Episode 112 – A Flood of Truth Part 8 – The Flood Drowns Evolution

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:

There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.

Proverbs Chapter 16, verse 25, English Standard Version

But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.

James, Chapter 3, verse 17, English Standard 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 as we begin our wrap up of our series on Noah, the ark, and the flood. This is actually the 8th episode that we’ve done in this series. We have devoted this much time to the Bible’s account because, despite being well known, there is a great deal of confusion that swirls around the story in our popular culture. Is that a fair statement, RD?

RD: Greetings to all the Anchored by Truth listeners. In fact, it’s not only a fair statement it’s probably a bit of an understatement. The story of Noah and the ark is very familiar but if you asked most people they would say that the story is exactly that – just a story that happens to be in the Bible. I suspect very few would actually say they trust the Bible’s account as literal history.

VK: And why do you think that is?

RD: In part because the story is so engaging and amazing that it’s the subject of a lot of retelling. But, as is so common today, while being retold it’s subject to the historical revisionism that plagues our culture today – especially in arts and entertainment. The story is memorable all by itself. It contains all the elements that we typically associate with great stories, whether historical or fictional. There’s danger and drama, a hero who is assigned a difficult task, a titanic struggle against raging elements, and ultimately a victory that preserves not only mankind but also enough animals to begin to repopulate the earth. So, the story itself contains all the elements that engage human imagination. But, of course, the re-tellers don’t want to leave the story alone.

VK: No they don’t. For instance, in one recent movie that told the story as Noah and his family are trying to board the ark they are attacked by a group of local villagers. The villagers, who had previously ignored Noah’s warning now saw the flood danger approaching. Now they want to be saved too so they attack the ark. In the movie the ark is defended by this collection of gigantic animated rock creatures who are supposed to be fallen angels. These fallen angels were supposedly imprisoned in these rock forms as punishment for helping humans after they left the Garden of Eden. Of course, Noah and his family make it on board but so does a stowaway that they will have to fight later in the movie. And that’s just the beginning of the “artistic liberties” the script writers took with the original story. Why do you think so many re-tellers can’t just stick with the story as it’s presented in the Bible? As you say it’s pretty compelling all by itself.

RD: Well, in part human beings are creative and imaginative. So, we love to fill in the details in stories where we’re not told everything. That can be dangerous, but it doesn’t have to be. It can be useful to use what Dr. John Gerstner used to call our “sanctified imaginations.” But it’s one thing to use our imagination to create a vision of animals marching into the ark “two by two,” which is consistent with the Biblical story. It is quite another to imagine a platoon of fallen-angel rocks fighting off an oncoming brigade of angry locals just as the flood waters are arriving. In my opinion that goes beyond mere artistic liberty and into deliberate distortion. I think part of the reason the re-tellers do this is because they don’t believe the original story is literal history. They see it as myth or fairy tale anyway. So, they don’t really see why one version of a fairy tale isn’t just as permissible as another. But and this a very important but – above and beyond their disbelief in the historicity of the Biblical account they consciously or unconsciously realize the story has immense implications for the reliability of the Bible.

VK: So, you think they believe that the Bible’s account isn’t historically credible to begin with. As such, it wouldn’t make any difference to them whether they change the details or rewrite the story completely. Unfortunately, this doubt in the Noah story has implications for the reliability of the rest of scripture. if doubt can be cast on the story of Noah, by extension doubt can be cast on the reliability of the rest of the Bible. By contrast, if the Bible’s account of the flood can be shown to be a reliable report of literal history it is a forceful demonstration of the opposite. This would mean that that there is a God, who created the heavens and earth and who is so involved with His creation that He intercedes when necessary to correct the course of men and nations. This makes the Biblical account of Noah and the ark a dramatic example of God’s sovereignty, judgment, and mercy.

RD: Exactly. There are many Biblical accounts of historical events that have left few, if any, details behind that we can investigate effectively today. For example, the prophet Elijah’s battle with the priests of Baal on Mt. Carmel is a very compelling and engaging story also. But it didn’t leave behind any lasting effects on geology or even generate any artifacts we might hope of finding today. Ditto with David’s battle with Goliath or Sampson’s pulling down the Philistines’ temple or Daniel’s experience in the lion’s den. We can validate some of the broad parameters of the incidents such as whether the Philistines were in fact enemies of Israel or whether the Hebrews were ever captives in Babylon and whether the Persians conquered the Babylonians, but it’s almost impossible we would ever find specific confirmation of these events. But a worldwide flood that dramatically reduced the size of the human and animal populations on the earth – that would produce effects – evidence - that we can still see today.

