top of page
  • Writer's pictureKirk Bagby

PH605 Final Paper

Introduction

In the Spring 2023 semester, I took PH605 "Science and Christian Faith" from Dr. Michael Peterson at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, KY. The following is the paper I submitted as the final assignment for this course. Parenthetical citations are used for the following sources because these sources were used as text books for this course:

  1. Barbour, Ian G. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997.

  2. Collins, Francis S. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York, NY: Free Press, 2007.

  3. Gingerich, Owen. God’s Universe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006.

The purpose of this paper was to respond to the information taught in this class – especially the books by Collins and Gingerich – on an academic, personal, and pastoral level.


Outline

1 Academic Dimension

1.1 Biology and Neo-Darwinian Evolution

1.1.1 Homology

1.1.2 Similar Genes

1.1.3 Chimp and Human DNA

1.1.4 Chromosome 2 Fusion

1.1.5 Junk DNA

1.1.6 Pseudogenes

1.1.7 Micro vs Macro Evolution

1.1.8 Gene Duplication

1.2 Physical Sciences and Deep Time

1.2.1 Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth

1.2.2 The Age of the Universe

1.2.3 The Age of Stars

1.2.4 The CMB

1.2.5 Evidence Against the Big Bang

1.3 Definition of Science

1.4 Conclusion

2 Personal Dimension

3 Pastoral Dimension

3.1 Teaching at KMBC

3.2 Writing Articles

3.2.1 Conflict with Science

3.2.2 Recent Invention

3.2.3 Biblical Literalism

3.2.4 The Bible is a Book of Science

3.2.5 The Galileo Affair

3.2.6 Species Fixity

3.3 Conclusion



1 Academic Dimension


Having taken this course, I am more convinced than ever before that God’s Word is historically reliable. Genesis 1-11, along with Exodus 20:11, indicates that God created everything described in Genesis 1-2 in six 24-hour days around 6,000-7,500 years ago.[1] This has been the orthodox view of the church until the early 1800’s.[2] I am more convinced that young-earth creationism (YEC) is true as a result of this course because this course has revealed to me that theistic evolutionists have no convincing evidence to support their position over and against YEC. On the contrary, they use fallacies, arguments from silence, and fake news to support their worldview.


1.1 Biology and Neo-Darwinian Evolution

No convincing evidence for theistic evolution was given in any component of this course (e.g., the four textbooks, the other reading assignments, the class lectures, etc.). Theistic evolution affirms neo-Darwinian evolution (a.k.a., the “new synthesis”) which affirms that all organisms descended from a common ancestor via natural selection and genetic mutations over the course of about 3.8 billion years. Here I will respond to alleged evidence for evolution given by Gingerich and Collins.


1.1.1 Homology

Homology refers to anatomical similarities among different organisms (e.g., the similarity of the limbs of vertebrates alluded to in the video “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.”) Gingerich believes that homology supports evolution saying that “the five bones of the coelacanth’s fins and the five bones of the gorilla’s hand” are “excellent examples . . . of common descent with modification” (Gingerich, 74).


On the contrary, homology and other areas of biological similarities such as embryology and genetics cannot support evolution over and against YEC without committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent:

  • If evolution is true, then we would expect to see biological similarities in organisms.

  • We do see biological similarities in organisms.

  • Therefore, evolution is true.

This argument is unsound because God easily could have created organisms with biological similarities. To support their position, evolutionists must provide evidence and/or arguments to demonstrate that if YEC is true, then God would not have created organisms with so much biological similarity. Neither Gingerich nor Collins attempts to demonstrate that evolution explains biological similarities better than YEC.


Even if evolution could explain biological similarities – which is debatable – how does evolution explain the vast differences – particularly genetic differences – between organisms?[3]


1.1.2 Similar Genes

Gingerich mentions that human DNA is similar to the DNA of other organisms, and he implies that this supports evolution (Gingerich, 12). Later, he says that “DNA in yeast is so closely related to the DNA in human chromosomes” (Gingerich, 74).


Likewise, Collins talks about how humans share many similar genes with other mammals and even non-mammals, and he affirms that this “provides powerful support for Darwin’s theory of evolution” (Collins, 126-129). However, Collins later admits that similarities in genomes does not prove evolution over creation: “This evidence alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor; from a creationist perspective, such similarities could simply demonstrate that God used successful design principles over and over again” (Collins, 134). Later, Collins again mentions how YEC’s see genetic similarities in organisms as being a part of God’s design (Collins, 173). Thus, Collins admits that genetic similarities cannot, in and of themselves, support evolution over and against YEC.


YEC can easily account for genetic similarities between organisms, for it is reasonable to believe that God created organisms with similarities. By contrast, evolution cannot adequately explain the genetic differences between organisms. For example, how does evolution explain the existence of “orphan genes” which are unique to different kinds of creatures?[4] How does evolution explain the 15% or more difference in nuclear DNA between chimps and humans?[5] How does evolution explain the vast differences in the Y chromosome in chimps and humans?[6] And how does evolution explain differences in gene expression and gene function?[7]


1.1.3 Chimp and Human DNA

Collins writes, “The chimpanzee genome sequence has now been unveiled, and it reveals that humans and chimps are 96 percent identical at the DNA level” (Collins, 137). Ironically, evolutionists once claimed that chimps and humans are 98-99% identical and that this provides strong evidence for evolution.[8] Evolutionists were desperate to find only 1-2% DNA differences between chimps and humans because, due to known rates of mutations, anything greater would severely undermine the current evolutionary account – that the last common ancestor of chimps and humans lived about 6-7 million years ago.


The idea that chimps and humans are only about 1-4% different is fake news because chimps and humans are over 15% different. When a new and improved sequence of the chimp genome was publicly released in 2018, theistic evolutionist Dr. Richard Buggs measured 84.38% similarity, and geneticist Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins measured 84.4% similarity.[9] Considering that chimps and humans have about 3 billion base-pairs in their haploid genomes, a 15% difference presents a serious problem for evolution.[10] Furthermore, there are many other genetic differences between chimps and humans beside nuclear DNA including the different ways genes express themselves, epigenetic differences, and chromosomes numbers (24 in chimps and 23 in humans).[11]


Even if chimps and humans were only 1% different in their DNA, this would not support evolution over and against YEC without committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Again, YEC could easily explain a 99% similarity in DNA.


