce after its own kind. Evolutionary models indicate that one species can differentiate into another. So, what does the fossil record show? There is sufficient evidence in the fossil record that modern species have evolved from early species. The following are only a couple of examples. In the 1990’s five intermediary forms fitting the predicted evolution of whales from land mammals were uncovered. Whales originated from mesonychids, which were carnivorous ungulates. At first, it was only a hypothesis that mesonychids began on land and took an evolutionary path towards living in the water. It was assumed they adapted slowly. They would have started by living on land. Then they would live both on land and in the water. After this they likely lived in the water, but breed on land. Finally, they evolved to live only in the water.

This hypothesis was formed because modern whales are mammals and have remnant pelvic and leg bones. Now fossils have been discovered that have back legs in various degrees of development. The oldest fossils have functional legs while the more recent ones have the least functional legs. The fossil, Ambulocetus natans, is the first known ancient whale with large functional hind limbs. It was found in Pakistan and is fifty million years old. In 1989 a forty million year old whale, Basilosaurus, was found in Egypt with external legs that were too small to propel the animal.[16] In 2000 a fossil snake with legs, Haasiophis terrasanctus, was found in Jerusalem. The discovery of these predicted intermediary species supports the theory of evolution, and contradicts the Biblical claim that all species were made by God as unique and independent types.

From my personal collection there is ample evidence that the straight-shelled cephalopod Baculites evolved from the coiled cephalopod Ammonites. I have at least six species of ammonoids that exist no earlier than the Cretaceous period. They, too, clearly show that they evolved from earlier ammonoid forms. In fact, there is an evolutionary progression of the sutures of ammonites from the Middle Devonian to the late Cretaceous. All ammonoids and baculoids went extinct at the same time as the dinosaurs did. Their relative, Nautilus, still lives today.

Creationists often resort to distorting and misrepresenting scientific theories. One often cited claim is that the existence of galaxies and life are in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For them, the fact that a solar system and life have order and complexity is incompatible with thermodynamics. What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

It is impossible for any system to undergo a process in which it absorbs heat from a reservoir at a single temperature and converts it completely into mechanical work, while ending in the same state in which it began. That is, no heat engine can have a thermal efficiency of unity. (100%)[17]

Usually, this is coupled with entropy, the disorder or randomness of a system. The entropy of an isolated system can change, but it can never decrease. “In fact, there is an increase in entropy in every natural process, if all systems taking part in the process are included.”[18] No matter how orderly the solar system, or life, appears, it does not violate thermodynamics. Why? Both a solar system and a living organism produce more random energy than ordered energy. Life forms are also highly inefficient engines, absorbing only about 10% of the energy they consume. In humans, being mammals, the majority of energy is eliminated as heat loss.

In summary, the sciences of astronomy, geology, biology, and paleontology all fail to support the literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation. The universe is ancient. All life on earth evolved from a common ancestor in a manner distinct from the account in Genesis. There never was a Garden of Eden or an Adam and Eve, nor has there ever been a universal flood that covered the earth. Creationism offers no legitimate alternatives to the scientific understanding of the origin of the universe, the earth, or life itself.

Why do creationists write propaganda against the scientific community? Creationists believe that Christianity is completely invalidated if the Bible is not literally true. In the words of Mr. Kindell:

The death of Christ (the Last Adam) on our behalf makes sense as paying the penalty of sin only if death was the result of sin entering the world through Adam’s transgression (Rom. 5:12). If death existed for millions of years before Adam sinned, then death was not the consequence of sin. Accordingly, death has always been around since time immemorial as a natural part of evolution and, therefore, the claim that Christ’s death could pay for sin and redeem us from death is rediculous [sic].[19]