VK: And it has. That’s why the Bible critic has to discredit the original story even if it’s done by friendly means rather than outright hostility – such as just embellishing a movie version to make it more exciting and entertaining. And this danger exists whether it is done intentionally or unintentionally.

RD: It’s been said that the devil would hide a pint of poison in an ocean of truth. But – and, again, this is a very important but – the embellished versions of the story that circulate don’t pose any danger to anyone who is thoroughly familiar with the original and who accepts the original as literal truth. Knowing the truth, holding the truth, anchoring yourself to the truth if you will, will inoculate you from many of the dangers the world’s false narratives pose to the unwary.

VK: We’ve noted before on Anchored by Truth that when new bank tellers are being trained to spot counterfeit bills they don’t have the tellers handle lots of counterfeit. They have them handle lots of real bills. Once the teller becomes familiar with the feel and look of real bills they’re far better prepared to spot the counterfeit.

RD: Yes.

VK: And that’s one of the reasons 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 knowing that there are verifiable facts that support the historicity of the Bible even when the broader culture is either skeptical or outright hostile. So, where do you want to go from here?

RD: Today, I want to begin a review of some of the high level points that we’ve covered during this series before we begin a review of some of the specific facts that support the authenticity of the Biblical account. I think it’s important for believers to be able to think in concrete terms about certain facts that make far more sense when viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s explanation of world history than from the view that might be described as the “conventional wisdom of the day.”

VK: I think you might want to amplify on that last thought a bit. To some people it might sound as though we’re talking about a “my truth – your truth” sort of distinction.

RD: No, not really. All anyone can do who is trying to determine what happened in the past is look at evidence that is currently available. This is a critical distinction between origin science and operational science. It’s easy for everyone to verify that water boils at 212 degrees at sea level because people all over the world can repeat the test. But, despite the science fiction stories that abound these days, no one can go back in the past and view the events of creation or the world wide flood. As such all observers are interpreting current evidence to discern the truth of the past. And all observers bring a starting set of interpretive axioms to their task. This is no less true for people who don’t believe in the Bible than people who do. But we can compare the results of our interpretations and see which result makes the most sense given normal observations of nature and empirical science.

VK: For instance, most scientists would agree that the earth’s history contained one or more ice ages in the past. Some scientists believe they have been cyclical. Others believe there was one major one though possibly other periods of prolonged cold temperatures. So, it is reasonable to ask what could have caused an ice age.

RD: Exactly. And the ice age is a good case where the Biblical flood account makes more sense than the conventional explanation. The Bible says that the cause of the flood wasn’t just a torrential rain for 40 days but also that the “fountains of the great deep burst open.” Many Biblical geologists agree that this referred to not only underwater volcanoes erupting into the oceans but also subterranean reservoirs of extremely hot water also being injected into the oceans. This activity would have formed the ideal conditions for an ice age to develop. The ocean’s temperature would have risen. Warm water evaporates more quickly than cool water so there would have been abundant precipitation for an extended period. At the same time, the volcanic ash that would have entered the atmosphere would have reflected sunlight producing a protracted period of colder weather. This would have been a perfect condition to allow ice sheets to form over the land in the upper parts of the northern hemisphere and Antarctica. The cooler temperatures in the summer would have reduced the glacial melt allowing the glaciers to gradually extend to the limits that are now evident.

VK: But, of course, this isn’t the only possible explanation for how the extensive glaciers of the Ice Age could have formed, is it? Non-Christian geologists believe that change in the tilt of the earth’s axis may have produced extended periods of colder temperature – conceivably up to thousands or even tens of thousands of years.

