This is a continuation of a review of The New Answers Book. This time, I will focus on an essay by Ken Ham entitled “Couldn’t God Have Used Evolution?”

Ever since the appearance of Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell’s’ theories, Christian’s have tried to fit an old earth theory with the Bible. With the ever popular scientific idea of evolution, the question has been asked, “well, couldn’t God have used evolution as the vehicle to bring about creation?” According to Ken Ham, “When we consider the possibility that God used evolutionary processes to create over millions of years, we are faced with serious consequences: the Word of God is no longer authoritive, and the character of our loving God is questioned” (32). The Word is compromised because Ham holds that the Hebrew word for day, “yom” can only mean a literal 24 hours in the way it’s used in Genesis, especially since it is qualified with the phrase “evening and morning.” Additionally, the character of God is questionable ass God called his creation “very good” upon completion, and if evolution were the means to bring it about, it would include millions of years of death. God would therefore be calling death “good”.

Old-earth responses to these objections are interesting. To the “yom” objection, old-earth creationists point to 2 Peter 3:8. “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” Since only God was at the beginning, it is how a day is relative to God, not man. Man did not exist until the sixth day. Of course, young-earth creationists counter this by saying that the second half of the verse essentially cancels out the first half and that this verse is only explaining God’s timelessness. As for the character of God being pulled into question, the old-earth creationists have three general refutes. First they claim that nowhere in Genesis is animal death prohibited. Yes, God does say that he gave every herb for animals to eat (Gen. 1 29-30), but He does not say that they cannot eat meat. Old earth creationists say that the prohibition against animal death is only an inference. Secondly, old-earth creationists claim that Eden was set apart from the rest of the world and that God only made that proclamation to Adam in Eden, and that outside of the garden animals did not get along as they did with Adam on the inside. Obviously, this refute is a bit of a stretch. Thirdly, they claim that Adam’s sin introduced physical death for man and not for animals. Animals were already exposed to physical death due to the natural renewal cycles of ecosystems. They also point to various “designed” features of animals, such as venom, spider webs, carnivorous plants, vultures, etc. as proof.

Ham believes in a literal, straight-forward reading of Genesis. Nowhere, does he think, are we given the idea that the account is not true, accurate, literal history. For, if it is not accurate history, the why did Jesus quote it as such? Ham does state that a rejection of six literal days does not affect one’s salvation; however, he cautions against opening the door to compromise. He asserts, “the real battle is the authority of the Word of God vs. man’s fallible opinions” (38).

For more information on young-earth and old-earth theories visit answersingenesis.org and answersincreation.org, respectively.

Couldn't God Have Used Evolution to Create? | Ken Ham | The New Answers book