The Creation StoryHistory, Myth, Hymn or Saga?

by Aila Annala

Volume 3, Number 1 January/February 1998

Contents:The Creation Story: History, Myth, Hymn or Saga 11998 ICC Registration Information 5Crossword Puzzle: CRS Facts 6Speaking of Science The Firing Line Debate 7Creation Calendar 8

1January/February 1998 A Newsletter of the Creation Research Society

Very few people, Christian as wellas non-Christian, take the firstchapters in Genesis as a historical

description of real events in the beginning.Most people have never reflected on thecreation story, and if someone asks themabout it, many will just try to avoid thequestion. The reason for this can be foundin the strong influence of the mass mediaupon the people, and in what they havebeen taught in the public schools - veryone-sided evolutionary ideas.

It is a common opinion that the crea-tion story of Genesis is a myth, a hymn, ora saga, written down by primitive people along time ago. Modern research, it isthought, has "proved" that their ideas areirrelevant for those of us who today "knowbetter." Anyway, if we wish to argue for aCreator's existence, then we should justread into Scripture an evolutionary processthat took place during billions of years(theistic evolution). In this way we canread the creation story as a hymn to the onewho led the evolutionary process. But, isthat really the way we ought to understandthe creation story in the first chapters ofGenesis?

My purpose is to show that the crea-tion story can - and must - be taken as ahistorical description of the events in thebeginning, as it stands. Using a linguisticapproach, I am going to point out somedetails that give us evidence for a literalreading of the text.

Some definitions of terms:history, myth, hymn, and sagaThe Concise Oxford Dictionary defineshistory as a "continuous methodical recordof important or public events," and mythas "traditional narrative usually involvingsupernatural and fancied persons." Mythmay be based on history, while saga is amore fancied, often heroic narrative thatdoes not need to have any historical roots.Yet, myth and saga are often used assynonyms.

Hymn does not need to be defined —we all know what it means in our culture.But in the case of the creation story, it isoften used synonymously with myth; i.e.,as a poetic presentation of some kind of acreation process. This is why I have cho-sen the order of the terms above. I am go-ing to discuss myth and hymn more or lessas one complex. Saga is, by definition,something that I want to leave without anyfurther discussion.

The literary styleAnyone who reads the Genesis story inHebrew will find out quite soon that it isprose - a historical description of the be-ginnings. Something very typical for He-brew prose are the many waw-consecutiveforms in the beginning of the sentences(the repeated "ands" in thebeginning of the sentencesin many English transla-tions). To make the crea-tion story into a hymn is asdifficult as trying to sing acouple of pages from amodern history book.

AnnouncingPhysical Science and Creation

An Introductionby Don B. DeYoung, Ph.D.

In this small volume, Dr. DeYoung pre-sents several carefully chosen topicsillustrating the integration of physical

science and creation. Dr. DeYoung pres-ents not only the classical subject matter ofphysical science (the building blocks ofnature, motion and forces, gravity, energy,and light), but he also touches briefly onmore modern topics such as radiometricdating, quantum theory, the uncertaintyprinciple, and relativity.

This book is the second in a series ofshort, introductory texts published by theCreation Research Society. The first, As-tronomy and Creation — An Introduction,was also written by Dr. DeYoung.

80 pages. $4.95 plus $3 for postage and handling.

Order from:

CRS BooksP.O. Box 8263

St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263

Editor’s note: This article first appeared inGenesis (Number 2, page 15, 1997), the maga-zine of the Swedish creation organization,Foreningen GENESIS. This English translationis reprinted here with permission.

Surely, there are hymns in the Biblethat are written in order to sing to the gloryof the Creator-God; poems, such as Ps.104, where we find such expressions as"the foundations of the earth" (v. 5) and"the rising of the sun" (v. 22). But let uskeep in mind that we still use this kind ofnonscientific language, sometimes even invery scientific contexts. Yes, there are po-ems and hymns in the Bible that are writtenin order to give the glory to the Creator, butthe creation story does not belong to thatcategory. It is prose.