1.1.4 Chromosome 2 Fusion

Because chimps have 24 chromosomes and humans have 23, evolutionists are burdened with the responsibility of explaining why this is so. Since 1991 evolutionists have claimed that human chromosome 2 (chr2) is the result of a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes. Also, they claim that we can observe the site where this fusion occurred. Biologists Christopher Rupe and Dr. John C. Sanford call this site the “reputed fusion site” or RFS.[12] Collins affirms chr2 fusion as evidence for evolution (Collins, 138). However, this alleged evidence for evolution is another example of fake news.


Recently, the DDX11L2 gene was discovered overlapping the reputed fusion site (RFS).[13] If two chromosomes fused together end-to-end (i.e., telomere to telomere) to form chr2, then we would not expect to find a functional gene overlapping this RFS, but we do. This discovery was made by geneticist Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins who “published compelling evidence that the RFS is not a fusion site at all, but is a functional component of the DDX11L2 gene.”[14] Tomkins also found other evidence against the RFS, and after summarizing these findings, Rupe and Sanford write, “Unless all of these many levels of evidence can be refuted, it appears that Tomkins has successfully falsified the hypothesis that the RFS is a fusion site.”[15]


Even if chr2 is the result of a fusion of two chromosomes, this does not prove that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor millions of years ago. The fusion could have occurred in humans in the recent past.[16] Also, if two chromosomes did fuse end-to-end (i.e., telomere to telomere) as the claim goes, then we should see evidence of these telomeres, but we do not.[17] Also, on either side of this RFS, we should see sequences of DNA similar to sequences in apes, but we do not.[18]


1.1.5 Junk DNA

At first, Collins seems to say more against Junk DNA than for it (cf. Collins, 111, 117). But later, he affirms the existence of “junk DNA” (Collins, 130). Collins cites “ancient repetitive elements (AREs)” as examples of “junk DNA, and he says that “roughly 45 percent of the human genome [is] made up of such genetic flotsam and jetsam” (Collins, 135-136). Allegedly, junk DNA supports evolution over and against YEC.


However, the “junk DNA” argument is a weak argument because it is an argument from silence. Indeed, Collins admits that “junk DNA” is an argument from silence, saying that this DNA may have an actual function that we are simply unaware of. Collins writes, “Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as ‘junk DNA’ just betrays our current level of ignorance. And indeed, some small fraction of them may play important regulatory roles” (Collins, 136). Nevertheless, Collins continues, “But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that explanation” (Collins, 136). He mentions that damaged or “decapitated” AREs support evolution:

Unless one is willing to take the position that God has placed these decapitated AREs in these precise positions to confuse and mislead us, the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable. This kind of recent genome data thus presents an overwhelming challenge to those who hold to the idea that all species were created ex nihilo” (Collins, 136-137).


On the contrary, AREs do not present “an overwhelming challenge to those who hold to the idea that all species were created ex nihilo.” First, God did not create all species ex nihilo according to the modern taxonomic definition of “species.” God created “baramin” which are most often at the level of the “family” for mammals.[19] (See section 3.2.6 for more details.) Second, the “AREs” argument is a subset of the “Junk DNA argument,” for AREs are considered examples of junk DNA. The “junk DNA” argument is an argument from silence, making it an inherently weak argument.[20] Also, evidence suggests that these repeated elements in the human genome are functional.[21]


Furthermore, the concept of “junk DNA” hinders scientific investigation. If one truly believed that junk DNA has no useful purpose, then one would have no incentive to study those sequences of DNA to see if they have useful functions. Fortunately, scientists have been studying alleged junk DNA for functions, and in 2012 an international team of scientists called ENCODE published evidence that 80% of human DNA is functional. Ecker, et. al., report: “One of the more remarkable findings described in the consortium’s ‘entrée’ paper (page 57) is that 80% of the genome contains elements linked to biochemical functions, dispatching the widely held view that the human genome is mostly ‘junk DNA’.”[22] Thus, the “junk DNA” argument is yet another example of fake news used to support evolution.


1.1.6 Pseudogenes

“Pseudogenes” are another popular piece of evidence for evolution which Collins references. Collins defines pseudogenes as “genes that have almost all of the properties of a functional DNA instruction packet, but are afflicted by one or more glitches that turn their script into gibberish” (Collins, 138). Collins describes “caspase-12” as an example of a pseudogene (Collins, 138-139). Collins says that this gene works in chimps but not in humans, and he writes, “If humans arose as a consequence of a supernatural act of special creation, why would God have gone to the trouble of inserting such a nonfunctional gene in this precise location?” (Collins, 139).


On the contrary, God did not go to “the trouble of inserting such a nonfunctional gene in this precise location.” First, YEC’s do not believe that all sequences of DNA are 100% functional. Afterall, approximately 78 base-pair mutations occur per generation at present.[23] At this rate, if 200 or more generations of people have lived since the Fall, then over 15,000 mutations have accumulated in the human genome since the Fall.[24] One single base-pair mutation can have serious consequences upon the function of a gene. Both Collins and Gingerich are aware of the damaging effects of mutations on the human genome (Collins, 18-19, 236-238; Gingerich, 63-65). Consequently, YEC’s do not expect all genes to be fully functional. Indeed, geneticist Dr. Tomkins believes that the GULO gene is an example of a legitimately broken gene in humans and other animals.[25]


Second, one should be skeptical regarding the validity of this and other alleged examples of pseudogenes. This is because some examples of pseudogenes have been shown to be mistaken such as the beta-globin gene.[26] Rather than being a broken or damaged gene, it is a vital and functional gene. Tomkins says that “huge amounts of new research publicly available in a variety of databases and also described in research publications are proving that many pseudogenes are functional and key genetic regulators of human health.”[27] Tomkins also writes,

However, it has been proved that an increasing number of pseudogenes play essential roles in the regulation of other genes and are transcribed into a variety of functional RNAs (Li, Yang, and Wang 2013; Tutar 2012; Wen et al. 2012). . . . The clear fact is that our current knowledge of these types of genes remains poorly understood and their pseudo status appears to be rapidly diminishing the more that we discover about them.[28]


Furthermore, just like the junk DNA argument, the pseudogene argument for evolution is a fundamentally weak argument because it is an argument from silence.[29] Also, it reveals an anti-science consequence of evolution. If one sincerely believes that pseudogenes support evolution over and against YEC, then evolutionary biologists would have no incentive to study these alleged broken genes to possibly see if they have a useful function.


