Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share A Flood of Truth - Part 7 – The Battle for the Beginning
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
A Flood of Truth - Part 7 – The Battle for the Beginning
Episode 111 – A Flood of Truth Part 7 – The Battle for the Beginning
Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God.
Script/Notes:
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. … God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.
Genesis Chapter 1, verses 21 and 25, New International Version
********
VK: Hello. I’m Victoria K welcoming you to another episode of Anchored by Truth. I’m in the studio today with RD Fierro, author and Founder Crystal Sea Books. Today we’re continuing our discussion about Noah and the flood that’s described in chapters 6 through 9 of the book of Genesis. This is actually the 7th episode that we’ve done in this series. So, I guess that means that you think that the Bible’s flood account is a subject that deserves listeners’ attention. Why have we devoted so much time to a story out of the Bible that is already very well known, RD?
RD: Greetings to all the Anchored by Truth listeners. Well, as you say the story of Noah, the flood, and the ark is very well-known. But as well-known as it is, it is almost as widely misunderstood. This is a real shame because properly understood the story of Noah and the ark can be a great help to people who have questions about their faith or the Bible.
VK: Why do you say that?
RD: Because there are so many attacks directed at the historicity of the Bible flood account that when believers begin to understand the amazing amount of evidence that actually testifies to its truth it can be a very uplifting moment. There may be no part of the Bible that is more disputed than the opening chapters of the book of Genesis. Even people who accept the Bible’s accuracy in many other areas have often fallen into the trap of believing that the first several chapters of Genesis are either allegory or myth. Even strong Christians have been led down the path to believe that Genesis, at least the early parts, is simply an extended allegorical introduction penned to explain the universe’s existence in a scientifically unsophisticated age. Or even worse, some believers may have succumbed to the critics’ contention that Genesis is just another creation myth that isn’t any more credible than the creation myths of other ancient civilizations. There were attacks against Genesis before Charles Darwin released his book that popularized the evolutionary hypothesis but they have certainly escalated in volume and vitriol since then. Some observers have labeled these disagreements as a “battle for the beginning.”
VK: And you worry that the church has been losing the battle for the beginning for some time now, don’t you?
RD: Well, unfortunately the evidence that the church has been outmaneuvered in the battle for the beginning can be found in just about every school and classroom in America up to an including the university setting. And the biggest problem is that if critics of the Bible can persuade people that the first several chapters of Genesis don’t merit our trust, they can proceed to cast doubt on the reliability of the rest of scripture.
VK: So, the stakes are pretty high in this battle for the beginning, aren’t they? It’s not just problematic that confusion or doubt is sown about the content of Genesis. If the critics can discredit Genesis they can effectively undermine confidence in the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of scripture. I guess that’s the bad news. Is there any good news?
RD: The good news is that we have an abundance of empirical observations and scientific evidence that support the historicity of the Biblical account of creation and the account of Noah and the flood. But since so much animosity and hostility are directed toward these portions of scripture it takes some effort to overcome the criticism.
VK: And that’s why we do Anchored by Truth. It’s important that every Christian read and study the Bible for themselves. There’s no substitute for that. But what we can do with these radio programs and podcasts is give faithful Christians a head start on investigating for themselves topics are admittedly controversial – like the historical accuracy of a worldwide flood having ever occurred.
RD: Yes. We try to take some of these hard topics and come at them from the standpoint of an everyday Christian. We try to look at these subjects from a commonsense viewpoint – seeking the “main and plain” things if you will. In this series we have been doing that with the story of Noah, the ark, and the worldwide flood.
VK: And for listeners who would like to get a similar look at the parts of Genesis that deal with creation itself and the age of the universe we would encourage them to check out our Truth in Genesis series. It’s available on most major podcasting apps or listeners can just go our webpage where there are links directly to those episodes. If we, as the church, want to have any hope for winning the battle for the beginning we’re going to all have to equip ourselves to be betters soldiers. In the case of Genesis, especially the first 11 chapters, that means we have to become familiar with not only what the Bible says, but also with a little information about geology, fossils, and chemistry.
RD: And, for today, we’re going to ask the listeners to become familiar with a little biochemistry – though not much more than they need to understand many of the discussions in the news about viruses and vaccines.
VK: So, as astute Anchored by Truth listeners will have noticed today we used an opening scripture from the book of Genesis. But this time we didn’t use one from the flood narrative that’s contained in chapters 6 through 9. We went right back to the beginning of the beginning: chapter 1. I’ll bet there’s a pretty good reason for that. RD, you picked that scripture because you want to continue discussing the subject we began last time, right? Today, you want to go more in depth about the animals and the ark?
RD: Yes, I do. For today’s episode of Anchored by Truth I wanted to go back to the literal beginning of the universe and the beginning of the Bible and show not only the consistency of scripture but also the consistency of scripture with evidence that we get from science.