There is no reason for taking thecreation story as a myth or hymn, althoughthere are many liberal theologians who tryto do so. There are many non-mythologicalelements; e.g., the sun and moon are notcalled by their names, but are referred toonly as lights. Other people by that timeworshiped them as gods. I believe that theoriginal writer of the creation story(whether it was Adam or someone later)wanted to make sure that these celestialbodies were regarded as just lights and notgods.

The German theologian Gerhard vonRad writes in his commentary on Genesis(s 47 f, 63) that Gen. 1-2 is a doctrine, notmyth or saga.

"Nothing is here by chance; eve-rything must be considered care-fully, deliberately, and precisely.It is false, therefore, to reckonhere even occasionally with ar-chaic and half-mythological ru-diments, which one considersvenerable, to be sure, but theo-logically and conceptually lessbinding. What is said here is in-tended to hold true entirely andexactly as it stands. There is notrace of the hymnic element in thelanguage, nor is anything said thatneeds to be understood symboli-cally or whose deeper meaninghas to be deciphered."

von Rad also warns modern Biblestudents against reading their own prob-lems concerning faith and knowledge intothe text. These words come from one of themost respected Old Testament scholars ofour time. According to him, from a her-meneutical point of view, the creationstory is a doctrine.

What about all the otherinterpretations then...?Alternative (non-literal) interpretationsstarted to appear as late as the 17th and18th centuries, when rationalism and em-piricism began to make an impact in theintellectual world, but reached prominenceby the end of the 18th century. Until thattime the Jewish-Christian tradition hadcontinued to read the creation story liter-ally, with just a few exceptions.

Let us look at some of these excep-tions. There is a kind of gap theory (i.e., agap of time is postulated, between the firsttwo verses in the creation story, whereinthe celestial bodies and the earth arethought to have been created far earlierthan that which is presented in verse 2 andthe remainder of the creation account).This idea appears in some Jewish legends,in the writings of Filon (a Jewish philoso-pher at the time of Christ who was influ-enced by hellenistic philosophers), in thearamaic Targum Onkelos (first centuryA.D.), and later on (11th and 12th centu-ries) in the writings of the Jewish Rashiand Ibn-Ezra. The modern gap theory ap-peared at the end of the 18th century. J.C.Rosenmuller and others were at that timetrying to make a synthesis between thecreation story and the new geological hy-pothesis concerning the age of the earth.

Soon the straightforward theistic evo-lution became widely accepted amongtheologians. It was thought that the evolu-tionary process was God's method ofcreation. Scientific speculations were fullyaccepted, and the creation story of the Bi-ble was to be understood in the light ofthem.

The authenticity of thecreation storyIn the theological world, the literary criti-cism and the historical method (whichholds that the Bible should be read as anyother literature) were formulated to fitscientific theories. Until that time the mostprominent theologians, the church fathers,the reformers, etc., had believed that theGenesis story should be understood mainlyin the literal sense.

The literary criticism and the histori-cal method have, during the past two cen-turies, presented ideas that the creationstory of Genesis is derived from other,

older myths, and the authors have collectedinformation from sources outside the Bi-ble, such as the Babylonian creation storyEnuma Elish (about 900 B.C.), in whichthe god Marduk is struggling with thesea-goddess Tiamat about the lordship ofthe universe.

Since Tiamat is quite close to the He-brew tehom, "deep" in Gen. 1:2, somescholars believe that the Bible has bor-rowed material from the Babylonians. Yet,the similarity is only linguistic, and there isno reason to see any dependence betweenthe two stories. The Hebrew tehom, whichwe often translate "deep," means simply"wave," "a great quantity of water,""ocean," "sea," "gulf," "abyss." In othercreation myths one can often read about astruggle between gods, but in the Genesisstory there is no trace of anything onewould expect if Genesis were taken fromthe Babylonian epic.

