Evolution

One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Peter 3:8).  Is Peter trying to tell us that a thousand of our years is only one day to God?  Does this mean that the Earth was created in 7,000 years rather than 7 days?  Assuming this timeline, and using the Bible as our guide, the creation actually began 12,000 years ago, and the first man, Adam, was put on it 6,000 years ago.  Does this make sense considering the latest science of the day?  If this is so, why does the creation of the Earth date scientifically to 4.5 billion years ago?  The answers to these questions are obviously not essential for our salvation, but understanding them can increase our faith, and help us to face challenges to it.  Indeed we are commanded to seek wisdom in all things.

This topic often puts Creationism and Evolution at odds.  I remember taking a biology class at BYU.  On a test we were asked to either defend creationism or evolution.  I saw through the professor and defended evolution, which was much easier to defend, according to what I knew at the time.  Several students insisted on defending creationism and got zero points for this question, as they could not give valid science to do so.  I have to wonder how they would do now, as we know more today and understanding has increased in both fields.

We could just be a hard-line creationist and insist that the Earth is really just 6,000 years old and that the science of evolution is simply incorrect--that man and dinosaur once roamed together, and whenever science deviates from this we look the other way and label it as simply wrong.  Not that this would be a bad stance to take as many people do take this stance and are just fine, but we would have to close our eyes to opposition when it comes our way.  I believe that to understand how these two theories can coexist, we must embrace science, but also be a believer in God--or at least give Him a fair chance to explain.  At this point in our existence, we need both religion and science for anything close to a complete understanding.

Evolution does not have to be an enemy to the creation as told in the Bible.  We should not be afraid of science.  When fully developed and understood for what it is, it can only add to the light of truth.  We should remember that science is still developing, as is our understanding of the creation story.

While the science of evolution is valid for consideration, remember it is still only a theory.  In my view, it is a theory with incorrect conclusions.  What I mean by that is that it does exist in a God-given form, and it affects our world in a very real way, but the beginning of man and animal has nothing to do with it.  The theory of evolution is far overrated, far overused, and far too often stated as absolute fact.  The God-given form I speak of is this--changes are seen in life forms much more from natural selection and adaptation than from mutation, which the theory of evolution depends on heavily.  Mutation generally involves the extinction of the mutant form rather than it taking over the entirety of the species.  

The theory of evolution maintains that all life form came from a single cell which then evolved into all life forms we have today.  But how this single cell came into existence is by far yet to be proven.  For me this is the number one problem for evolutionists to reconcile.  To say that all life came to be from a spontaneously formed single-celled organism is impossible on many levels.  Antony Flew, the famous atheist turned theist said, "Even a single celled organism contains more organized information than all volumes of the encyclopedia put together.  There is simply no way it would have happened by chance.  It is like saying the library of congress came about from an explosion in a print shop."

According to Dr. Sy Garte, a biochemist, speaking on biogenesis, "Bio evolution does not make sense in that there is no natural selection going on and chemicals don’t self-replicate, as the theory requires.  In fact, in life absolutely nothing self-replicates except for cells." Then he asks, how did that self-replication get there?  "It couldn’t have evolved because there was no evolution and a cell would have to already be there to get the process going."  A video of Dr. Garte can be seen here.

However, the apparent effects of "evolution" can be seen at work right here, right now.  For example, roadside plants that develop in greater heat and greater water, have become different than those of the same species far away from the road.  When we introduce domesticated pigs into the wild, very quickly they grow much larger, grow large tusks and are much more ferocious.  But to say this is evolution at work does not make sense using its' own theory.  These are classic cases of adaptation, since mutation is much too random and would take much more time and need much more luck.  

Another great example of adaptation is The Bajau people in Indonesia.  They have lived and hunted in the ocean without any equipment for generations.  The lenses on their eyes have adapted to allow them to see under water twice as clear as anyone else can.

This adaptation is an innate ability that life forms have to survive in its given environment, especially when that environment changes.  I feel this myself living in a much warmer climate than most.  I seem to be able to take heat much better than those visiting from cooler climates.