VK: Sounds intriguing. And by doing this you believe that many listeners will have a deeper appreciation of the fact that scientific observations often support facts that we glean from the Bible in surprising ways. Is that correct?
RD: Correct. Today, we want to reinforce one of the points that we made in our last episode – that the Bible’s description of the animals that survived on the ark and ultimately led to all the biodiversity that exists in the world today is entirely reasonable. There’s a lot of confusion about which animals were actually on board the ark and that leads to confusion about how Biblical creationists explain contemporary biodiversity. Some of the confusion is just the result of people not focusing on the details of the text. But, unfortunately, there are a lot of strawman arguments that are deliberately used to try to discredit the Bible’s account. But when you understand what the Bible is actually saying, and what informed creationists actually believe, the strawmen are quickly exposed and easily dismissed.
VK: Ok. A strawman is a logical fallacy where an opponent sets up a weak or imaginary argument so that they can easily knock it down – just as it would be easy to knock down a straw scarecrow in a corn field. Can you give us an example of a strawman that is often used by those who try to discredit the historicity of the flood story?
RD: Well, one strawman used to try to discredit the Bible’s flood record is by saying that there is no way that you could build a single boat that could hold two of every species on earth. For instance, there are hundreds of recognized breeds of dogs. And naturally, this doesn’t begin to include other canine species such as wolves, jackals, foxes, etc. There are dozens of recognized breeds of the common housecat …
VK: Based on the housecats I’ve had I rather think they would reject the notion that any of them are common.
RD: Agreed. No housecat would accept the label of being common. Anyway, there are dozens of breeds of cats that are recognized by breeding associations. And this doesn’t include the dozens of varieties of wild cats both large and small. And dogs and cats are, of course, just two of categories of animals that we know about today that have dozens or hundreds of species. So, the strawman offeror takes this simple fact and tries to conjure up this vision of a boat that would have been overrun with hundreds of thousands of species of cats and dogs and finches and owls, etc. The critic quickly shows that the Bible’s account of Noah bringing on board 2 of every species of animals on earth as they exist on the earth today would be ridiculous.
VK: But of course that’s not what the Bible actually says, is it? As we heard in our opening scripture the Bible does not say that God created species but rather that God created “kinds” of animals. And as we mentioned in our last episode of Anchored by Truth a Biblical kind is much broader than that what is referred to as a species in terms of modern taxonomy. We touched on this in our last episode. Can you remind us of what we talked about?
RD: Sure. Chapter 1 of Genesis notes that God created animals – land, sea, and air according to their “kinds.” There is not a one-to-one correspondence between the Biblical term “kind” and modern taxonomic classifications. But a kind is definitely broader than a species. The current taxonomy hierarchy uses 8 levels. Going from the general to the specific they are: domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. Most creationist biologists believe the Biblical “kind” falls somewhere between a “family” and a “genus.” When it uses the word “kind” the Bible is simply referring to animals that can breed together and produce fertile offspring. In other words, the Biblical term “kind” is a functional rather than categorical definition. This is a key point. It will eliminate a lot of confusion if people get away from the notion that somehow Noah was instructed to every species of land animal on earth. That’s simply not the case.
VK: And that same word “kind” is used with respect to the instructions Noah received about which animals to take on the ark. In Genesis, chapter 6, verse 20 and 21 God told Noah, “You are to bring into the ark …two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.” So, what we heard in our opening scripture from Genesis chapter 1 is consistent with this instruction in Genesis chapter 6.
RD: Precisely. And it also consistent with what we see in nature – not only at the level of what might be termed gross morphology but also with biochemical observations we see in cell machinery.
VK: So, here is where we get into the biochemistry you mentioned earlier. But before we delve into that what do you mean by “gross morphology?”
RD: Within biology morphology is just the study of shapes and the arrangement of parts of organisms with respect to how those parts function and develop. Morphology is a basic part of assigning animals to their various taxonomic classifications. For instance, it’s relatively easy for us to distinguish between cats and dogs because of how they are shaped. And even though cats and dogs come in a wide variety of sizes and colors it’s still easy to tell them apart. And even though lions are much bigger than the don’t-call-them-common housecats they all have distinctive features that tell us that they are all part of the same general group. In the world of taxonomy all cats belong to the family “felidae.” So, all cats share certain features in their appearance and they have certain common functional features. All cats have five toes on their forefeet and four on their hind feet. They have curved claws which are attached to the terminal bones of the toe with ligaments and tendons. This enables them to extend or retract their claws. They have lithe and flexible bodies with muscular limbs that makes them agile and gives them superb balance. So, from their morphology we can tell cats are related and modern taxonomy assigns them to their own family. And we know that the family “felidae” is clearly distinct from the family “canidae” which is the taxonomic family to which dogs are assigned.
VK: Ok. That seems fairly straightforward. But how does this help confirm the Biblical texts that we have been talking about?