1.1.7 Micro vs Macro Evolution

Evolutionists claim that neo-Darwinian evolution has been proven true because we can see “microevolution” happening at present. They claim that the same process that causes microevolution to occur also causes macroevolution to occur. Collins claims, “The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution is therefore seen to be rather arbitrary; larger changes that result in new species are a result of a succession of smaller incremental steps” (Collins, 132).


On the contrary, the difference between “microevolution” and “macroevolution” is huge. “Microevolution” does not require the increase of genetic information whereas “macroevolution” does.[30]


YEC’s affirm that all genetic information was created by God in the six days of creation. By contrast, theistic evolutionists must affirm that new genetic information has arisen via natural processes; however, both empirical and philosophical evidence suggest that new information can only arise from an intelligent source (i.e., a mind) and that no natural process can create new information.[31] (Of note, any theistic evolutionist who affirms that God “guided” evolution to create new genetic information is guilty of invoking a “god of the gaps” argument just like the Intelligent Design movement.) But what natural process could create new genetic information? The standard answer is gene duplication and random mutations.


1.1.8 Gene Duplication

Collins affirms that new genetic information arises when an existing gene is duplicated, resulting in a harmless copy which then mutates into a new, beneficial gene (Collins 189-190). However, this process has never been observed. Geneticist Dr. Sanford notes that he knows of no clear example of a mutation creating new information. On the contrary, mutations consistently degenerate genetic information.[32] Although mutations can cause sections of DNA and even entire chromosomes or genomes to be duplicated, these duplications are often harmful. Furthermore, these duplications do not result in new genetic information.[33]


1.2 Physical Sciences and Deep Time

No convincing evidence for deep time (i.e., the belief that the earth and the universe are billions of years old) was given in any component of this course (e.g., the four textbooks, the other reading assignments, the class lectures, etc.). The standard model of cosmology affirms that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Here I will respond to alleged evidence for deep time given by Gingerich and Collins.


1.2.1 Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth

Gingerich says that both “the ratio of lead isotopes” and “the ratio of argon isotopes resulting from the gradual decay of radioactive potassium” were used to date a meteorite to be 4.6 billion years old (Gingerich, 46-47). Likewise, Collins mentions that three different radiometric dating methods all confirm that the earth is about 4.55 billion years old (Collins, 88-89). Gingerich describes radiometric dating as being quite precise, and Collins likewise says that radiometric dating is “an elegant and rather precise means of determining the age of various rocks on Earth” (Gingerich, 47; Collins, 88). Furthermore, Collins says that radioactive decay rates have not changed over time (Collins, 173).


On the contrary, radiometric dating is not a precise means of measuring time. When rocks are dated, numerous conflicting dates (i.e., discordant dates) are often found, and scientists must pick which date seems best to them. Also, when rocks of known ages are dated, they are often dated to be far older than they really are.[34]


All methods of radiometric dating are based upon no less than three assumptions which can never be proven with certainty:

  1. Known starting condition – we know the quantity of parent and daughter isotopes that were present in the sample when it was first formed.

  2. Isolated system – we know that no parent or daughter isotopes were added to or removed from the sample throughout its entire time of existence.

  3. Constant decay rate – we know that the present rate of decay has never changed throughout time (i.e., uniformitarianism).

Not only are these assumptions impossible to prove with certainty, but also, all three of these assumptions have been shown to be questionable via repeatable empirical observations and tests.[35]


1.2.2 The Age of the Universe

Gingerich writes, “From the headlong rush of distant galaxies, we can calculate back to a beginning, to the Big Bang itself, which is now dated to 13.7 billion years before the present” (Gingerich, 47). Collins writes, “If everything in the universe is flying apart, reversing the arrow of time would predict that at some point all of these galaxies were together in one incredibly massive entity. . . . Calculations suggest it [the Big Bang] happened approximately 14 billion years ago” (Collins, 64). Consequently, both Gingerich and Collins are aware that the age of the universe is measured by:

  1. Observing the rate of the expansion of the universe.

  2. Observing the current density of the universe.

  3. Rewinding the clock until a point when the universe is nearly infinitely dense.

However, neither Gingerich nor Collins explains why we ought to rewind time until a point when the universe would be infinitely dense. This belief is based upon the philosophy of uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism asserts that natural processes have always occurred throughout history at their present rates, but this philosophy can never be proven by any empirical means. Uniformitarianism is a man-made belief that must be accepted by faith alone.


1.2.3 The Age of Stars

Some claim that the universe must be billions of years old because stars are billions of years old. For example, Gingerich affirms that the sun is about 5 billion years old and that dating globular clusters (i.e., clusters of stars) confirms that the universe is billions of years old (Gingerich, 47-48). But how do scientists measure the age of a star? One must first assume that the star formed by natural processes rather than being created ex nihilo fully formed and functional. However, no one has ever observed a new star being formed.[36] Furthermore, scientists have no good explanation for how a star can form via natural processes.