It should be mentioned that the Gene-sis story has more similarities to oldercreation myths from 3000-2000 B.C. (suchas the Sumerian myths) than to theseyounger myths. In the old myths thestruggle motive is often missing. In one ofthe Egyptian myths (from ca. 2700 B.C.)we find the interesting similarity to thebiblical account that the creation was per-formed by the spoken word, and that thecreator god was "satisfied" with his work(about the same as "God saw that it wasgood" in Genesis).

The fact is that one can make manycomparisons between the biblical creationstory and other creation stories, and seeboth similarities and differences. All thesestories bear a witness of creation in thebeginning. Yet, the question remains:which one of these stories is the originalone? All these stories come from the samegeographical area. The fact that the uni-verse was created by a Creator-God seemsto have been a common tradition, and thenlater on somebody wrote it down. So wegot different accounts. Only the biblicalstory is free from mythological elementsthat are so common in the other stories.Our conclusion should be that the creationstory in Genesis is the authentic, trust-worthy account of the beginnings.

Here we also have to note the tradi-tional Christian view on inspiration of theBible. If we believe that God himself in-

2January/February 1998 A Newsletter of the Creation Research Society

spired all that the biblical writers tell us,then we cannot think that he would havegiven us some half-truths and false infor-mation, whether the question is about thebeginnings or anything else.

The unity of the storyThe literary critics have tried to see twodifferent stories in Gen. chapters 1 and 2,the first occurring in Gen. 1:1-2:4a, and thesecond from Gen. 2:4b onwards. Thisreasoning is due to differences in the lit-erary style, in the chronological order, andin the use of God's name, Jehovah, in the"second" story. What can be said aboutthis?

There is no reason to try to split up thecreation account. The Hebrew text is oneunit. The reason for the differences in styleand vocabulary can be as simple as that thewriter just changed them dependingon what he was writing about. Anywriter has the right to do so.

The differences may also be ex-plained by the fact that the "second"story is complementary to the "first"one, which is a chronological presen-tation of the acts of the creation. In the"second" story the writer concentrates onthe creation of man. That is why the use ofthe personal name of God, Jehovah Elohim(Lord God, instead of just Elohim, God) isnatural here — it was the name which Godlater used to present himself to mankind.

In the "first" story, vegetation wascreated on the third day and man on thesixth, while in the "second" story it seemsthat man already existed when God createdvegetation. But according to Gen. 2:5,there was no vegetation because there wasno water for its growth. Yet, verse 6 tells ofwater coming from the earth to water theground, which may imply that there wassome vegetation growing on the earth.Verse 7 tells about the creation of man.And then God planted a garden, verse 8,using the plants that he already had cre-ated.

Another example of the supposedchronological problems in chapter 2 is thatman seems to have been created beforeanimals. We have already seen that chapter2 concentrates on man, and I believe thatwe have to allow the writer to go back tosome details in his story, without repeatingthe chronological order any more. He has

already given that order in the first chapter.

The use of tenses in the moderntranslations may sometimes give a wrongpicture of the chronological order in theoriginal Hebrew. In the Hebrew text it isnot possible to distinguish between thepast tenses (did, have/had done). For in-stance, Gen. 2:19: "Now the Lordformed/had formed..." In the light of thechronology of chapter 1, "had formed" isof course to be preferred.

In chapter 2 the writer simply goesback to some details that he wants to bringup again, and I cannot see why we shouldnot allow him to do so without questioningthe chronology. It has also sometimes beenpointed out that in chapter 1 the light wascreated before the light sources, the celes-tial bodies. This is something that we

modern people find hard to understand.But for the ancients, it was natural to thinkof light as a substance in itself, not de-pendent upon material sources; the lightwas something divine (which explainswhy the heavenly bodies were often wor-shiped as gods). In the Genesis story thecelestial bodies were just given the task tomediate the light that already existed; theirpurpose was to be "lights in the expanse ofthe sky to separate the day from thenight..., to serve as signs to mark seasonsand days and years... and... be lights in theexpanse of the sky to give light on theearth" (Gen. 1:14,15 NIV).