RD: Because the Bible tells us that God created various “kinds” of animals and that all animals, as well as plants for that matter, reproduce within their kind. One strawman that is often hurled at the Biblical creationists is that we insist on “fixity of the species.” The critic then observes that since new species emerge on earth all the time then the Bible cannot be trusted – in part because we can see that “fixity of the species” is refuted by science.
VK: But creationists don’t insist on “fixity of the species” do they? We believe that the Bible describes “fixity of the kinds” and, as we have been discussing, a Biblical kind is much broader than a taxonomic species. That’s what makes the “fixity of the species” allegation a strawman. It’s a flimsy argument that is never used by informed creationists.
RD: Exactly right.
VK: And as you have observed we do observe, even from morphology, that there are discontinuities that we observe in nature – such as the difference between dogs and cats. No one worries that because they have a male dog at home and a female cat that the dog is going to get the cat pregnant. Adopt a male cat from the pound and the situation changes instantly. We all know that there are fundamental breaks that exist in the plant and animal worlds, don’t we?
RD: Yes. So, the lines of demarcation that we see in nature are consistent with the Bible’s description of God having created in “kinds.” Now, evolutionists explain these discontinuities by appealing to increasing specialization due to natural selection. And creationists agree with evolutionists on this point. We both agree that the modern species we see around the world are due to adaptive forces. But where creationists disagree with evolutionists is that evolutionists trace every animal on earth back to a single common ancestor which itself arose from the random collision of inorganic matter. So, evolutionists need to see some form of continuity in all living organisms. Discontinuities in nature argue against evolution being true.
VK: So, that leads us back to biochemistry. In the 1950’s our understanding of biochemistry was radically changed when James Watson and Francis Crick published their famous paper on the double helix structure of DNA. Shortly after that scientists began to understand far more about the structures that exist within living cells didn’t they? And what they discovered revolutionized our awareness of the immense complexity of those structures.
RD: Precisely. And part of what scientists discovered reinforced the fact that the discontinuities that we see at the gross morphological level continue into the biochemistry within the cell.
VK: How so?
RD: Because we see those same discontinuities in the proteins that make up what you might call the machinery of life. Let’s do a brief review. All life on earth is based on cells. Some cells have nuclei and some don’t but all life on earth is based on some kind of cell. Cells have a permeable membrane that separates the cell from the outside world.
VK: And that membrane has to be permeable because, at a minimum, it has to allow energy generating substances in and waste products to be removed. Unfortunately, that also means that harmful things like viruses can also enter the cell.
RD: Yes. Anyway, the work of the cell is done by thousands and thousands of molecular machines we call proteins. Proteins are themselves formed of various combinations of amino acids. Amino acids usually consist of about 10 to 20 atoms. Now there are hundreds of amino acids that exist but only 20 of the hundreds are used by living creatures to build proteins. And science has now mapped the exact amino acid sequence for thousands of proteins – just like putting a series of letters on a board. We now know that while certain proteins are common across a wide variety of living creatures the individual structure of that protein varies dependent on the creature. Therefore, we can now measure, at a molecular level, the degree of variation between those creatures.
VK: So, let’s say that someone went up to a board in front of a classroom and wrote a sequence of – say – 30 letters on the board. Then someone else went up to the board and wrote the same sequence but switched a few letters around, we could tell precisely what the amount of difference was between the two sequences. It the sequences varied in 3 places they would vary by 10%. If they varied in 6 places they would vary by 20%.
RD: Exactly. Well, we now know that the discontinuities – the breaks - that we can easily see with our naked eyes are repeated in the microscopic world. For instance, there is a protein called cytochrome-C which is closely connected with cellular energy production. As such it is found in animals as diverse as bacteria, wheat, yeast, fish, and mammals. If the evolutionary hypothesis were true you would expect for the variance of the protein structure to be considerably less between a bacterium and yeast than between bacteria and fish, birds, or mammals.
VK: Because supposedly from an evolutionary standpoint yeast would be closer to a bacterium than a horse or man. According to evolution simple organisms preceded complex ones, fish preceded dinosaurs that turned into birds, and all of this preceded mammals. The evolutionary hypothesis postulates a continuous sequence of development that led from simple creatures to ever more complicated ones. So, it would be reasonable for an evolutionist to want to be able to see a steady progression in the biochemistry. After all, down through the years we have heard a lot about the search for “missing links.” Well, obviously the phrase “missing links” would be meaningless if they didn’t think a chain existed somewhere.
RD: Yes. But that’s the exact opposite of what you see in the biochemistry. Here is a direct quote from Michael Denton’s book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis: “... cytochromes from organisms as diverse as man, lamprey, fruit fly, wheat, and yeast all exhibit a sequence divergence between 64% and 67% from this particular bacterial cytochrome.” What Denton is saying is that at the molecular biological level you have the same discontinuities we see in the plants and animals that exist around us. Molecular biochemistry does not show continuous chains or sequences any more than our unaided vision. So, both gross morphological observations and the micro world of atoms, molecules, and proteins are perfectly consistent with the Bible’s declaration that God created “kinds” and that the “kinds” remain separate and distinct from one another from the standpoint of reproduction.