It is important to note that it has only been shown that this adapting, or "evolving" if you will, has only been shown to be within species, not from one kind into another--a dog will always be a dog and a cat will always be a cat no matter how small or large, light or dark, with long or short legs.  But a tree will never evolve into a cow.  The plants and pigs mentioned above will always be plants and pigs no matter how they may adapt to their environment.  In anthropology, the “in between” creatures in our ancient history that the theory of evolution insists on cannot be found, though many have tried with a few interesting cases, but for the most part this has been overwhelmingly unsuccessful.  These "interesting cases" can easily be labeled as another "kind" that became extinct, as in fact most organisms ever in existence have become extinct.  But these very few cases are a universe away from explaining the millions of organisms that have existed.  This is extremely significant and in my mind this also completely voids the theory of evolution.  This is yet another of the many problems with this theory.  

At this point, the scriptures of the restoration can help quite a bit.  D & C 130: 4 asks, “Is not the reckoning of God’s time, angel’s time, prophet’s time, and man’s time, according to the planet on which they reside?  Answer, Yes.” In Abraham 5:13, we are told, commenting on Adam’s condition before the fall that it, “was after the Lord’s time… for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning (of time)”.  So we know all the way up to the Fall in the Garden of Eden, time as we know it still did not exist for this world.  That would put a completely unknown time stamp on everything before that point in the earth's history.  In addition, we are not told when exactly Adam's reckoning of time was given.  This turns out to be extremely significant.  To know when the fall occurred and what the comparable time was before that moment would answer many questions.  But even then it could have been a gradual transition to our time stamp some time after the fall, making it even more difficult to reconcile.  

If we calculate from scriptural passages, and taking into account a ratio of one day to a thousand years, it can be millions if not billions of years.  We know Adam lived over 900 years but we do not know how much of that was before and after the fall.  If we assume he was 500 years old at the time, that alone would add over 182 million years to the age of the earth at the time of the fall.  Then if you add the time in our years it took to create the earth, it could get into the billions of years.

It is important to remember that God's time is not man's time, and the time stamp assigned to the earth during the creation period was different than it is today.  Also, as we shall see, there may be many problems with our current scientific methods of determining the age of the earth.

Many like to think about it as follows... The Earth was created in 7 days.  But does this have to be 7 of our 24 hour days as we know time?  In fact, in the Pearl of Great Price the creation story is given in terms of periods of time rather than days.  This can be significant and may explain it in part, but among other things we would have to explain the scriptural account telling us that death did not come until after Adam partook of the fruit--which we will do (see Romans 5:12, Alma 12:23).  If we understand these scriptures literally, that would be a problem for the dinosaurs.  Certainly, every creature did not live millions of years, then suddenly die when Adam finally showed up, though these scriptures probably only apply to man.  

Another way of thinking notes that when Adam partook of the fruit, there were many miraculous physical changes that seemingly occurred simultaneously.  According to Genesis 3, the woman would now have sorrow and bring forth children.  The ground became cursed, and weeds came on the scene with thorns and thistles.  With this came Adam and Eve’s mortality.  Their bodies changed, and they would die within a day (a thousand years) as the Lord declared.  Their minds became enlightened.  They became aware of their nakedness and they became as God, knowing good from evil (vs 22).  We can also surmise many other changes took place at this time.  Perhaps one of those changes—now hold on to your hats—is that the age of the Earth instantly changed as well.  Just maybe the sanctuary of the Garden of Eden was taken many years into the Earths future--even millions of years.  If God is omnipotent He is not bound by time, this would theoretically not be a problem.  

We would need to reclassify "death" as mentioned in the Bible as meaning from the Garden of Eden (or the creation of man) onward.  Any life before that we would classify in the preparation phase, or one of the previous "days" that do not apply to man on his prepared earth, and I am ok with that assumption.  We should also again emphasize that the scriptures above on death probably only apply to man--not any other life, as they do not indicate any other life but man.  

This theory would allow adaptation (not evolution) to take its course, except for placing Adam and Eve in the garden.  As for myself, I do not believe God to be a time traveler, except for being able to see it all, past, present, and future.