Some people mistakenly believe that gravity is sufficient to form stars from clouds of gas. However, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Gravity alone cannot form a star from a cloud of hydrogen and helium gas because gas pressure is greater than gravity.[37] Astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is aware that gravity is not sufficient to form stars. He notes that “the ordinary gas pressure you learned about in high-school chemistry class” along with other physical factors prevent gravity from creating a star out of a hot cloud of gas.[38] Tyson declares, “The scary part is that if none of us knew in advance that stars exist, frontline research would offer plenty of convincing reasons for why stars could never form.”[39]


Tyson offers a hypothesis for how stars may have formed, but he provides no evidence to support his hypothesis.[40] Furthermore, his hypothesis seems to begin with a molecular cloud (i.e., a cloud containing dust and numerous molecules other than hydrogen and helium). But according to the current standard model of cosmology, only hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium were present after the Big Bang. Thus, any theory of star formation must explain how a natural process could have formed stars out of just hydrogen and helium gas with trace amounts of lithium.


Even if one could afford sufficient evidence that stars can form by a natural process, this would not prove that any given star did form by this process. Without evidence that a given star formed via a known natural process, one cannot possibly ascribe a date for the age of a star.

1.2.4 The CMB

Collins affirms that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is evidence of the Big Bang (Collins, 64). However, the CMB cannot be used to support the Big Bang over and against YEC. Using the CMB to “prove” the Big Bang is an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent:

  • If the Big Bang is true, then we would expect to see something like the CMB.

  • The CMB exists.

  • Therefore, the Big Bang is true.

By contrast, other explanations can account for the CMB. For example, there are even some secular scientists who disavow the Big Bang and offer competing explanations for the CMB.[41]


1.2.5 Evidence Against the Big Bang

Even though Gingerich is a professor of astronomy, he fails to mention and explain the numerous problems with the Big Bang such as the horizon problem, the flatness problem, the monopole problem, and the antimatter problem (i.e., matter/antimatter asymmetry).[42]


There are so many problems with the Big Bang and the standard model of cosmology (ΛCDM[43]) that many scientists have published protests for a new model of cosmology.[44] Just last year, theoretical physicist Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder published an article entitle “The Trouble With ‘The Big Bang.’” She writes,

We have no evidence the Big Bang Event happened. We cannot look back in time anywhere near that long ago. ...the Big Bang Event might happen in our mathematics, but we have no observations that can tell us it happened in reality. Indeed, I think we will never have any observations that confirm the Big Bang Event. Some of my colleagues in astrophysics may disagree. But be that as it may, at least for now we just don’t know how the universe began. . . . We have to date zero evidence for the beginning of the universe, whether it was a Big Bang Event or something else.[45]


Of note, Barbour is aware of both the flatness problem and the horizon problem (i.e., “why the microwave radiation is nearly isotropic”) (Barbour, 207). He affirms that “inflationary theories” promise to solve these problems (Barbour, 207-208). Furthermore, Gingerich seems to affirm cosmic inflation, too (Gingerich, 51). However, cosmic inflation has always been an arbitrary hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Even worse, it contains problems of its own, leading some scientists to reject cosmic inflation including physicist Paul Steinhardt who helped invent cosmic inflation.[46]


1.3 Definition of Science

While Collins mentions the scientific method of testing hypotheses with experiments (Collins, 58), he never explains how any scientific experiment supports evolution over and against YEC. Without unequivocal, repeatable experimental support, evolution remains an unproven hypothesis.


Theistic evolutionists often fail to distinguish between repeatable empirical observations/experiments and interpretations of those observations/experiments. All scientists – whether atheists, theistic evolutionists, old-earth creationists, or young-earth creationists – possess the same empirical evidence found in astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Furthermore, all scientists can agree upon the scientific method of investigation which uses repeatable empirical observations and experiments to validate or falsify hypotheses. However, scientists disagree on the interpretation of empirical evidence regarding what may have occurred in the past.[47]


1.4 Conclusion

In conclusion, neither Gingerich, Collins, nor any other source in this class provides convincing scientific evidence which supports deep time and neo-Darwinian evolution over and against young-earth creationism, the belief that Genesis 1-11 are historically reliable. All alleged evidence for deep time and biologic evolution rest upon fallacies, fake news, and/or philosophical speculations rather than testable and repeatable observations.


Collins says that even though science can be mistaken, “the nature of science is self-correcting. No major fallacy can long persist in the face of a progressive increase in knowledge” (Collins, 228). I agree, and I am very happy that modern science has refuted and is refuting many icons of evolution.[48] With every passing decade scientific progress is weakening alleged evidence for evolution and strengthening the case for the historical reliability of God’s Word.



2. Personal Dimension


First, I plan to read more books by theistic evolutionists to better understand what they believe and why. I am making a list of books written by theistic evolutionists, including some of the books in the “Recommended Resources” section of the syllabus, that I intend to read in the future. Also, I plan to read more articles from biologos.org.


Second, I plan to read more books and articles from creation apologetic ministries such as Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, and others. I wish to better understand the latest evidence and arguments related to the creation vs. evolution debate, and I wish to remain current in my knowledge of scientific discoveries. (Of note, even Collins’s 2007 book is out of date in several ways as noted above in sections 1.1.3-1.1.5.)


Third, I plan to learn about biology in more detail. After graduating from Asbury, I hope to study biology, particularly genetics and/or molecular biology, in more detail to better understand the scientific issues involved in the creation vs. evolution debate. I have even contemplated possibly earning a degree in biology someday.


Lastly, I am concerned at how badly theistic evolutionists misrepresent and berate young-earth creationists. I was quite shocked and appalled at how condescending, disrespectful, and belligerent Collins was in his book towards his fellow brothers and sisters in Christ (cf. Collins, 171-179). Collins employs numerous harsh ad hominem attacks against young-earth creationists. Ad hominem attacks are not only illogical, they are also unethical. Jesus commands us to “love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you” (Matt 5:44; Luke 6:27-28) and “whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them” (Matt 7:12; Luke 6:31). Consequently, I would never speak about my worst enemies as harshly as Collins speaks about his fellow Christians who affirm the historical reliability of Genesis 1-11.