The contrast between Adam, who brings death to all men, and Christ, who brings life to all believers, is developed by St. Paul in his letter to the Romans. St. Paul believes that physical death was the punishment of Adam’s sin. St. Paul writes: “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned...”[20] This passage has been interpreted to mean that all men must be sinners, for all men die. The Church teaches that man’s nature is so inherently corrupt that every man born into this world deserves God’s wrath and damnation.[21] St. Augustine went even further, teaching infants are sinful upon birth, and must be baptized if they are to receive salvation. This is still the belief of the Catholic Church today.[22]

For St. Augustine infant suffering was proof that sin was transmitted from parents to children. “If there were no sin, then infants, bound by no evil, would suffer nothing harmful in body or soul under the great power of the just God.”[23] The Church believes that only the death of Christ can pay the penalty of man’s sin and bring eternal life for mankind. St. Paul states: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”[24] The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ’s sacrifice as ‘the source of eternal salvation’ and teaches that ‘his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us.’”[25] The sin of Adam and Eve even brought corruption upon nature. This frees God from being responsible for the world’s evil.

Most creationists do not believe God can be considered good, if He is the author of suffering and death in the natural world. Otherwise, God would be shortsighted, unloving, cruel, and illogical. For St. Augustine there was no natural world. The world became corrupt because of Adam’s sin. But are St. Paul and St. Augustine’s interpretations correct? Does the Tanack (the “Old” Testament) support these views? I will now show scriptural evidence that the Bible is errant, that death was not due to Adam’s sin, that “original sin” is contrary to the teachings of the Tanack, and that Jesus did not have to be a sinless human sacrifice to atone for the sins of mankind.

The Early Church Fathers believed that the Bible is the Word of God, and, therefore, is inerrant. If one looks carefully at the scriptures one finds numerous errors and contradictions. The Biblical model of creation I used earlier was based upon the teachings of the traditional church. In order to use their model, I had to follow their methods of exegesis; that is, I had to ignore all parts of the scripture that do not agree with what I wanted to say. What had to be ignored?

The fact is that there are two contradictory myths of the creation, of the flood, and even genealogies for Jesus in the Bible. The myth of creation mentioned earlier was based upon Genesis 1:1-2:4. There is a second myth of creation in the Bible, and it is Genesis 2:4-3:25. This myth comes from what is believed to be an older source than the first. It also differs on several key elements. The differences are best seen in tabular form:

As shown, in the second myth, God created Adam before there was any plant or herb in the earth. It is after Adam’s creation that God “planted a garden in Eden, in the east; where he put the man whom he had created. And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.”[27] This is in clear disagreement with Genesis 1:12, in which, the earth was producing vegetation and plants and trees three days before Adam was even created. And, according to Genesis 2:19-20, it isn’t until after Adam is made that God formed every beast of the field and bird of the air. This contradicts Genesis 1:20-25 in which the birds and the beasts are made on the fifth day.

There are two versions of the flood in the Bible. In the account I used earlier God asked Noah to put two of every animal into the ark.[28] Which the Bible states he did.[29] God then sends rain upon the earth that lasts forty days and forty nights.[30] After forty days and nights the storm stops, and Noah sends out a raven, and then a dove. After waiting seven days longer, Noah sent the dove out again, and it brought back an olive leaf.[31] This account is the most familiar one. But intermixed with this account is another. In it, God asks Noah to take two of all unclean animals, and seven of all clean animals, and put them into the ark.[32] But the Bible records Noah putting only two of each kind of animal, clean or unclean, into the ark. Apparently Noah disobeyed God’s command. In this account God opened up the windows of the firmament and unleashed the waters from the deep upon the earth. This time the water remained one hundred and fifty days.[33]

Even the New Testament is historically flawed. Two of the Gospels record the genealogy of Jesus. Matthew gives an entirely conflicting genealogy for Jesus, and his account has only 61 generations, not the 76 generations that Luke ascribes to Jesus.[34] Neither is of any value, since Jesus was not Joseph’s son and both genealogies are based upon Joseph, not Mary. The account of the birth of Jesus in Nazareth is also known to be historically inaccurate. Frequently Christians ask me what the “Star of Bethlehem” was that is described in the New Testament. Was it a planetary conjunction? A supernova? A supernatural phenomena wrought by God? My response never fails to dismay the faithful: the star is probably as fictional as the rest of the Nativity story.