Creation of the universe, outof nothing"In the beginning God created the heavensand the earth" could also be translated: "Inthe beginning God created everything."The Hebrews usually expressed totality bynaming the opposites, in this case heavenand earth. This becomes very clear in theSabbath commandment in Ex. 20:11(NIV): "For in six days the Lord made theheavens and the earth, the sea, and all thatis in them..." Everything was created dur-ing the creation week, out of nothing, bythe word of God. "By the word of the Lord

were the heavens made... For he spoke,and it came to be; he commanded, and itstood firm." (Ps. 33:6,9 NIV)

Everything was created instantane-ously by the word of the Creator. Noevolutionary processes are possible. Howlong ago the creation happened, I am notgoing to discuss here, since the Genesisstory itself does not give us that informa-tion. The Bible does not give any evidencefor millions or billions of years. The evi-dence is quite impressive that the creationis fairly young.

Mature creation out of nothing has asits natural consequence an apparent age. Ifyou accept that the biblical story describesa mature creation, then you have to reckonan apparent age. Compare, for example,Jesus’ changing of water into wine, which

was "good" (i.e., it was old).

The Hebrew verb for create, bara,can only have God as its subject. OnlyGod can create; i.e., command thingsand beings into existence. Bara, create,is an absolutely unique verb, with anabsolutely unique subject, God, theCreator of the heavens and the earth

and everything.

Were the days really days?A whole universe in six literal days? Is itpossible? Or, is it possible that the daysrepresent longer periods of time?

The Hebrew word for day, yom, isused both literally and symbolically in theBible. In Gen. 1-2 we have to understandyom as literal, 24-hour days, for the fol-lowing reasons:

1. The creation days are de-limited by the evening and morn-ing, both of which always meanliteral evening and morning.

2. The first day, yom ehad,is, in fact, not called the first dayin the Hebrew text, but "day one"or "one day." We could talk abouta "proto-day," a day that was tobe the measure of all the comingdays. It was not possible to usethe order "first" yet, since therehad not been any day before. Itwas not until after this "proto-day" that one could start talkingabout the second day, third day,and so on.

3January/February 1998 A Newsletter of the Creation Research Society

A whole universe in six literaldays? Is it possible? Or, is it pos-

sible that the days representlonger periods of time?

4January/February 1998 A Newsletter of the Creation Research Society

3. Together with an attributeexpressing order (e.g., the second,the third, etc.), yom is only usedliterally.

4. If the days were intendedto represent longer periods oftime, then why did the writer notuse the word dor, which means aperiod of time and can be used indifferent contexts, instead ofyom?

Our conclusion must be that there isnothing, either in the Genesis story or inother biblical texts, that gives evidence forany understanding of the creation daysother than that of literal, 24-hour days.

Another interesting question is ofcourse: from where did the 7-day weekcome? Mankind has in all times and allcultures had some kind of week. The timeperiod of the week does not depend on theheavenly bodies or other natural phenom-ena as do other times periods (days,months, years). Why? From where does theweek come if not from the original creationweek of Genesis?

The New Testament and theGenesis story Jesus, while talking about marriageand divorce, says: "Haven't you read... thatat the beginning the Creator made themmale and female...?" (Matt. 19:4, NIV)Then he quotes Gen. 1:27 and 2:24. "Thebeginning" refers, of course, back to thecreation week; the Bible does not knowany other beginning. Jesus fully believed inthe creation account of Genesis.

The writer of the letter to the Hebrews(1:10, NIV) quotes the book of Psalms: "Inthe beginning, O Lord, you laid the foun-dations of the earth, and the heavens are thework of your hands." This shows that healso believed in the Genesis account.

Paul and Barnabas express their faithin God as the Creator of everything (Acts14:15, NIV): "Men, why are you doing allthis? We, too, are only men, human likeyou. We are bringing you good news,telling you to turn from these worthlessthings to the living God, who made heavenand earth and sea and everything in them."

Revelation 14 describes three angels,warning of the coming judgment, and inverse 7 we read the following message:

"Fear God and give him glory, because thehour of his judgment has come. Worshiphim who made the heavens, the earth, thesea and the springs of water." (NIV) Thelatter part of this quotation is a short formof the Sabbath commandment in Exodus20:11 and shows the writer's belief in the6-day creation.