Having taken this class, I have been afforded much evidence that indicates that many theistic evolutionists would rather berate, make fun of, misrepresent, and/or censor young-earth creationists rather than treat them with respect and dignity – to read their writings, to listen to their case, to understand what they believe and why, and to respectfully dialogue with them. Consequently, I intend to encourage theistic evolutionists to practice Christian ethics by refraining from ad hominem attacks (i.e., name-calling) and strawman arguments (i.e., misrepresenting other’s views). Also, I intend to encourage theistic evolutionists to read YEC books, particularly these books: https://www.bagbyministries.org/recommended-resources-on-biblical-creationism. And I intend to encourage theistic evolutionists to write responses to these books. After all, if evolution is true, then it should be easy for evolutionists to read these books and provide adequate counterarguments.


3. Pastoral Dimension


3.1 Teaching at KMBC

I recently accepted a position teaching at Kentucky Mountain Bible College (KMBC) part-time while attending ATS and teaching at KMBC full-time after I graduate from ATS. First, I intend to teach my students a wholistic definition of science. I wish for my students to learn the abilities and limitations of science in detail as well as how science differs from history. This is crucial to the creation vs. evolution debate because the debate is not over “operational” or “observational” science. Rather, the debate is over “historical science” or “origins science.”[49]


Second, I plan to teach my students alleged evidence for evolution and how this evidence is flawed.[50] I wish to encourage my students to read primary sources written by evolutionists so that they can better understand what evolutionists believe and why. I have no intention of censoring evolution like some evolutionists would like to censor biblical creationism. I intend to encourage my students to study all sides of the creation vs. evolution debate in detail and weigh the evidence for themselves. I have no intention of telling my students, “Believe what I believe because I believe it.” Rather, I want to teach my students how to conduct independent research and how to think for themselves.


Third, I plan to teach my students empirical evidence against deep time and neo-Darwinian evolution. Much empirical evidence indicates that creation is young. For example:

  • Soft tissues found in fossils[51]

  • Mutation rates within mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA in humans and animals[52]

  • The loss of heat from the gas-giant planets[53]

  • The decay of planetary magnetic fields[54]

  • Helium found in radioactive rocks[55]

  • Carbon-14 found in fossils, coal, and diamonds[56]

  • “short-lived comets”[57]

These and other empirical evidence argue strongly for a recent creation.[58]


Also, much empirical evidence indicates that neo-Darwinian evolution is impossible. Genetic evidence against evolution includes the following:

  • “Haldane’s dilemma,” which is the extreme difficulty of “fixing” or locking-in new mutations into a population[59]

  • The extreme rarity of “beneficial” mutations[60]

  • The reality that “beneficial” mutations result in the loss of genetic information and cannot create new genes[61]

  • The high rate of nearly-neutral, deleterious mutations which cannot be removed by natural selection[62]

  • The vast accumulation of deleterious mutations which cannot be reversed[63]

Neo-Darwinian evolution requires that vast amounts of new genetic information be formed by some sort of natural process. On the contrary, empirical observations reveal a decline in genetic information which is the exact opposite of evolution.[64]


3.2 Writing Articles

I plan to publish articles on my website, bagbyministries.org, responding to books such as Gingerich, Collins, and Barbour’s books to reveal the flaws in alleged evidence for evolution and to reveal how theistic evolutionists misrepresent YEC. Some misrepresentations include the following.


3.2.1 Conflict with Science

Collins claims that “young earth creationism and modern science are incompatible” (Collins, 173). This misunderstanding is borne out of a faulty view of the definition of science. YEC’s completely agree with evolutionists regarding the scientific method of investigation with its emphasis on inductive reasoning and repeatable empirical observations and experiments. The creation vs. evolution debate is not a debate over “operational” or “observational” science. Rather, the debate is over “historical science” or “origins science.”[65]


3.2.2 Recent Invention

Collins says that “it is clear that the ultraliteral YEC views are in fact not required by a careful, sincere, and worshipful reading of the original text. In fact, this narrow interpretation is largely a creation of the last hundred years, arising in large consequence as a reaction to Darwinian evolution” (Collins, 175). Collins also claims that most Bible scholars throughout church history until the time of Darwin affirmed that “the first chapters of Genesis had much more the feel of a morality play than an eyewitness report on the evening news” (Collins, 175).


On the contrary, history indicates that the exact opposite is true. Most Bible scholars throughout church history affirmed that Genesis 1-11 is historically reliable. This was true until the early 1800’s when Bible scholars began to question the historical reliability of Genesis 1-11 based upon alleged evidence for an old earth.[66]


3.2.3 Biblical Literalism

Collins writes, “Those who interpret Genesis in absolutely literal terms conclude that the earth is only six thousand years old, and therefore reject most of the conclusions just cited” (Collins, 83). On the contrary, one does not have to “interpret Genesis in absolutely literal terms” to “conclude that the earth is only six thousand years old.” For example, Augustine allegorized the days of Genesis 1. Nevertheless, he affirmed the historical reliability of the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 and concluded that the earth was less than 6,000 years old in his day. Augustine wrote, “They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed.”[67]


Later, Collins implies that YEC’s interpret all the Bible literally saying, “The insistence that every word of the Bible must be taken literally runs into other difficulties,” and he cites Isaiah 41:10 and Exodus 33:13 as examples (Collins, 175). This is a “straw man” argument because it misrepresents the YEC position. No YEC insists “that every word of the Bible must be taken literally.” Indeed, I do not know of anyone who insists that every word in Genesis 1-11 must be taken literally.


It is not necessary to interpret everything in Genesis 1-11 absolutely literally to affirm that Genesis 1-11 is historically reliable. Dr. William M. Arnett was a professor of Christian doctrine at Asbury Theological Seminary in the mid-1900’s. Commenting on Genesis 3, Arnett wrote, “The account of man’s probation and fall in Genesis 3, though rich in symbolism, is an inspired record of historical fact. To reduce the record to the status of myth or allegory is to falsify sound biblical exegesis.”[68] In other words, Arnett did not interpret everything in Genesis 3 “in absolutely literal terms,” yet he did affirm the historical reliability of Genesis 3.