VK: And Noah brought one pair of a particular “kind” of land animal and bird on the ark those the adaptive abilities built into the DNA of those “kinds” was able to produce all the various species today. Would you say this proves the truth of the Bible account?
RD: What I would say is that this means that our empirical observations are perfectly consistent with the Biblical text – and that in some cases the Biblical framework explains those observations better than the evolutionary hypothesis. Evolution looks for continuity. The Bible describes a natural world that is fundamentally discontinuous when it comes to reproduction. And when we look at plants and animals we discontinuities that are never bridged despite the intense search that has been ongoing for missing links.
VK: Cats remain cats. Dogs remain dogs. Roses don’t turn into peaches and apples don’t turn into oranges. Still, we understand that not everyone will agree our conclusions. But one thing we can say is that – properly understood – the Bible’s record is entirely consistent with contemporary scientific observations. Even if not all scientists accept that fact. Well, next time we are going to begin to wrap up our series on Noah by reviewing the substantial amount of evidence that we have been covering that demonstrates that the Biblical flood account can be reasonably accepted as literal history. Bible critics may doubt this is true but their doubt is just that - doubt. And doubt is not evidence. Sounds to me like a good time for a prayer. Today let’s listen to a prayer of adoration for the Father God who is the source of all life and truth and will be found by any who seek Him.
---- PRAYER OF ADORATION OF THE FATHER
We hope you’ll be with us next time and we hope you’ll take some time to encourage some friends to tune in too, or listen to the podcast version of this show.
If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!”
(Bible Quotes from the New Living Translation)
The Book of Genesis, chapter 8, verses 1 through 5. New Living Translation
https://creation.com/topics/global-flood
https://activechristianity.org/6-unbelievably-good-reasons-to-read-your-bible
https://considerthegospel.org/2014/03/28/the-noah-controversy-could-that-flood-have-happened/
How could Noah get all the animals on the Ark? - creation.com
Also, consult Chapters 2 and 3 of “The Greatest Hoax in the World” by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati available from creation.com and chapters 10 and 12 of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.
VK: So, the details of the Bible story make sense in the real world. A boat with the ark’s dimensions would be stable in an ocean environment even one being racked by huge waves. The ark’s size meant that it had a cargo capacity of up to 3.5 million cubic feet. We all know that boats need proper ballast for stability and the ark would have had the most ballast when the seas were roughest. As the year in the ark went by the people and animals would have eaten the food so the amount of ballast would have gradually decreased.
It made sense that God told Noah to coat the ark with pitch inside and out. People made sturdy wooden boats and covered them in pitch and sailed them for hundreds of years. Doves and ravens still fly in our skies today. It made sense that the raven could survive outside the ark even before the water had completely dried because ravens are carrion eaters. So, the raven could have landed on pieces of a floating carcass and survived, whereas a dove couldn’t. Doves eat fruits, seeds, and vegetables so the dove had to come back to ark until it could find food.
RD: I do. And one final reminder for today. By their very nature past events, especially those of the distant past – like the flood of Noah - cannot be repeated. So to make intelligent assessments about whether such a flood took place or is highly likely to have occurred we have to look evidence that is available today. And as we reminded everyone last time, all investigators, all interpreters of evidence, bring a viewpoint, a lens through which they interpret evidence. I’m hesitant to say they bring a bias because that word can have a negative connotation but we certainly should be aware of our interpretive lens. This is particularly important when it comes to evaluating the historicity of Bible events.
VK: It’s amazing to think about the early days of God’s creation and how God has sovereignly superintended everything throughout history. I mean the universe has been around for so long now that we pretty much take for granted everything that we see. We treat our world and in fact the entire cosmos as if it has always been here but the truth is that it hasn’t and it won’t be in the future. God created everything for a purpose and He is guiding everything to a conclusion that will fully fulfill all his plan. That’s part of the reason we wanted to tackle the story of Noah and the flood early on in Anchored by Truth. Noah’s story is a perfect illustration of God’s sovereignty over both his people and creation and His ability to bring all His purposes to fruition.
RD: Yes. That was part of the point that we made in an earlier episode where we contrasted uniformitarianism and catastrophism as differing ways for viewing how our earth came to exist in its current form. Most people today look to uniformitarianism to as the primary explanation for the earth’s current geology but as we have pointed out in previous episodes that there is substantial evidence that catastrophism is as good or better at explaining what we see around us in the rocks and in fossils.
There are massive geological formations on the earth’s surface that were once underwater but today those formations are nowhere near an ocean. The list of details in the Bible story that make sense in the real world goes on and on. But the details in most of the variants don’t make nearly as much sense in the real world. But the existence of those stories themselves are evidence that at one point a real event took place even if some of the details have gotten mixed up over time.