RD: That is another possible explanation for the Ice Age but the kind of changes proposed in the earth’s orbital geometry have too small an effect. And if the earth had cooled in this way it would have become much drier. There would have been less evaporation from gradually cooling oceans, not more. This would interfere with snow development and the formation of the enormous ice sheets which all scientists agree once existed. By some calculations the air would have been as much as 60% drier in the proposed scenario – which is pretty much a fatal problem for the recurrent precipitation/freeze/accumulation cycle that would have been required. This is why the Ice Age is a major challenge for secular scientists. There are over 60 ideas (theories) on the origin of the Ice Age. That is why David Alt who is a professor of geology at the University of Montana, stated: “Although theories abound, no one really knows what causes ice ages.”

VK: Ok. So, the point is that – dependent on your starting axioms – there are competing theories about how the Ice Age could have been caused. And this is a perfect illustration where the Biblical explanation is at least as plausible, if not more so, than the alternatives that come from secular science. Right?

RD: Right. The explanation that comes from a Biblical viewpoint explains the conditions that fit the empirical observations. And it has the added benefit of not requiring any additional explanation for what could have caused the hypothesized shifts in the tilt of the earth’s axis. Obviously, every observer would have to make their own determination about which explanation they would choose to accept.

VK: But it would be entirely unfair – even unreasonable – to say that the Biblical explanation is unscientific just because we get the basis for our explanation from scripture?

RD: Right. The Biblical point of origin for the explanation of the Ice Age is no less scientific than the secular point of origin and as you trace out the line of reasoning that comes from each the Biblical explanation is equally viable. But you are unlikely to ever hear a secular scientist admit that it is possible that at one point there was a worldwide flood, notwithstanding that the available evidence is consistent with that possibility.

VK: Why do you say that?

RD: Because a worldwide flood that destroyed just every form of land or bird life would be fatal to the whole evolutionary hypothesis.

VK: So, again why do you say that?

RD: Let’s think about this for a second. Let’s just say there was a worldwide flood at some point in the earth’s history. The fossil evidence tells us that it would have been at a period when there were large land creatures that were abundantly distributed around the world. So, in terms of evolutionary history this would have been late in world history not early – because a substantial portion of the supposed evolutionary process would have been completed by that point. Well, if there was a worldwide flood all of that evolutionary work would have been wiped out. The conventional wisdom is that dinosaurs disappeared from the earth about 65 million years ago. So, a worldwide flood event that wiped them out would have been less than 65 million years ago. That’s a drop of time in the conventional bucket of billions of years. So, the amount of time between the event and now wouldn’t be anywhere near enough time to go through another evolutionary cycle to produce the biodiversity that we see on the earth today.

VK: But the evolutionary cycle wouldn’t have had to begin from scratch. Even if the flood event wiped out all or even most of the land creatures and birds may marine animals would still have survived, wouldn’t they?

RD: Let’s just accept that that is a possibility. Let’s just agree that the flood destroyed only land animals and birds and the marine animals survived including possibly some marine mammals. Why would those remaining animals “evolve” to reproduce the same land species that had just been wiped out? Remember, the evolutionary hypothesis completely eliminates any form of change that isn’t sponsored by random forces – as touted evolution works only through randomly occurring mutations and fortuitous natural selection.

VK: I see what you’re saying. The evolutionary hypothesis only purports to explain what happened – once – entirely by chance. Evolution purports to tell what did happen, not what had to happen. According to evolution every form of life on this world is here entirely by chance. In the evolutionary world there’s no superintending intelligence that knows that the land that emerges after the flood needs to be repopulated. In the evolutionary scenario nature is completely blind and unguided. Evolution completely excludes any form of direction or purpose. So, just because – supposedly – fish became amphibians, and amphibians became reptiles, and reptiles became birds and mammals - once – there’s no reason that would have to happen again. A blind nature has no way of knowing all of its previous work has been undone and has to be redone.

RD: Bingo. The moment you introduce repetition into the equation you are into the world of design, purpose, and intention – all of which are foreign to evolutionary notions. And if you start saying things like “the laws of nature mean evolution must occur,” you are subtly injecting the notions of purpose, design, and goals into your paradigm. But evolution specifically excludes those. And even if some unthinking physical, chemical, or biological principle leans in the direction of producing ever-more-complex living creatures in 65 million years there wouldn’t be enough time to produce the biodiversity we see all around us.

VK: I suppose an evolutionist might assert that some land creatures and birds might have survived even if all the land were flooded. We acknowledge the possibility that there were large mats of floating vegetation on which some species of plants or animals might have survived.