YEC’s do not interpret Genesis 1-11 differently from other narrative passages in the Pentateuch. On the contrary, theistic evolutionists hold a different hermeneutic regarding Genesis 1-11 versus Genesis 12-50. Regarding biblical hermeneutics, the key difference between YEC’s and old-earth creationists is that YEC’s affirm the historical reliability of Genesis 1-11 whereas all old-earth creationists deny the historical reliability of Genesis 1-11 in one way or another.


3.2.4 The Bible is a Book of Science

Collins implies that YEC’s try to turn “biblical texts into precise scientific treatises” (Collins, 83). Later, he implies that YEC’s believe that Genesis 1 and 2 “attempt to teach scientific facts” (Collins, 153). Later, Collins quotes Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) saying, “It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology” (Collins, 206).


On the contrary, YEC’s do not believe that the Bible is a book of science.[69] Rather, the Bible is a book of history, and it is a reliable source of history. Now, the historical events described in Genesis 1-11 do have scientific consequences. Whenever the Bible says anything that has scientific implications, one can trust that the Bible is true.


3.2.5 The Galileo Affair

Both Gingerich and Collins imply that the modern creation vs. evolution debate is a repeat of the Galileo affair (Gingerich, 4; Collins, 153-154). This analogy is flawed in two ways. First, one can make repeatable observations that affirm heliocentrism over and against geocentrism. By contrast, one cannot make repeatable observations supporting neo-Darwinian evolution, the belief that natural processes can generate new genetic information, over and against biblical creationism. Second, the Bible does not clearly teach geocentrism like Barbour and Gingerich suggest (Barbour, 13, 30, 82, 216; Gingerich, 10). Gingerich claims that Psalm 104 teaches geocentrism (Gingerich, 10), but to make this claim he must interpret this Psalm literally. However, this Psalm is a work of poetry. Consequently, it should not be interpreted completely literally. Even Collins affirms that Psalm 104 and other passages which allegedly support geocentrism should not be interpreted literally (Collins, 155-156).


Gingerich later mentions the heliocentric controversy again, and he asks, “And was it not true that Joshua, at the Battle of Gibeon, asked God to command the sun, not the earth, to stand still?” (Gingerich, 90). Again, Gingerich insists that this passage should be interpreted absolutely literally; however, he is misinterpreting this passage, too. Here, Joshua is using phenomenological language. Modern meteorologists also use phenomenological language when they speak about the “sunrise” and “sunset,” but this does not prove that these meteorologists are geocentric in their worldview.


3.2.6 Species Fixity

Collins implies that YEC’s affirm “species fixity.” Collins claims that “YEC advocates also believe that all species were created by individual acts of divine creation” (Collins, 172). Also, Collins implies that evolution removes God’s “responsibility for multiple acts of special creation for each species on the planet” (Collins, 163). Likewise, Barbour implies that YEC’s affirm the fixity of species (Barbour, 6, 51).


To claim that YEC’s affirm species fixity, one must first provide a detailed definition of species. Afterwards, one must demonstrate that this definition of species is equivalent to the definition of the Hebrew word min (i.e., “kind”) used in Genesis 1, 6, and 7. Of note, neither Collins nor Barbour provides a detailed definition of species in their respective books. Furthermore, they never even attempt to demonstrate that their definition of species is equivalent to the definition of the Hebrew word min.


I suspect that Collins and Barbour both subscribe to the modern taxonomic definition of species which is rather subjective. Biologist Dr. Georgia Purdom writes, “A species is a man-made term used in the modern classification system. And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not!”[70] YEC’s affirm that the modern taxonomic view of species is not equivalent to the Hebrew word min. Indeed, YEC’s affirm that for most vertebrate animals, a min is equivalent to a “family” in the modern taxonomic scheme.[71] YEC’s use the term baramin to refer to “created kinds” of organisms. Baraminology seeks to understand which organisms belong to which baramins.[72]


Of note, historical evidence reveals that the word species was once used synonymously with the Hebrew word min.[73] But in the “mid-to-late 1700s, species began taking on a new, more specific definition in scientific circles as a biological term (that definition is still being debated even today).”[74] Where once people would have lumped all dog variations (i.e., wolves, dingoes, coyotes, domesticated dogs, etc.) into one dog species, scientists began splitting these dog variants into different species. Biologists Rupe and Sanford write, “While extreme splitters would sub-divide the dog breeds into many species, lumpers would say that all canines (dogs, wolves, coyotes, dingoes, etc.) are the same species. Biologically this is very reasonable, because all canines are inter-fertile and can produce viable hybrid progeny.”[75]


In summary, the definition of species is subjective and does not necessarily coincide with the definition of the Hebrew word min. Indeed, biblical exegesis supports the conclusion that a min is not equivalent to the modern taxonomic definition species.[76] Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that YEC’s affirm “species fixity.” On the contrary, it is correct to say that YEC’s affirm “baramin fixity” and that a given baramin can change into different varieties due to the genetic information which God created in their genomes during the six days of creation. This process is commonly called “speciation.”[77] This is not equivalent to neo-Darwinian evolution because speciation does not require an increase in genetic information whereas neo-Darwinian evolution does require an increase in genetic information.


3.3 Conclusion

Through my future classes taught at KMBC and the articles I have published and will publish on my website, I hope to encourage believers to remain faithful to the historical reliability of God’s Word. Also, I hope to convince open minded old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists to carefully study science and alleged evidence for deep time and neo-Darwinian evolution. I have personally met several Christians who once affirmed evolution, but they changed their mind after carefully considering the evidence for and against evolution. All the while, I indent to glorify God by treating others as I would have them treat me. I intent to engage with my brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with me in a courteous, respectful, and academically fair manner – to read their writings, to listen to their case, to understand what they believe and why, and to respectfully dialogue with them.