View all episodes
By R.D.Fierro
5
11 ratings
Episode 111 – A Flood of Truth Part 7 – The Battle for the Beginning
Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God.
Script/Notes:
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. … God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.
Genesis Chapter 1, verses 21 and 25, New International Version
********
VK: Hello. I’m Victoria K welcoming you to another episode of Anchored by Truth. I’m in the studio today with RD Fierro, author and Founder Crystal Sea Books. Today we’re continuing our discussion about Noah and the flood that’s described in chapters 6 through 9 of the book of Genesis. This is actually the 7th episode that we’ve done in this series. So, I guess that means that you think that the Bible’s flood account is a subject that deserves listeners’ attention. Why have we devoted so much time to a story out of the Bible that is already very well known, RD?
RD: Greetings to all the Anchored by Truth listeners. Well, as you say the story of Noah, the flood, and the ark is very well-known. But as well-known as it is, it is almost as widely misunderstood. This is a real shame because properly understood the story of Noah and the ark can be a great help to people who have questions about their faith or the Bible.
VK: Why do you say that?
RD: Because there are so many attacks directed at the historicity of the Bible flood account that when believers begin to understand the amazing amount of evidence that actually testifies to its truth it can be a very uplifting moment. There may be no part of the Bible that is more disputed than the opening chapters of the book of Genesis. Even people who accept the Bible’s accuracy in many other areas have often fallen into the trap of believing that the first several chapters of Genesis are either allegory or myth. Even strong Christians have been led down the path to believe that Genesis, at least the early parts, is simply an extended allegorical introduction penned to explain the universe’s existence in a scientifically unsophisticated age. Or even worse, some believers may have succumbed to the critics’ contention that Genesis is just another creation myth that isn’t any more credible than the creation myths of other ancient civilizations. There were attacks against Genesis before Charles Darwin released his book that popularized the evolutionary hypothesis but they have certainly escalated in volume and vitriol since then. Some observers have labeled these disagreements as a “battle for the beginning.”
VK: And you worry that the church has been losing the battle for the beginning for some time now, don’t you?
RD: Well, unfortunately the evidence that the church has been outmaneuvered in the battle for the beginning can be found in just about every school and classroom in America up to an including the university setting. And the biggest problem is that if critics of the Bible can persuade people that the first several chapters of Genesis don’t merit our trust, they can proceed to cast doubt on the reliability of the rest of scripture.
VK: So, the stakes are pretty high in this battle for the beginning, aren’t they? It’s not just problematic that confusion or doubt is sown about the content of Genesis. If the critics can discredit Genesis they can effectively undermine confidence in the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of scripture. I guess that’s the bad news. Is there any good news?
RD: The good news is that we have an abundance of empirical observations and scientific evidence that support the historicity of the Biblical account of creation and the account of Noah and the flood. But since so much animosity and hostility are directed toward these portions of scripture it takes some effort to overcome the criticism.
VK: And that’s why we do Anchored by Truth. It’s important that every Christian read and study the Bible for themselves. There’s no substitute for that. But what we can do with these radio programs and podcasts is give faithful Christians a head start on investigating for themselves topics are admittedly controversial – like the historical accuracy of a worldwide flood having ever occurred.
RD: Yes. We try to take some of these hard topics and come at them from the standpoint of an everyday Christian. We try to look at these subjects from a commonsense viewpoint – seeking the “main and plain” things if you will. In this series we have been doing that with the story of Noah, the ark, and the worldwide flood.
VK: And for listeners who would like to get a similar look at the parts of Genesis that deal with creation itself and the age of the universe we would encourage them to check out our Truth in Genesis series. It’s available on most major podcasting apps or listeners can just go our webpage where there are links directly to those episodes. If we, as the church, want to have any hope for winning the battle for the beginning we’re going to all have to equip ourselves to be betters soldiers. In the case of Genesis, especially the first 11 chapters, that means we have to become familiar with not only what the Bible says, but also with a little information about geology, fossils, and chemistry.
RD: And, for today, we’re going to ask the listeners to become familiar with a little biochemistry – though not much more than they need to understand many of the discussions in the news about viruses and vaccines.
VK: So, as astute Anchored by Truth listeners will have noticed today we used an opening scripture from the book of Genesis. But this time we didn’t use one from the flood narrative that’s contained in chapters 6 through 9. We went right back to the beginning of the beginning: chapter 1. I’ll bet there’s a pretty good reason for that. RD, you picked that scripture because you want to continue discussing the subject we began last time, right? Today, you want to go more in depth about the animals and the ark?
RD: Yes, I do. For today’s episode of Anchored by Truth I wanted to go back to the literal beginning of the universe and the beginning of the Bible and show not only the consistency of scripture but also the consistency of scripture with evidence that we get from science.
VK: Sounds intriguing. And by doing this you believe that many listeners will have a deeper appreciation of the fact that scientific observations often support facts that we glean from the Bible in surprising ways. Is that correct?