The New Testament, and the Bible asa whole, make it clear, time and time again,that God is the Creator of everything, andthat he did it in six days, as it says in thefirst chapters in Genesis. Nowhere can wefind any evidence for any other under-standing of the creation story than what itreally says, a mature creation in six literaldays.

ConclusionWe have seen that the creation story inGenesis 1 and 2 became widely questionedfirst in the late 18th century, as a result ofthe development of the natural sciencesand the skeptical rationalism. By that timetheologians began to read mythologicalelements into the biblical text and take thecreation story as a kind of praise, a hymn tothe Creator, or as a saga. Today most peo-ple in Europe have been taught this kind ofthinking.

We have seen that there is no reason toquestion the creation story in Genesis. Itstands there as a true history of the begin-nings. It is not to be interpreted but to beread and believed as it stands.

The Hebrew text is prose, and neitherthe story itself nor other Bible texts leaveroom for any understandings other thanwhat it says. The story is one unit, a de-scription of God's creative acts. The literalcreation week with its literal 24-hour days,the creation out of nothing, and many otherdetails give strong evidence that the storyof Genesis provides a unique insight intosomething that is possible only for an al-mighty God.

There are many other creation storiesall around the world, with similarities toand differences from the Biblical story, andthey all bear witness to a Creator-God.Many of these stories have been corruptedduring the millennia, but they do have acommon source, mankind’s collectivememories of the creation of the universe.My conviction is that the creation story ofGenesis is the original, historical, and

trustworthy account of how the universecame to be. There are neither theologicalnor scientific reasons that can force us totake the Genesis story as archaic and un-trustworthy.

The creation story is the foundation ofthe rest of the Bible. Human history beganwith the completed creation. Then sincame into God's good creation and de-stroyed it. But God did not leave man alonein his sinful condition. His plan for fallenman is salvation through Jesus Christ. Be-cause of Calvary and the empty tomb man-kind can look forward to the new creation.Then we are going to see with our own eyeshow God makes everything new (Rev.21:1-5), a new creation, out of nothing, asthe prophet Isaiah describes it (65:17,NIV): "Behold, I will create [bara in theHebrew text again] new heavens and a newearth. The former things will not be re-membered, nor will they come to mind."

LiteratureEriksson, Gösta, "Urhistoriens struktur", Genesis no.

1, 1991Erlandsson, Seth, Världshistoriens första dagar (Bib-

licums småskrifter) no. 12, 1983Fields, Weston W., Unformed and Unfilled, Presby-

terian and Reformed Publ. Co., 1978Kaiser, Christopher, Creation and the History of Sci-

ence, Marshall Pickering, W. B. EerdmansPubl. Co., 1991

Morris, Henry M., The Genesis Record, Baker BookHouse, 1976

Pritchard, James B., The Ancient Near East, vol. 1,An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, PrincetonUniversity Press, 1973

von Rad, Gerhard, Genesis (The Old Testament Li-brary) SCM Press Ltd., 1972

Aila Annala has studied at Newbold Col-lege in England and at the Universities ofUppsala and Lund in Sweden. She has theSwedish "theol. Kand." degree from Upp-sala (which is similar to M. Div.), withadditional studies in Semitic languagesfrom Lund. She lives in Sweden, workingin team-ministry with her husband, and isan active member of the Swedish creationsociety "Genesis." Aila provided thisEnglish translation.

5January/February 1998 A Newsletter of the Creation Research Society

This page intentionally left blank.

C R S Factsby John Meyer, Ph.D.