Footnotes


[1] Chris Hardy and Robert Carter, “The Biblical Minimum and Maximum Age of the Earth,” J. Creat. 28.2 (2014): 89–96. [2] Kirk Bagby, “Where Did Young-Earth Creationism Come From?,” Bagby Ministries, 9 December 2022, https://www.bagbyministries.org/post/where-did-young-earth-creationism-come-from. [3] Cf. Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2017); Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Chimps and Humans: A Geneticist Discovers DNA Evidence That Challenges Evolution (Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2021). [4] Tomkins, Chimps and Humans, 70–79. [5] Tomkins, Chimps and Humans, 20–47. [6] Tomkins, Chimps and Humans, 62–69. [7] Tomkins, Chimps and Humans, 98–106.

[8] Kirk Bagby, “Evidence for Human Evolution or Fake News?,” Bagby Ministries, 1 December 2022, https://www.bagbyministries.org/post/evidence-for-human-evolution-or-fake-news. [9] Richard Buggs, “How Similar Are Human and Chimpanzee Genomes? – Richard Buggs,” 14 July 2018, https://richardbuggs.com/2018/07/14/how-similar-are-human-and-chimpanzee-genomes/; Jeffrey P. Tomkins, “Separate Studies Converge on Human-Chimp DNA Dissimilarity,” Institute for Creation Research, 31 October 2018, https://www.icr.org/article/separate-studies-converge-human-chimp-dna; Tomkins, Chimps and Humans, 20–47. [10] Cf. Jeanson, Replacing Darwin, 212ff. Note: This book was published in 2017. In it, Jeanson says that chimps and humans are 89% similar. Again, when a new and improved chimp genome was released in 2018, more differences were discovered. [11] Tomkins, Chimps and Humans, 48–61, 98–117. See also, David DeWitt, “What about the Similarity Between Human and Chimp DNA?,” in The New Answers Book 3 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2009). [12] Christopher Rupe and John Sanford, Contested Bones, First ed., second printing. (Canandaigua, NY: FMS Publications, 2019), 324–28. [13] Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 327; Jeffrey P. Tomkins, “Debunking the Debunkers,” Answ. Res. J. 10 (2017): 45–54. Available online at https://answersresearchjournal.org/debunking-the-debunkers/. [14] Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 327. [15] Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 328. Rupe and Sanford cite: Tomkins, “Debunking the Debunkers.” See also, Tomkins, Chimps and Humans, 48–61. [16] Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 325. [17] Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 325–26. [18] Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 326–27. [19] Andrew A. Snelling, ed., Extant Ark Kinds: Mammalian and Avian Kinds, 1st edition., vol. 1 of Answers Research Monograph Series 1: Baraminology (Petersburg, KY: Answers in Genesis, 2018); Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Replacing Darwin: Made Simple (Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis, 2019), 13–18. [20] For more details against the “Junk DNA” argument, see my article Bagby, “Evidence for Human Evolution or Fake News?” https://www.bagbyministries.org/post/evidence-for-human-evolution-or-fake-news. [21] Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 322–24. [22] Joseph R. Ecker et al., “ENCODE Explained,” Nature 489.7414 (2012): art. 7414, pp. 52–54, https://doi.org/10.1038/489052a. [23] Jeanson, Replacing Darwin, 212. [24] The Bible indicates that approximately 100 generations lived between Adam and Christ. Assuming an average generation time of approximately 20 years since the time of Christ, then 100 more generations have lived since Christ. See, Brian Thomas, Why the World Looks So Young (Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2020), 12. [25] Tomkins, Chimps and Humans, 85–87. [26] Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 318–19. [27] Tomkins, Chimps and Humans, 88. [28] Jeffrey P. Tomkins, “The Human Beta-Globin Pseudogene Is Non-Variable and Functional,” Answ. Res. J. 6 (2013): 293–301. [29] For more details, see my article Bagby, “Evidence for Human Evolution or Fake News?” https://www.bagbyministries.org/post/evidence-for-human-evolution-or-fake-news. [30] Gary Parker, “Is Speciation Evidence for Creation or Evolution?,” in The New Answers Book 4 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2013), 335–42. See also, David Menton, “Are There Transitional Forms in the Fossil Record?,” in The New Answers Book 4 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2013), 163–64. [31] Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2006). [32] John C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, Third Edition. (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications, 2008), 17, 105. [33] Sanford, Genetic Entropy, 193–98. [34] Donald B. DeYoung, Thousands, Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution: Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005); Vernon R. Cupps, Rethinking Radiometric Dating: Evidence for a Young Earth from a Nuclear Physicist (Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2019). [35] For full details, see DeYoung, Thousands, Not Billions; Cupps, Rethinking Radiometric Dating. See also, Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 269–305. [36] Cf. Danny R. Faulkner, “What about the Origin of the Solar System and the Planets?,” in The New Answers Book 4 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2013), 367–73; Brian Thomas, “A Supernova and the Scripture,” Institute for Creation Research, 28 October 2020, https://www.icr.org/article/a-supernova-and-the-scripture. [37] Faulkner, “What about the Origin of the Solar System and the Planets?,” 370. [38] Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, 1st ed. (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007). [39] Tyson, Death by Black Hole, 187. [40] Tyson, Death by Black Hole, 187–88.