RD: Correct. Today, we want to reinforce one of the points that we made in our last episode – that the Bible’s description of the animals that survived on the ark and ultimately led to all the biodiversity that exists in the world today is entirely reasonable. There’s a lot of confusion about which animals were actually on board the ark and that leads to confusion about how Biblical creationists explain contemporary biodiversity. Some of the confusion is just the result of people not focusing on the details of the text. But, unfortunately, there are a lot of strawman arguments that are deliberately used to try to discredit the Bible’s account. But when you understand what the Bible is actually saying, and what informed creationists actually believe, the strawmen are quickly exposed and easily dismissed.
VK: Ok. A strawman is a logical fallacy where an opponent sets up a weak or imaginary argument so that they can easily knock it down – just as it would be easy to knock down a straw scarecrow in a corn field. Can you give us an example of a strawman that is often used by those who try to discredit the historicity of the flood story?
RD: Well, one strawman used to try to discredit the Bible’s flood record is by saying that there is no way that you could build a single boat that could hold two of every species on earth. For instance, there are hundreds of recognized breeds of dogs. And naturally, this doesn’t begin to include other canine species such as wolves, jackals, foxes, etc. There are dozens of recognized breeds of the common housecat …
VK: Based on the housecats I’ve had I rather think they would reject the notion that any of them are common.
RD: Agreed. No housecat would accept the label of being common. Anyway, there are dozens of breeds of cats that are recognized by breeding associations. And this doesn’t include the dozens of varieties of wild cats both large and small. And dogs and cats are, of course, just two of categories of animals that we know about today that have dozens or hundreds of species. So, the strawman offeror takes this simple fact and tries to conjure up this vision of a boat that would have been overrun with hundreds of thousands of species of cats and dogs and finches and owls, etc. The critic quickly shows that the Bible’s account of Noah bringing on board 2 of every species of animals on earth as they exist on the earth today would be ridiculous.
VK: But of course that’s not what the Bible actually says, is it? As we heard in our opening scripture the Bible does not say that God created species but rather that God created “kinds” of animals. And as we mentioned in our last episode of Anchored by Truth a Biblical kind is much broader than that what is referred to as a species in terms of modern taxonomy. We touched on this in our last episode. Can you remind us of what we talked about?
RD: Sure. Chapter 1 of Genesis notes that God created animals – land, sea, and air according to their “kinds.” There is not a one-to-one correspondence between the Biblical term “kind” and modern taxonomic classifications. But a kind is definitely broader than a species. The current taxonomy hierarchy uses 8 levels. Going from the general to the specific they are: domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. Most creationist biologists believe the Biblical “kind” falls somewhere between a “family” and a “genus.” When it uses the word “kind” the Bible is simply referring to animals that can breed together and produce fertile offspring. In other words, the Biblical term “kind” is a functional rather than categorical definition. This is a key point. It will eliminate a lot of confusion if people get away from the notion that somehow Noah was instructed to every species of land animal on earth. That’s simply not the case.
VK: And that same word “kind” is used with respect to the instructions Noah received about which animals to take on the ark. In Genesis, chapter 6, verse 20 and 21 God told Noah, “You are to bring into the ark …two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.” So, what we heard in our opening scripture from Genesis chapter 1 is consistent with this instruction in Genesis chapter 6.
RD: Precisely. And it also consistent with what we see in nature – not only at the level of what might be termed gross morphology but also with biochemical observations we see in cell machinery.
VK: So, here is where we get into the biochemistry you mentioned earlier. But before we delve into that what do you mean by “gross morphology?”
RD: Within biology morphology is just the study of shapes and the arrangement of parts of organisms with respect to how those parts function and develop. Morphology is a basic part of assigning animals to their various taxonomic classifications. For instance, it’s relatively easy for us to distinguish between cats and dogs because of how they are shaped. And even though cats and dogs come in a wide variety of sizes and colors it’s still easy to tell them apart. And even though lions are much bigger than the don’t-call-them-common housecats they all have distinctive features that tell us that they are all part of the same general group. In the world of taxonomy all cats belong to the family “felidae.” So, all cats share certain features in their appearance and they have certain common functional features. All cats have five toes on their forefeet and four on their hind feet. They have curved claws which are attached to the terminal bones of the toe with ligaments and tendons. This enables them to extend or retract their claws. They have lithe and flexible bodies with muscular limbs that makes them agile and gives them superb balance. So, from their morphology we can tell cats are related and modern taxonomy assigns them to their own family. And we know that the family “felidae” is clearly distinct from the family “canidae” which is the taxonomic family to which dogs are assigned.
VK: Ok. That seems fairly straightforward. But how does this help confirm the Biblical texts that we have been talking about?