Finally let me reveal what I believe about the mystery of the creation of the earth.  First I will say I admit I do not have the complete story.  There are still many holes that have yet to be revealed.  I have often and will probably in the future alter my ideas, but here goes.

Through the scriptures, including the scriptures of the restoration, we can learn a great deal more about the creation.  To me it is wonderfully simple, yet can be as complex as we are willing to search.  We do not need to instill the stretch of time travel, though it is essential that we accept that God's time is not man's time and that God is not in a hurry and has eternal patience.  An excellent source for most of these can be found in the book, Earth in the Beginning by Eric Skousen, and also in the video series, Is Genesis History?.  

"All things are created and made to bear record of me... things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." (Moses 6: 63)  There have been three catastrophic events forming the earth as we know it.  The creation process, the fall, and the flood.  These can sometimes be hard to differentiate in the record.  

First, we will consider the fossil and rock record.  These records tell us volumes.  The lowest layer in the earth's crust is as we would expect, the oldest.  It also contains the most simple of life forms.  As we move upward, the life forms become more complex and the age becomes more recent--but these are in the millions of years if not billions.  This alone seems to support the theory of evolution.  But of course, it is not that simple.  

As some creationists would explain it, a flood moving first through lower, water-containing levels would first overtake marine and simple life forms forming a layer, then overtaking more and more larger life forms as it takes the flood further up on land to those more able to escape.  But even the simple life forms on the lower levels are still very complex--and they arrive suddenly, with no in-between life forms suggesting evolution.

Anyone who has seen the Grand Canyon would know that these layers are horizontally level and without any gouges in them that would suggest evidence of erosion before another layer appears over it.  This is another problem with the evolution theory--for a layer to sit for millions of years and have absolutely no evidence of erosion is inconceivable.  Another problem is that there are millions of years of missing time between several of these layers.  In other words, one layer may date to 2.3 billion years ago, and the next right on top of it dates to 1.5 billion years ago.  This in known as the Great Unconformity.  Rather than being gradual, there is 800 million missing years here, suggesting either a problem with our method of dating or understanding how it happened, or both.  Also of note, again these layers are level, signifying the next layer came quickly, geologically speaking.  We cannot say a missing layer was completely gouged out (by glaciers for example) because it would be uneven at the top. 

Finally as I mentioned, the life forms from layer to layer arrive suddenly and stay consistent from layer to layer (no evolution).  Again, the overwhelming observation is--there is no sign of gradual evolution from one kind to another.  Most scientists try to force that into the record, but that is not what the earth is telling us.  What we see is the same life form existing through great amounts of time, with little or no change.  The missing link to make the theory of evolution complete is simply non-existent in all organisms.  Even Charles Darwin admitted this problem, “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chains; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” A scholarly video on this subject is here.

These things are not adequately explained through either evolutionary scientists or orthodox religion creationists today, who claim this is all evidence of the flood of Noah.  This view has great value, but it does not solve timeline problems.  The time from us to Noah is fairly well known Biblically, but can we really say the earth's crust was formed in one huge flood with each layer dating to a much different time than the one on top?  

However, I will interject one interesting phenomenon in their favor.  Fossil footprints are fascinating evidence of a global flood that evolutionists just cannot explain.  Dr. Marcus Ross, a paleontologist explains that, “Although fossil footprints were not unusual in themselves, it’s where they occur in relation to other fossils that’s so unusual: trackways consistently appear in rock layers below the bones and teeth and shells of the animals that made them.

But why is that curious?

If you think the earth is billions of years old, then those layers of rock represent millions of years of history. How is it possible that footprints could appear millions of years before there’s any evidence of the hard parts of the same animals that made them? If there are footprints, there have to be creatures – where are their fossils? How could millions of years pass with millions of creatures dying (all with bones and teeth and shells) and none of them remain behind?