6January/February 1998 A Newsletter of the Creation Research Society

Across

3. Board member who is an animal nutri-tionist and CRS membership secretary.9. A son of Noah.10. Board member, internationally recog-nized expert on turtles.11. Name of state in which CRS Re-search Center is located.13. Unexpected earth upheaval.14. Board member who wrote "Starlightand Time."18. Ps. 23:5 bench.20. "In the _________."21. "______ to the Earth," a book of geol-ogy reprints from the Quarterly.23. Current (1998) editor of Society'sQuarterly.24. Pertaining to the moon.25. Board member whose specialty is ge-netics.27. Deceased Board member who wasauthor of "Genes, Genesis and Evolution."29. _________ Peaks are visible to theN.E. of the Research Center.31. Geological feature 100 miles north ofthe Research Center.33. Abbreviation for an anti-creationistgroup.34. Board member who is a geographer.36. Type of astronomical object beingstudied at the Research Center.

40. New research building at the Re-search Center.41. Town nearest Research Center.44. "He spoke and it was _____."46. 199_, Society's 35th anniversary.47. __________ formation. A researchproject under development at the Re-search Center.51. Site of annual board meetings fornearly 30 years.52. "All things continue as they were fromthe beginning."54. Matt. 22:29 "Ye do ______ not know-ing the Scriptures."55. A founder of CRS who also co-authored "The Genesis Flood."56. Deceased board member who wasDean of Graduate Faculty at Tulane Univ.57. _________ Mountain. Mountain eastof the Research Center.58. _________ grassland. Ecologicalcommunity in which the Research Centeris found.59. Board member who was also Dean ofthe College of Engineering at Iowa StateUniversity.

Down

1. Space agency.2. Founder and board member who isknown as the world's foremost creation de-bater.4. "By the Word ___ the Lord were theheavens made."5. Bob _________ Wilderness, site ofmany CRS extended trail rides.6. ________ Creek Canyon Gorge, PA.Location of a Society field research study.7. Board member who is a retired chem-ist and university teacher.8. _______ Canyon, subject of a Dec.,1997 Quarterly paper.10. On day _____ the stars were created.12. ______ Zone. Geological provincewhere Research Center is located.13. Creation ________ Expeditions.Name for CRS extended outings.15. Who God created in His own image.16. Board member who is a Lutheran Pas-tor and geologist.17. A radiation particle that is an electron.19. Name of current Research Center di-rector.22. A patron of the Research Center.23. E-mail address for Research CenterDirector.26. Name of the book that sparked themodern creationist movement.28. First CRS president who was theworld's foremost rose breeder.30. Geological events happening "fastand furiously."32. “______ Organs.” Partial name ofbook published by the Society.33. Biblical barge builder.35. Location of Big Bend National Park,where many creationary research projectshave been carried out.37. First woman.38. "________ recapitulates phylogeny,”a thoroughly discredited idea which is stillpresented in many biology textbooks.39. Botanist board member who has pub-lished in Calif. Academy of Sciences.42. A vein of metallic ore.43. Current (1998) president of CRS.45. Physicistl/Astronomer board member.47. The whole is greater than the sum ofits parts.48. High-tech site of many discussionssponsored by CRS.49. Board member who is an exercisephysiologist.50. More than _____ hundred scientistsare members of CRS.53. Abbreviation of Society peer-reviewedpublication.55. To create.56. Ps. 33.12. "Blessed is the man whose

God is the ____."

Answers on page 8.

7January/February 1998 A Newsletter of the Creation Research Society

Speaking of ScienceCommentaries on recent news from science...

The Firing Line Debateby Ashby L. Camp, J.D., M.Div.

As I feared, the debate (see sidebar) suf-fered greatly from the vagueness of theproposition under consideration: Evolu-

tionists should acknowledge creation. The twosides were, for the most part, addressing sepa-rate issues.

The pro-evolution side (Lynn, Scott,Miller, and Ruse) addressed whether the theoryof descent with modification from a commonancestor is a convincing explanation for thehistory of life on Earth. They were not interestedin debating whether God was involved in thatprocess or was a necessary ingredient in theexplanation. Indeed, there was an apparent dif-ference of opinion between them on that point.

Barry Lynn clearly believed that God em-ployed descent with modification and, morespecifically, that He employed Darwinism asHis means of creating. However, Lynn wasvague about just how deeply God was involvedin the process. I wish someone had clearlypinned him down on whether he believed theDarwinian explanation of existence requiredGod in order to be viable.