RD: Because the Bible tells us that God created various “kinds” of animals and that all animals, as well as plants for that matter, reproduce within their kind. One strawman that is often hurled at the Biblical creationists is that we insist on “fixity of the species.” The critic then observes that since new species emerge on earth all the time then the Bible cannot be trusted – in part because we can see that “fixity of the species” is refuted by science.
VK: But creationists don’t insist on “fixity of the species” do they? We believe that the Bible describes “fixity of the kinds” and, as we have been discussing, a Biblical kind is much broader than a taxonomic species. That’s what makes the “fixity of the species” allegation a strawman. It’s a flimsy argument that is never used by informed creationists.
RD: Exactly right.
VK: And as you have observed we do observe, even from morphology, that there are discontinuities that we observe in nature – such as the difference between dogs and cats. No one worries that because they have a male dog at home and a female cat that the dog is going to get the cat pregnant. Adopt a male cat from the pound and the situation changes instantly. We all know that there are fundamental breaks that exist in the plant and animal worlds, don’t we?
RD: Yes. So, the lines of demarcation that we see in nature are consistent with the Bible’s description of God having created in “kinds.” Now, evolutionists explain these discontinuities by appealing to increasing specialization due to natural selection. And creationists agree with evolutionists on this point. We both agree that the modern species we see around the world are due to adaptive forces. But where creationists disagree with evolutionists is that evolutionists trace every animal on earth back to a single common ancestor which itself arose from the random collision of inorganic matter. So, evolutionists need to see some form of continuity in all living organisms. Discontinuities in nature argue against evolution being true.
VK: So, that leads us back to biochemistry. In the 1950’s our understanding of biochemistry was radically changed when James Watson and Francis Crick published their famous paper on the double helix structure of DNA. Shortly after that scientists began to understand far more about the structures that exist within living cells didn’t they? And what they discovered revolutionized our awareness of the immense complexity of those structures.
RD: Precisely. And part of what scientists discovered reinforced the fact that the discontinuities that we see at the gross morphological level continue into the biochemistry within the cell.
VK: How so?
RD: Because we see those same discontinuities in the proteins that make up what you might call the machinery of life. Let’s do a brief review. All life on earth is based on cells. Some cells have nuclei and some don’t but all life on earth is based on some kind of cell. Cells have a permeable membrane that separates the cell from the outside world.
VK: And that membrane has to be permeable because, at a minimum, it has to allow energy generating substances in and waste products to be removed. Unfortunately, that also means that harmful things like viruses can also enter the cell.
RD: Yes. Anyway, the work of the cell is done by thousands and thousands of molecular machines we call proteins. Proteins are themselves formed of various combinations of amino acids. Amino acids usually consist of about 10 to 20 atoms. Now there are hundreds of amino acids that exist but only 20 of the hundreds are used by living creatures to build proteins. And science has now mapped the exact amino acid sequence for thousands of proteins – just like putting a series of letters on a board. We now know that while certain proteins are common across a wide variety of living creatures the individual structure of that protein varies dependent on the creature. Therefore, we can now measure, at a molecular level, the degree of variation between those creatures.
VK: So, let’s say that someone went up to a board in front of a classroom and wrote a sequence of – say – 30 letters on the board. Then someone else went up to the board and wrote the same sequence but switched a few letters around, we could tell precisely what the amount of difference was between the two sequences. It the sequences varied in 3 places they would vary by 10%. If they varied in 6 places they would vary by 20%.
RD: Exactly. Well, we now know that the discontinuities – the breaks - that we can easily see with our naked eyes are repeated in the microscopic world. For instance, there is a protein called cytochrome-C which is closely connected with cellular energy production. As such it is found in animals as diverse as bacteria, wheat, yeast, fish, and mammals. If the evolutionary hypothesis were true you would expect for the variance of the protein structure to be considerably less between a bacterium and yeast than between bacteria and fish, birds, or mammals.
VK: Because supposedly from an evolutionary standpoint yeast would be closer to a bacterium than a horse or man. According to evolution simple organisms preceded complex ones, fish preceded dinosaurs that turned into birds, and all of this preceded mammals. The evolutionary hypothesis postulates a continuous sequence of development that led from simple creatures to ever more complicated ones. So, it would be reasonable for an evolutionist to want to be able to see a steady progression in the biochemistry. After all, down through the years we have heard a lot about the search for “missing links.” Well, obviously the phrase “missing links” would be meaningless if they didn’t think a chain existed somewhere.
RD: Yes. But that’s the exact opposite of what you see in the biochemistry. Here is a direct quote from Michael Denton’s book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis: “... cytochromes from organisms as diverse as man, lamprey, fruit fly, wheat, and yeast all exhibit a sequence divergence between 64% and 67% from this particular bacterial cytochrome.” What Denton is saying is that at the molecular biological level you have the same discontinuities we see in the plants and animals that exist around us. Molecular biochemistry does not show continuous chains or sequences any more than our unaided vision. So, both gross morphological observations and the micro world of atoms, molecules, and proteins are perfectly consistent with the Bible’s declaration that God created “kinds” and that the “kinds” remain separate and distinct from one another from the standpoint of reproduction.