According to the Gospels, Mary, a pregnant Nazarene, traveled to Bethlehem to fulfill a census decreed by Caesar Augustus. Luke states that this was the first census conducted while Quirinius was governor of Judea. The young and unwed Mary arrives in Bethlehem and takes refuge in a manger where she gives birth to her son, Jesus. During this time, Magi from the East witness a star revealing the birth of the King of the Jews. The Magi travel to see King Herod in Jerusalem and question him about the child. The envious King Herod sends the Magi to Bethlehem, requesting that they report their discoveries so he can worship him, too. Upon finding Mary and her newborn, the Magi present him with gifts of gold, incense, and myrrh. They wisely choose to leave without contacting Herod, who subsequently orders the massacre of all male children two years old and younger in Bethlehem.

This beloved story is remarkable not only in its appeal, but also for its blatant disregard for fact. The Magi would have to be extraordinary men to have spoken to Herod at the same time the star was shining over the newborn Jesus in Bethlehem. Why? When Quirinius conducted the first census of Judea in 6 A.D., the pretense for Mary’s trip to Bethlehem, King Herod the Great had been dead for ten years. Herod died during a lunar eclipse in March of 4 B.C. Another dilemma is why Mary had to go to Bethlehem in the first place. The Gospel of Luke claims that Joseph, Mary’s betrothed, was a descendent of David and had to register in Bethlehem, the town of David. The Romans had no interest in Jewish genealogies; the census was for living property owners, not the homes of their dead ancestors. Joseph would have registered in Nazareth, except for one problem; the town of Nazareth was in Galilee, which had an independent ruler in 6 A.D. and was exempt from the census. Where did the star of Bethlehem originate? Undoubtedly, from the fertile imagination of one of the faithful desirous to convince others that Jesus was the divinely revealed Messiah.

None of these errors in the Bible are surprising to most contemporary Christians, as only a minority of Christians even believe in Biblical inerrancy. Contemporary Christians believe that the Bible contains all things necessary for salvation. That is not the same thing as being inerrant. For them Biblical myths are simply symbolic stories speaking spiritual truths. They simply choose to ignore, or live in ignorance of, the contradictions between Christian theology and the scientific worldview.

The Christian doctrine of original sin is inherently flawed. The Catholic Church interprets the myth of the fall of man as follows: Man was created, in the image of God, and placed in Eden.[35] God warned Adam not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, for on that day he would die.[36] But Eve sinned against God, after listening to the lies of the Serpent, and ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.[37] At Eve’s bidding Adam did the same. When God learned of their sin, he cursed Adam, Eve, and the serpent. Eve was cursed with increased pain in childbirth, lust for, and subjugation to her husband. Adam was cursed indirectly through the corruption of the ground that he would have to work. Both Adam and Eve, and the world in general, were cursed with suffering and death. From then on all humans are born with original sin and are incapable of pleasing God. Only Jesus’ death, a sinless sacrifice, can pay the penalty of sin and bring salvation to man. A detailed explanation of original sin can be found in the decree from the Council of Trent included in Appendix A.

Now it is time for another side to the story. In the Biblical myth of man’s fall from grace God lied to Adam, and unjustly cursed him and Eve. God lied to Adam regarding the time frame, and the nature, of Adam’s punishment. God said, “you may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”[38] But Adam did not die the day he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; instead, he supposedly lived to be nine hundred and thirty years old! And he had to be no older than one hundred and thirty years old when he sinned, because it was only after Adam and Eve left the Garden that Eve conceived Seth.[39] God also lied to Adam regarding Adam’s death, for death had nothing to do with Adam’s sin. God made Adam mortal. The first person to die was the one person who actually pleased God, Abel. Bishop Julian of Eclanum, the son of one of Augustine’s fellow Bishops, writes:

Our mortality is not the result of sin, but of nature! Why does Genesis not say, “because you sinned and transgressed my precepts”? This should have been said, if bodily dissolution were connected with a crime. But recall, what does it say? “because you are earth.” Surely this is the reason why one returns to earth, “because you were taken out of it.” If this, then, is the reason God gives, that one was from earth, I think it can be assumed that one cannot blame sin. Without doubt it is not because of sin, but because of our mortal nature...that the body dissolves back into the elements.[40]

Julian explains that God had created and blessed human fertility even before sin to replenish the earth that was to be depleted by mortality. The Bible specifically states that Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden of Eden so they would not have the opportunity to eat of the Tree of Life, and live forever. They had to be mortal at this time. But what if they only became mortal after they sinned?  This is unlikely, if one reads Adam’s curse, then Julian’s explanation makes good sense:

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”[41]

The text implies that Adam’s death is natural, for God had made him from the dust of the ground.[42] The curse upon Adam is that he will be forced to labor in cursed unproductive fields the rest of his natural life, instead of working in the Garden of Eden. This connection is repeated again in verse 3:23: “So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.” So, it is not death, but hard labor, that Adam is cursed with. Another reason Adam had to be mortal, not based on the Bible, is the world will only exist for a finite time. In 1 billion years the sun will turn into a red giant, vaporize away the earth, and explode. Eventually, our solar system will be gone. One cannot put an immortal being into a finite universe. We shall now look at the idea that Adam and Eve didn’t truly “sin” at all, for God had also made them amoral.

In the myth of The Fall of Man it is the serpent that tells the truth, not God. As noted earlier, God told Adam that Adam would die the day he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. “But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’”[43] That is what happened. God even admits it, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”[44] The question now is, “How is it a sin for Adam to disobey God if Adam was made incapable of knowing good and evil?” Can God be considered just in punishing Adam and Eve for something they are unable to understand? Consider this.

A cat owner places two bowls of food down for their cat. In one there is Starkist tuna, and in the other is generic cat food tuna. When the cat eats the Starkist tuna, instead of the cheaper generic tuna, the owner beats it to death. Most people would consider such action extremely cruel. After all, why should a cat be killed when it can’t know the difference? Cats can be trained not to do something, but this only comes after they have already committing the wrong act. But Christians have God kill not only Adam and Eve, who inherently are unable to grasp the sinfulness of their actions, but all future generations of humanity, too! The cruelty of God portrayed in the Bible was a problem, not just for Greeks and Romans trying to understand the religion, but for Christians as well. Gnostic Christians solved this problem by created multiple Gods. They believed that the God of Jesus was not the God of creation. Concerning the God of creation one author writes:

But of what sort is this God? First [he] maliciously refused Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge. And secondly he said, “Adam, where are you?” God does not have foreknowledge; (otherwise), would he not know from the beginning? [And] afterwards he said, “Let us cast him [out] of this place, lest he eat of the tree of life and live for ever.” Surely he has shown himself to be a malicious grudger. And what kind of a God is this? For great is the blindness of those who read, and they did not know him. And he said, “I am the jealous God; I will bring the sins of the fathers upon the children until three (and) four generations.” And he said, “I will make their heart thick, and I will cause their mind to become blind, that they might not know nor comprehend the things that are said.” But these things he has said to those who believe in him [and] serve him![45]

The reason for God’s cursing Adam and Eve is assumed to be God’s jealousy.

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”-therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man; and at the east of the Garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword, which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.[46]

Does the Tanack support the concept of original sin? No. God was willing to punish up to three and four generations of people who hate him, because of their father’s sin, as we just saw.[47] Yet a contradictory view is found in Ezekiel where God states:

“What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’? As I live, says the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sins shall die.....The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”[48]

This passage completely contradicts the concept of original sin, for only the sinner is accountable for his sins. It is the soul of the sinner that shall die. Passages such as this lead many Christians, who have accepted science, to believe that Adam’s death is symbolic. Instead of physical death, it is spiritual death that God inflicts upon the sinful. This still poses problems for Christians, for in this case Jesus’ soul must be damned if he is to pay the price of sin. But the Bible never states that Jesus’ spirit was condemned to eternal damnation. Instead, it states that he is at the right hand of the Father.