But there’s another solution. If you think the earth was covered by a global flood, then finding trackways below body fossils makes a lot of sense. Those animals that made the trackways were lifted up and carried higher, their bones and teeth and shells eventually being buried by the rising floodwater.  As a result, their body fossils would be found consistently higher than their tracks.  It’s a pattern we see everywhere.”

We also can in fact find evidence of dinosaur and human footprints side by side as seen here.

Only through restored revelation can we see a little more clearly.  Remember, there were three catastrophic events, not just one.

What we know is this--that God created the earth, not in this solar system with its' corresponding sun, man's time and 24 hour days as we know it.  He created it in His way, in His time, and in His backyard.  And He did not simply make it "ex nihilo", or out of nothing.  The Greek word "create" in the Bible is actually translated to mean "organize".  He took from available matter and organized it.  This may have been from matter never before used on any planet or from planets that were no longer in use--we can only speculate.  

The earth stayed near unto God and His dwelling place, not here in our solar system, and did not take on time as we know it at least until the Fall of Adam.  Among other things, this alone can better explain the age of rock, of pre-fall organisms, as well as the age of starlight.  Not only did Adam fall, but the earth did as well.  All of the life forms until this time were for the preparation of the earth for man.  They all served their purpose and were needed for this preparation--even those that seem to be somewhat similar to man from their bone structure had their purpose and were within this unknown time system before the fall.  In the meantime we were all preparing ourselves for life on earth and beyond.  All of this was obviously on God's timetable, not ours.  The special condition of deathlessness was probably not very long at all, and it was not introduced until after the earth was sanctified and Adam and Eve placed there.  There is still much we do not know that will be revealed in more detail in the Lord's due time, but in the meantime He has given us much to chew on.

Now just a note on our current method of dating-- radiometric dating.  There is great discrepancy in dating the same substance using different methods, sometimes in the billions of years, suggesting we have on open system which therefore cannot be trusted with the simple methods we currently have.  We simply cannot use the present to judge the past when it comes to dating the earth. 

To understand radiometric dating, an understanding of the structure and decaying of isotopes is necessary.  We know by observation how long it takes for certain isotopes to decay into something else.  This may work very well in many cases, but as alluded to above, as we extrapolate that into the distant past it does not apply so well.  Many assumptions are made in using this system that can dramatically change its' accuracy, especially in dating the earth, not the least of which is the assumption of the original make-up and source of the crust.  It is also assumed that:

• The earth has been part of this solar system and its specific time stamp since it was created.
• There has been no contamination of the chemical elements.
• The environment, especially in terms of cosmic radiation, has always been the same. 

None of these assumptions are true.  

Also, carbon-14 dating can only apply to living life forms.  It begins its decay from the moment of death.  We can examine how much is left in any dead life form and extrapolate its age based on how much carbon-14 is left.  But we see a problem when we examine dinosaurs for example.  Carbon-14 will only last in any organism 90,000 years, so we are forced into using alternative, less accurate methods. Conventional scientists date dinosaurs as millions of years old, but just one problem with this is the fact that actual elastic, protein-containing tissue has actually been extracted from some dinosaurs!  It is inconceivable for tissue to last thousands of years, let alone millions.  

Another issue exists when using this method beyond 1,400 BC, according to archaeologist Doug Petrovich PhD, we see an offset.  When we have a historical record to compare with corresponding organic material, the actual historical or written record is not as early as what carbon-14 dates, and the earlier you go this gap gets exponentially worse, making this a huge problem in dating accuracy.  It seems to some scientists that something must have happened cosmically around this time that is not understood to cause this split.  Not understood at all with scientists, but better understood to those who have all the scriptures at their disposal.

The earth is not a closed, but an open system that has been affected by several things that conventional science does not know or will not take into consideration.  For a lecture from a geologist arguing a young earth, go here  For a discussion from 3 experts speaking of the problems of evolution, go here.  To hear two possible alternative theories, go here.

As I said, there is still much we do not know, but to completely assume one theory and force it into the evidence the earth is giving us is being closed-minded at best.  In my mind, the story that Genesis gives us, especially with the scriptures of the restoration, is more believable than what the theory of evolution gives us.