Eugenie Scott wanted to separate the thesisof descent with modification from the Darwin-ian explanation. Of course, she had no othertheory to put in its place, but she was trying tosay that "evolution" simply means descent withmodification, and that Darwinian theory is butone possible explanation of "evolution" (albeitthe only game in town at this point). She agreedthat science proper could make no statementabout whether an intelligence was somehowinvolved in the process, but her personal viewwas that an intelligence was not necessary tothe explanation. In other words, she thinks eve-rything can be explained naturally, but she iswilling to admit that science cannot prove thenoninvolvement of a designer.

I wish someone had clearly exposed thatshe believed existence can be adequately ex-plained in terms of purely natural processes andthen pressed her to provide naturalistic expla-nations for the clear features of design. I thinkthe weakness of her practical naturalism wouldthereby have been exposed (but I realize thisformat was not really a good one for pinningsomeone down).

Kenneth Miller and Michael Ruse did notlet on if they felt there was any room for theinvolvement of an intelligence (unless onecounts Miller's comment that he shares a faithwith Buckley). Their whole point was that the

Darwinian theory is convincing and is the onlypossible explanation for natural history.

The only one from the pro-design side(Buckley, Johnson, Behe, and Berlinski) whoreally contested the viability of the Darwinianexplanation was Berlinski. He argued that thegaps in the fossil record were inconsistent withthe theory. I think he was a bit shocked at thelevel of the debate. He seemed to me to be ex-pecting a more dispassionate, truth-seeking ex-change and was surprised by the level ofgamesmanship and advocacy. He could not get astraight answer to the simplest of questions (e.g.,what is your estimate of how many morphologi-cal changes would be needed to convert a dog-like mammal into a whale?) and could not getagreement on seemingly obvious facts (e.g., adiscontinuous fossil record is inconsistent withthe predictions of Darwinism).

I was disappointed that Berlinski concededthe late-reptile to mammal transition. I realizethis is conventional wisdom in the scientificcommunity, but it is far from proven. Johnson'spoint that the alleged transitional forms arefound where the fossil evidence is slightest, andthus where room for evolutionist interpretationis greatest, was probably lost.

Behe's basic point was that life providesevidence of design, but I don't think he effec-tively pressed that home to those who insisted adesigner was unnecessary. Rather, his point wasmuffled by the reply that the designer could haveaccomplished his design through descent withmodification. Behe would agree with that, be-cause he is unwilling in the scientific arena toargue anything about the designer or his meth-ods, but he would not agree with Scott, Ruse,and Miller that his examples of design can beexplained by a blind, undirected process. Behewas nervous (which is understandable) anddefinitely got taken off his game.

In that regard, Miller came off to me as acondescending showman, but I can see why theevolutionists saw him as their hero. He, obvi-ously skilled in the tactics of this kind of debateformat, was able to create an impression that hehad really shown something. His ploy with themousetrap was shameless. Not only did it notdisprove the irreducible complexity of a mouse-trap, since the trap still had all the necessaryfunctions. But even if he had been successful,the mousetrap is simply an illustration of aconcept that cannot be denied; i.e., that somesystems cannot be reduced in complexity andstill function. This was nothing but smokeblown grandiosely to divert the layman from thepower of Behe's point. (This is the same Millerwho has shown himself to be careless or un-scrupulous in several dealings with Dr. Gish.See, Duane Gish, Creation Scientists AnswerTheir Critics [El Cajon, CA: Institute for Crea-tion Research, 1995], pp. 88-94).