[41] Sabine Hossenfelder, “The Trouble With ‘The Big Bang,’” Nautilus, 11 September 2022, https://nautil.us/the-trouble-with-the-big-bang-238547/. [42] Edward J. Wollack, “What Is the Inflation Theory?,” NASA, 16 April 2010, https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html; Dr. Becky, “An Astrophysicist’s Top 10 Unsolved Mysteries,” May 13, 2020, https://youtu.be/8ehoj-y3b1s; History of the Universe, “Why is the Universe Out of Balance?” November 10, 2021, https://youtu.be/I2_gYIxPHZE. See also: Jason Lisle, “Could God have created with the Big Bang?” 2019 https://app.rightnowmedia.org/en/player/video/329743?session=329753. [43] ΛCDM is read “Lamba” CDM. “Lamba” represents the cosmological constant (i.e., dark energy), and “CDM” means “Cold Dark Matter.” [44] See http://cosmology.info/ and the numerous links on this site such as http://cosmology.info/media/open-letter-on-cosmology.html, https://darkmattercrisis.wordpress.com/2020/11/10/the-crisis-in-cosmology-is-now-catastrophic/, and https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.05208. [45] Hossenfelder, “The Trouble With ‘The Big Bang.’” [46] Pual J. Steinhardt, “Inflationary Cosmology,” https://paulsteinhardt.org/inflationarycosmology/. See also, John Horgan, “Physicist Slams Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive,” Scientific American Blog Network, 1 December 2014, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/; Amanda Gefter, “What Kind of Bang Was the Big Bang?,” New Scientist, 29 June 2012, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428710-100-what-kind-of-bang-was-the-big-bang/. [47] For more on the definition of science, see my article Kirk Bagby, “Does Young-Earth Creationism Conflict with Science?,” Bagby Ministries, 30 November 2022, https://www.bagbyministries.org/post/does_yec_conflict_with_science. [48] Cf. Bagby, “Evidence for Human Evolution or Fake News?” https://www.bagbyministries.org/post/evidence-for-human-evolution-or-fake-news. [49] For details, see my article Bagby, “Does Young-Earth Creationism Conflict with Science?” https://www.bagbyministries.org/post/does_yec_conflict_with_science. [50] Cf. Bagby, “Evidence for Human Evolution or Fake News?” https://www.bagbyministries.org/post/evidence-for-human-evolution-or-fake-news. See also sections 1.1 and 1.2 above. [51] Brian Thomas and Joel Tay, “List of Biomaterial Fossil Papers,” http://tinyurl.com/4htm54w9; Frank Sherwin, “Cambrian Soft Tissue Defies Evolution,” Institute for Creation Research, 21 November 2022, https://www.icr.org/article/cambrian-soft-tissue/; Kevin Anderson, “Are Dinosaur Proteins Virtually Immortal?,” Answers in Genesis, 15 December 2017, https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/bones/are-dinosaur-proteins-virtually-immortal/; Kevin Anderson, Echoes of the Jurassic, 2nd ed. (Chino Valley, AZ: CRS Books, 2017); Thomas, Why the World Looks So Young, 15–19. [52] Jeanson, Replacing Darwin, 167–232; Thomas, Why the World Looks So Young, 9–14. [53] Jason Lisle, “What is the best evidence for a young universe?” Quick Answers on Creation with Dr. Jason Lisle, 2019, https://app.rightnowmedia.org/en/player/video/329743?session=329756. [54] Lisle, “What is the best evidence for a young universe?”; Andrew A. Snelling et al., “What Are Some of the Best Evidences in Science of a Young Creation?,” in The New Answers Book 4 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2013), 120–22. [55] DeYoung, Thousands, Not Billions, 66–78; Snelling et al., “What Are Some of the Best Evidences in Science of a Young Creation?,” 122–25. [56] DeYoung, Thousands, Not Billions, 51–62; Snelling et al., “What Are Some of the Best Evidences in Science of a Young Creation?,” 125–27. [57] Snelling et al., “What Are Some of the Best Evidences in Science of a Young Creation?,” 127; Thomas, Why the World Looks So Young, 39–42. [58] Cf. Snelling et al., “What Are Some of the Best Evidences in Science of a Young Creation?”; Thomas, Why the World Looks So Young. [59] Sanford, Genetic Entropy, 56–60; Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 312–14. See also, Don Batten, “Haldane’s Dilemma Has Not Been Solved,” J. Creat. 19.1 (2005): 20–21; Walter ReMine, “Cost Theory and the Cost of Substitution-a Clarification,” J. Creat. 19.1 (2005): 113–25. [60] Sanford, Genetic Entropy, 17, 20–27; Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 311–12. [61] Sanford, Genetic Entropy, 17, 123–40; Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 308–11. [62] Sanford, Genetic Entropy, 61, 72–78; Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 316. [63] Sanford, Genetic Entropy, 33–34; Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 315–16. [64] For details, see Sanford, Genetic Entropy; Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 307–28. [65] Bagby, “Does Young-Earth Creationism Conflict with Science?” https://www.bagbyministries.org/post/does_yec_conflict_with_science. [66] Bagby, “Where Did Young-Earth Creationism Come From?” https://www.bagbyministries.org/post/where-did-young-earth-creationism-come-from. See also, Terry Mortenson, The Great Turning Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology - Before Darwin (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004). [67] Augustine of Hippo, “The City of God,” in St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 232. Emphasis added. [68] William M. Arnett, “The Wesleyan Arminian Teaching on Sin,” in Insights into Holiness (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1962), 58. [69] Cf. Jason Lisle, “Does the Bible Say Anything about Astronomy?,” in The New Answers Book 2 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 95; Paul F. Taylor, “How Did Animals Spread All over the World from Where the Ark Landed?,” in The New Answers Book 1 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2006), 141. [70] Georgia Purdom and Bodie Hodge, “What Are ‘Kinds’ in Genesis?,” in The New Answers Book 3 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2009), 37–46. [71] Snelling, Extant Ark Kinds, vol. 1; Jeanson, Replacing Darwin: Made Simple, 13–18. [72] For more information on the definition of species vs. baramin, see Harry F. Sanders, “Kind, Species, and What’s in a Name?,” Answers in Genesis, 23 May 2022, https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/kind-species-name/. [73] Purdom and Hodge, “What Are ‘Kinds’ in Genesis?,” 42–44. [74] Purdom and Hodge, “What Are ‘Kinds’ in Genesis?,” 44. [75] Rupe and Sanford, Contested Bones, 16. [76] Jeanson, Replacing Darwin: Made Simple, 13–18. [77] Cf. Purdom and Hodge, “What Are ‘Kinds’ in Genesis?,” 41; Parker, “Is Speciation Evidence for Creation or Evolution?”; Nathaniel Jeanson and Jason Lisle, “On the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic and Phenotypic Diversity,” Answ. Res. J. 9 (2016): 81–122. Available online at https://answersresearchjournal.org/origin-eukaryotic-species-diversity/.


Related Posts

See All

留言


bottom of page