• Genesis Confirmed, Yet Denied

    December 17, 2018 4 min read

    Science Shepherd Homeschool Curriculum blue dna pattern

    A Common Ancestor

    I don't know what to make of this. There is so much fodder in this article*, I think I will use it for many different posts. In a short review, this article confirms both the Adam and Eve human origins and Noah's Flood as described in Genesis, so I guess that is what I want to focus on in this post.

    The article describes the "astonishing" discovery that scientists made that "all humans alive today are the offspring of a common father and mother..." and "(m)oreover, the same is true of nine out of every ten animal species, meaning that nearly all of Earth's creatures living today sprang into being recently from some seminal, Big Bang-like event." It isn't "astonishing" because if one understood science correctly, you'd know what to look for, but I digress. Obviously, what is being described is a combination of creation and then the aftermath of the Flood and isn't it great that scientists finally proved that . . . except, they didn't, we are told. We are, of course, instructed further down in the article that "(m)any religious commentators misunderstand this study to mean that species abruptly came into being only recently. To be clear: according to evolutionary biologists, species developed gradually over many millions of years." Wow, there is so much to feast on in that statement. I could just end it with, "According to God, he created the universe and everything in it 6,000 years ago" and be done since he is a little more reliable than "evolutionary biologists," but since science was invented by God, scientific observations fully support His Creation (the conclusions don't, but the facts do) and so we'll take a look at that a little more.

    "all humans alive today are the offspring of a common father and mother..."

    However, the first thing to mention is that I am not a "religious commentator." As a physician, I am trained to be a scientist who studies the empiric evidence and then makes logical decisions based upon that, decisions which are life and death sometimes. I also did bench research for a year before medical school and while in medical school. I am a scientist. I am not a religious commentator, and I fully comprehend what the data in this study has to say (and, yes, I have read the scientific articles they published on the topic, one in 2016 and another in 2018). Their findings are important for two reasons: 1) they fully support what the Bible says/are consistent with the Creation origins model; and, 2) they completely go against a basic tenet of the evolution model. The first reason is obvious (I do not believe that the time frame of 100,000 to 200,000 years ago the authors cited as to when the event occurred is accurate, though).

    The second reason is perhaps more important for "non-religious commentators" to consider because any time that you make a scientific observation that runs counter to a core belief of the model, the model should be seriously re-evaluated. But, in the case of evolution, it never is. The reason it should be is specifically stated in that condescending pat-on-the-head statement to "religious commentators" - "...species gradually developed over many millions of years." Oh, really? I guess that is true, except when it isn't. We are simultaneously told in this story that human beings and 90% of animals arose from common ancestors not long ago (evolution-speak) in a Big Bang-like event AND that species arose gradually over millions of years (actually, it is hundreds of millions). That is the definition of scientific hypocrisy, yet no one seriously considers that, and any that do are branded as "religious commentators."

    . . . it is none-the-less reassuring to see that scientific facts once again support the Biblical Creation model.

    Scientific observations are continually made that reinforce that this whole evolution story is completely unnecessary to explain biodiversity and are entirely consistent with the Creation model as based upon the Bible being the accurate, true Word of God. Am I saying that their estimates of 100,000 to 200,000 into the past of when everything arose is correct? No. Even the study authors' own prediction contains a 100% error rate, which means it is a guess. I don't need to guess. I know how long ago human beings shared a common ancestor - about 6,000 years, because the Bible says so. I also know how long ago all non-humans shared a common ancestor - about 4,000 years ago, because the Bible tells me that, too, in the Noahic Flood narrative. Even though the time frame of the "common ancestors" is off in this study, it is none-the-less reassuring to see that scientific facts once again support the Biblical Creation model.

    Philosophy & History of Origins

    The Philosophy & History of Origins book coverOur latest book, The Philosophy & History of Origins: A Practical Look at the Scientific Merits of the Creation and Evolution Models offers a closer examination of the origin of life models. Check it out today on eBook! Print coming soon.

    Until Next Time!
    Science Shepherd

    *The original FoxNews article contains a dead link to the study containing an "astonishing discovery." The study can be found here.