Johnson's (and Buckley's) basic point wasthe philosophical side of Behe's coin, namelythat naturalism is a philosophical rather than ascientific conviction. In other words, scienceproper has no basis for ruling out the possibilityof a designer. This is important, but it loses itsedge in a debate where the opposing team (Lynnand Scott) concedes the matter and then pro-ceeds to argue that all of life evolved from acommon ancestor. In that case, the focus needsto shift to the merits of that claim. What we really had here was a confusingand unsatisfying mixture of at least two separatedebates: (1) "Can our existence be adequatelyexplained by purely natural processes (i.e.,without the input of a designer)?" and (2) "Didall living things descend naturally from a singlecommon ancestor?" This muddle made the de-bate very difficult to score. Of course, they alleither mocked or ran from the third issue;namely "Is the biblical account of creationcompatible with scientific data?" That was dis-couraging, but I still think the airing of the de-bate will be a net positive. I suspect the lastingeffect will be to help legitimize the questioningof the reigning dogma.

The DebatersOn December 19, 1997, a two-hour debate on thecreation evolution controversy was conducted onPBS' Firing Line. The special event was held beforea student audience at Seton Hall University. Arguingfor the creationists and for the proposition were:

William F. Buckley, Jr., the host of FiringLine

Phillip E. Johnson, University of Califor-nia (Berkeley) law professor and author of'Darwin on Trial,' 'Reason in the Balance,'and 'Defeating Darwinism by OpeningMinds'

Michael Behe, Lehigh University bio-chemist and author of 'Darwin's Black Box'

David Berlinski, mathematician, authorof ‘The Deniable Darwin’

Arguing for the evolutionists and opposing theresolution were:

Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director ofthe National Center for Science Education

Rev. Barry Lynn, Executive Director ofAmericans United for Separation ofChurch and State

Michael Ruse, philosopher and author of'But Is It Science?' and 'Monad to Man'

Kenneth R. Miller, Div. of Biology andMedicine, Brown University

— Editor

Note: Items in “Creation Calendar” are for information only; the listing of an event does not necessarily imply endorsement by the Creation Research Society.

Creation MattersISSN 1094-6632

A publication of the Creation Research SocietyVolume 3, Number 1

January/February 1998

Copyright © 1998, Creation Research SocietyAll rights reserved.

General Editor: Glen WolfromEmail: CRSnetwork@aol.com

Assistant Editor: Lane LesterEmail: llester@athens.net

For membership / subscription information, advertising rates,and information for authors:

Glen WolfromP.O. Box 8263

St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263Email: CRSnetwork@aol.com

Creation Research Society Website:http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/crs/crs-home.html

March 21 Kansas City Fossil Hunt #1 CSA for Mid-America (Kansas City area) Tom Willis, (816)658-3610March 28 Double-Header Creation Event with Dr. Gary Parker & Buddy Davis Souther Minn. Assoc. For Creation, Albert Lea, MN Bryce Gaudian, (507)256-7211April 24-26 Ha Ha Tonka Safari “More of God’s Wonders in less space than anywhere else” CSA for Mid-America (Kansas City area) Tom Willis, (816)658-3610May 21-23 Creation Research Society Annual Meeting of the Board of Directors San Diego, CA Any member wishing to appear before the Board must make a written request to the Secretary at least one month in advance, indicating the subject the member wishes to discuss.June 28-July 3 Twin Peaks Family Science Adventure Alpha Omega Institute, Grand Junction, CO (970)523-9943

August 3-8 Developing & Systematizing the Creation Model of Origins 1998 International Conference on Creationism (ICC) Geneva College, Beaver Falls, PA Creation Science Fellowship Dennis Wert, (412)341-4908August 9-11 Niagara Falls Bus Tour (following the 1998 ICC) Creation Quest Expeditions, Creation Research Society John Meyer, (520)636-1153August 9-14 or 16-21 Red Cloud Family Mountain Adventure Alpha Omega Institute, Grand Junction, CO (970)523-9943August 20-26 Bob Marshall Wilderness Trail Ride (Montana) Creation Quest Expeditions, Creation Research Society John Meyer, (520)636-1153September 28 - October 3 San Juan Mountains Trail Ride (Colorado) Creation Quest Expeditions, Creation Research Society John Meyer, (520)636-1153

Creation Research SocietyP.O. Box 8263

St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263USA

Return Service Requested

Creation Matters

Nonprofit Org.US Postage

PAIDCreation Research Society

January / February 1998