RD: That’s not impossible but it doesn’t really solve the problem. Even large mats of floating vegetation wouldn’t have been able to sustain creatures of much size. Large animals need large amounts of food and that would have been hard to come by on even a large mat of vegetative debris. Noah could keep some species of large animals alive because he had the ability to plan for food and waste needs and God or he would have selected the best representatives of their species to reproduce. But planning and selection requires intelligence which the evolutionists claim wasn’t present. Some carrion eating birds might have survived. There would have been plenty of floating carcasses around but even then it would have taken a combination of carrion in proximity to vegetation mats where they could rest when not feeding. Most bird species would have perished and that would have been a poor start for the future replenishment of the entire earth.

VK: Well, an evolutionist might assert that Biblical creationists have the same problem. There’s not enough time since the flood ended – on a Biblical time scale about 4,500 years ago – to produce that biodiversity.

RD: Well, that would be comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. All evolution has to work with is blind chance. But Biblical creationists maintain that God designed adaptability into the DNA of the creatures He made. The evolutionary tool box has only two tools – blind chance and time. The Biblical tool box has design, purpose, and intentionally specified organization and information to guide the subsequent speciation of the animal kinds that Noah saved. In the Biblical scenario purpose and intention are evident throughout. A human mechanic who is given access to the tools and materials would produce a car a whole lot faster than randomly tumbling those tools and materials in a giant cement mixer – as if that would ever produce a working automobile. Or even giving those same tools and materials to a bird, or a cat, or a monkey.

VK: So, the point you’re making is that a purely secular science is just about foreclosed from ever admitting that there was ever a worldwide flood?

RD: Yes. A worldwide flood at any point in the last 100 million years, or billion years, that destroys land animals and birds is fatal to the idea that evolution is a mechanism that could produce life on this earth as we see it. And even leading evolutionists admit that other than divine creation there is no third alternative for explaining life on earth.

VK: In fact a famous advocate for evolution, Professor D.M.S. Watson who was one of the leading biologists and science writers of his day wrote: “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” So, when it comes to acknowledging or rejecting a worldwide flood, secular science really doesn’t have any choice as to which alternative it must support.

RD: Precisely. Yet as we have shown throughout this series scientific facts, empirical observations, are entirely consistent with the earth having been covered in water at one point in its fairly recent history and that it was covered because of a catastrophic deluge that reshaped the face of the earth and killed most of the land animal, human, and bird populations. Facts from geology, biology, genetics, and anthropology support this contention. And facts from naval architecture, animal husbandry, and space planning support the reasonability of the vessel described by the Bible to enable several human beings and a large cargo of animals to survive for a year on even rough seas.

VK: So the conclusion is that the Bible’s account is consistent with scientific observations of the earth and life on the earth. And for anyone who would like to investigate this topic more thoroughly we are including several helpful links to the podcast notes that will be available through most major podcast apps. We would also recommend visiting the website for Creation Ministries International at creation.com. Now next time you say that you would like to do a baker’s dozen of specific facts that listeners can absorb fairly readily to build their own faith in the flood record reported by the Bible. Is that correct?

RD: Yes. One of the biggest goals of Anchored by Truth and Crystal Sea Books is to help people grow in their faith and grow in their ability to share their faith. Believers in this day and age are confronted daily with challenges to their faith, the truth of the Bible, and even the existence of truth itself. There are answers to these challenges but it does require some preparation and perseverance. We know most listeners don’t have the luxury of doing a lot of research on all these topics for themselves so we endeavor to give them a head start. But it is important for everyone to build and strengthen their faith - not just for themselves but for their kids and grandkids.

VK: So, next time we are going to continue to wrap up our series on Noah by reviewing some of the specific 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 for fathers. The roles of fathers in helping their kids or grandkids to develop a sturdy and sustainable faith cannot be overstated and we should all be grateful for the fathers that we had that helped us.

---- PRAYER FOR FATHERS

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

Fascinating French fossil find - creation.com

Hell Creek Formation supports the Bible - creation.com

What caused Ice Age - creation.com

Also, consult Chapters 2 and 3 of “The Greatest Hoax in the World” by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati available from creation.com.