VK: And Noah brought one pair of a particular “kind” of land animal and bird on the ark those the adaptive abilities built into the DNA of those “kinds” was able to produce all the various species today. Would you say this proves the truth of the Bible account?
RD: What I would say is that this means that our empirical observations are perfectly consistent with the Biblical text – and that in some cases the Biblical framework explains those observations better than the evolutionary hypothesis. Evolution looks for continuity. The Bible describes a natural world that is fundamentally discontinuous when it comes to reproduction. And when we look at plants and animals we discontinuities that are never bridged despite the intense search that has been ongoing for missing links.
VK: Cats remain cats. Dogs remain dogs. Roses don’t turn into peaches and apples don’t turn into oranges. Still, we understand that not everyone will agree our conclusions. But one thing we can say is that – properly understood – the Bible’s record is entirely consistent with contemporary scientific observations. Even if not all scientists accept that fact. Well, next time we are going to begin to wrap up our series on Noah by reviewing the substantial amount of evidence that we have been covering that demonstrates that the Biblical flood account can be reasonably accepted as literal history. Bible critics may doubt this is true but their doubt is just that - doubt. And doubt is not evidence. Sounds to me like a good time for a prayer. Today let’s listen to a prayer of adoration for the Father God who is the source of all life and truth and will be found by any who seek Him.
---- PRAYER OF ADORATION OF THE FATHER
We hope you’ll be with us next time and we hope you’ll take some time to encourage some friends to tune in too, or listen to the podcast version of this show.
If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!”
(Bible Quotes from the New Living Translation)
The Book of Genesis, chapter 8, verses 1 through 5. New Living Translation
https://creation.com/topics/global-flood
https://activechristianity.org/6-unbelievably-good-reasons-to-read-your-bible
https://considerthegospel.org/2014/03/28/the-noah-controversy-could-that-flood-have-happened/
How could Noah get all the animals on the Ark? - creation.com
Also, consult Chapters 2 and 3 of “The Greatest Hoax in the World” by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati available from creation.com and chapters 10 and 12 of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.
VK: So, the details of the Bible story make sense in the real world. A boat with the ark’s dimensions would be stable in an ocean environment even one being racked by huge waves. The ark’s size meant that it had a cargo capacity of up to 3.5 million cubic feet. We all know that boats need proper ballast for stability and the ark would have had the most ballast when the seas were roughest. As the year in the ark went by the people and animals would have eaten the food so the amount of ballast would have gradually decreased.
It made sense that God told Noah to coat the ark with pitch inside and out. People made sturdy wooden boats and covered them in pitch and sailed them for hundreds of years. Doves and ravens still fly in our skies today. It made sense that the raven could survive outside the ark even before the water had completely dried because ravens are carrion eaters. So, the raven could have landed on pieces of a floating carcass and survived, whereas a dove couldn’t. Doves eat fruits, seeds, and vegetables so the dove had to come back to ark until it could find food.
RD: I do. And one final reminder for today. By their very nature past events, especially those of the distant past – like the flood of Noah - cannot be repeated. So to make intelligent assessments about whether such a flood took place or is highly likely to have occurred we have to look evidence that is available today. And as we reminded everyone last time, all investigators, all interpreters of evidence, bring a viewpoint, a lens through which they interpret evidence. I’m hesitant to say they bring a bias because that word can have a negative connotation but we certainly should be aware of our interpretive lens. This is particularly important when it comes to evaluating the historicity of Bible events.
VK: It’s amazing to think about the early days of God’s creation and how God has sovereignly superintended everything throughout history. I mean the universe has been around for so long now that we pretty much take for granted everything that we see. We treat our world and in fact the entire cosmos as if it has always been here but the truth is that it hasn’t and it won’t be in the future. God created everything for a purpose and He is guiding everything to a conclusion that will fully fulfill all his plan. That’s part of the reason we wanted to tackle the story of Noah and the flood early on in Anchored by Truth. Noah’s story is a perfect illustration of God’s sovereignty over both his people and creation and His ability to bring all His purposes to fruition.
RD: Yes. That was part of the point that we made in an earlier episode where we contrasted uniformitarianism and catastrophism as differing ways for viewing how our earth came to exist in its current form. Most people today look to uniformitarianism to as the primary explanation for the earth’s current geology but as we have pointed out in previous episodes that there is substantial evidence that catastrophism is as good or better at explaining what we see around us in the rocks and in fossils.
There are massive geological formations on the earth’s surface that were once underwater but today those formations are nowhere near an ocean. The list of details in the Bible story that make sense in the real world goes on and on. But the details in most of the variants don’t make nearly as much sense in the real world. But the existence of those stories themselves are evidence that at one point a real event took place even if some of the details have gotten mixed up over time.