How would you test scientifically whether man “evolved” in part by natural macromutation or by special divine creation, when new forms appeared suddenly?

Anderson: Scientific methods are very powerful in testing specific hypotheses. But it is a mistake to think they can resolve all questions. We can determine with increasing precision the genetic similarities and differences between humans and other life forms. But I cannot even imagine any kind of test by which the similarities could be used to deny God’s role or by which differences would prove his intervention. In the final analysis, it is by faith in his revealed truth that we understand that we are God’s handiwork.

How can the Genesis account of the origin of humans and the biblical teaching about man’s creation in the image of God with an immortal soul be consistent with evolution?

Anderson: The biblical record is not consistent with the view that assumes the inevitable unplanned origin of humankind. Nor does it fit with a deistic evolution in which God formed the universe in such a manner that humans would emerge later without his providential care. The Bible teaches that God, in his wisdom and power, using means that we may never fully understand, brought humans into being as unique creatures answerable to him. The meaning of the soul, immortality, and the image of God arise from the Scriptures rather than from biology (with or without evolution).

If the first created tree had rings, why couldn’t the first created deposits of uranium include its half-life element? And would not this destroy the radiometric clock and other similar devices for dating the earth?

Anderson: One might wish that God had provided us with more detailed information than he did. The statement in Genesis that God “planted a garden” suggests that the first trees were seedlings, but even that would be speculation. It is true that God could have created radioactive elements together with a series of decay products. But then it is not clear why he should have carefully arranged these so that independent estimates using different decay series would suggest essentially the same time of origin when applied to a given rock sample.

As a Christian geologist, do you take into account the predictable effects of a worldwide flood as described in Genesis?

Young: Yes. The major effect would be widespread deposition of mud, gravel, and debris flows. Recognition of Genesis flood deposits would be extremely difficult, and much of these unconsolidated sediments would likely be eroded away by now. I therefore do not expect geologists to discover significant physical remains of the flood today. And, in fact, they have not.

I have also taken into account the effects as predicted by “flood geologists,” and find that geological evidence contradicts those effects. My conclusion: the flood was a historical event because the Bible indicates as much; “flood geology,” however, is wrong.

How do you harmonize your statement in Eternity magazine with your rejection of human evolution in this article?

Young: I appreciate the mention of my [May 1982] Eternity article. Those who read the entire article will note that the fossil remains “suggest a possible evolutionary sequence leading from an Australopithecus ancestor to man.” If the suggestion of such a sequence did not exist, scientists would not postulate evolution. However, I did not say that I accepted the evolutionary interpretation of the fossils. In fact, I rejected evolution as the origin of man.

I also noted that although I am not an ardent fan of evolution, I did not see that evolution precluded God’s creative control. That assertion, however, occurs in a context that specifically excludes man. The two articles are perfectly consistent despite slightly different emphases.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.

Our digital archives are a work in progress. Let us know if corrections need to be made.