Can Jesus’ death on the cross atone for sin? Judaism has always taught that salvation is attainable by all, without having a Messiah, or a God, physically die in man’s place. Christianity teaches that God cannot simply forgive sin; instead, His justice demands human sacrifice. This goes against the teachings of the Tanack. The whole point of the myth of Abraham’s offering of Isaac’s life is that God does not want human sacrifices. Animal sacrifices were used to wean people away from the humans sacrifices performed by previous generations. As time progressed further, the Jews realized that physical sacrifices, human or animal, was not what cleansed them from sin. It was the act of repentance that brought forgiveness. In Ezekiel God states:

But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which is he guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.[49]

This implies that righteousness is attainable, even for past sinners. There is no need for animal sacrifice for salvation, nor for human sacrifice. All that is required is repentance. The essence of Jesus’ message is repentance for the forgiveness of sin. Jesus does not even teach that all men need repentance. The following words of Jesus make no sense if righteous men do not exist:

When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."[50]

Numerous Biblical passages declare men righteous. One passage teaches that the prophet Elijah was taken up into heaven, and did not die.

As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. 12 Elisha saw this and cried out, "My father! My father! The chariots and horsemen of Israel!" And Elisha saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and tore them apart.[51]

Not only does Elijah never face death, a requirement if original sin is true, he enters heaven before Jesus is even born let alone resurrected. Nor is the New Testament without such stories that fly in the face of Christian doctrines of salvation. According to the New Testament one man was eternal, having never been born and never having died. “Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he [Melchizedeck] remains a priest forever.”[52] If Melchizedek never died he must have been sinless. For all who sin must die. If he is without beginning of days or end of life, a definition given to God alone, he must be a God. So, do Christians believe in a Quaternary, not a Trinity? Or is the author of Hebrews misled? The pseudo-Pauline letter to the Hebrews is not alone in ascribing such attributes to Melchizedek. The Dead Sea Scrolls associate Melchizedeck with the name of God, Elohim.

It is my opinion that Christianity is a theologically dead religion. The Bible is historically and theologically flawed. It is not an inerrant revelation from a supreme being. Our scientific discoveries completely contradict the teachings of Creationism, and therefore, Intelligent Design. What science teaches us about the origin and history of the earth demonstrates that the creation myths in Genesis are false. This means that the God of Genesis clearly is not the creator he claimed to be since his “revelation” only demonstrates that he knew nothing about the origin of our planet or its life.

Science also shows that death and disorder are inherent within creation. Physical death has existed since the first life form came into being. Physical death has nothing to do with human sin. Since death and sin are not connected, Jesus’ death on the cross cannot pay the penalty for sin and bring about salvation. Faith in Christianity was reasonable when there was little or no opposing evidence; but it is insane to believe in Christianity when its core doctrine of original sin has been falsified by empirical evidence.

That our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God, may, errors being purged away, continue in its own perfect and spotless integrity, and that the Christian people may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine; whereas that old serpent, the perpetual enemy of mankind, amongst the very many evils with which the Church of God is in these our times troubled, has also stirred up not only new, but even old, dissensions touching original sin, and the remedy thereof; the sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the three same legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,--wishing now to come to the reclaiming of the erring, and the confirming of the wavering,--following the testimonies of the sacred Scriptures, of the holy Fathers, of the most approved councils, and the judgment and consent of the Church itself, ordains, confesses, and declares these things touching the said original sin:

1.  If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

2.  If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

3.  If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

4.  If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

5.  If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.

REFERENCES

1. Genesis 1:12