Speaking of Jurassic Ark

God understands our limitations as we seek to know his ways.

“I may not be mainstream, but I’m still in the water.” That’s how I responded to a fellow Christian school science teacher who suggested that my belief in a recent creation (and a worldwide Flood) did not fit with “current science.” I was simply saying that a Christian can read Genesis literally and still be consistent with the observable and verifiable science of today.

Because about half of all evangelical Christians share a literal view about origins, this issue cannot be ignored or dismissed in the Christian Reformed Church or elsewhere.

Some call this issue divisive, but it can be divisive only if we fail to respect the sincerity and credibility of fellow Christians with opposing views. Since we’re in the same theological boat together, let’s promote smoother sailing by examining how we arrive at our views and the implications they produce.

Like many people in the CRC, I graduated from a Christian college. There I adopted an admired professor’s belief that God used evolutionary methods over millions of years to create. Who was I to question his training and wisdom? Later, however, I read the book The Genesis Flood by Dr. Henry Morris. For over 50 years it has been the standard-bearer for Young Earth Creationism (YEC). A 6,000-year-old earth and a literal reading of Genesis 1-11 are its trademarks.

The book provided not only scientific support for a worldwide Flood but also evidences for why the earth may look old but isn’t. Questions about rock and fossil “dating,” dinosaurs, and the historical Adam’s real first sin were also resolved. Evolutionary changes, whether theistic or not, were refuted.

Through continued studies, my confidence in the harmony between the Bible and natural revelation has been growing stronger every year. Conversely, many Christian Old Earth Creationists (OECs), who maintain that “God created using evolution” have come to different conclusions using their own research. We all agree about the “who and why” but not about “how and when” God demonstrated his greatness.

I will say that my position did not come easily. The secular world pretty much thinks it’s strange or naive, as they say, to ignore all the “evidence” of evolutionary processes. Most of that very same evidence, however, can be interpreted differently to support YEC, so I don’t mind the scorn.

What was harder to deal with was that I often heard Christian speakers promote Old Earth Creationism and at times undermine YEC. I also discovered a very limited understanding of Young Earth Creationism in Christian college graduates as well as in denominational and educational leaders, all after much personal and written communication with them. Yet, as Banner letters often illustrate, support for YEC in the general population and the denomination remains very strong. I enjoy having good company in my belief, butit’s undeniable that both “sides” in the church have many supporters.

For certain we should not allow disagreement to lead to division, because that is exactly what the Great Deceiver has in mind.

Starting with the Bible as our ultimate authority, it’s far better to become well informed about both views of creation, to make up our minds, and each be prepared to stand before God with our positions. In heaven some of us might even offer a sanctified “I told you so” with others and laugh about our former differences. I look forward to that time when God will finally give us all the details. For now, it’s imperative that we make and live with our decisions about creation and how they relate to the rest of our biblical perspective.

Genesis is foundational to the whole Bible, so it needs to be examined seriously. God knows our hearts and intentions, and he understands our limitationsas we seek to know his ways.

A key factor in the controversy is how much authority God’s special revelation, his Word, has in relation to his general revelation, his creation. I’d like to share a few of my beliefs about this issue, as others have done in similar articles promoting OEC. Readers can evaluate my comments in light of their own beliefs and Scripture. May God be honored by our interest and efforts and be pleased by our patience with each other as we discuss.

  • Since Peter (2 Pet. 3:6), Paul (Rom. 5:12-19), and Jesus himself(Mark 10:6)spoke of Genesis as literal, so will I.
  • The Bible says that death came “through sin” (Rom. 5:12). It does not describe millions of years of evolutionary change before Adam. If death preceded sin, Jesus’ death was unnecessary, and, as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:2, we “have believed in vain.”
  • “Current science” by definition changes while God's Word “endures forever” (Isa. 40:8). I will not elevate human constructs to the same level as God’s inspired Word nor use them to determine its ultimate meaning.
  • Current science can be conclusive about things that are observable and measurable, but not about creation events that had only one eyewitness—God himself. I will not ascribe authority to science beyond the limits that it has.
  • We can never use imperfect science to prove the Bible, but only to support it. God’s perfect Word can stand on its own authority (Prov. 30:5).
  • God said that he created birds before land animals (Gen. 1:20, 24). All brands of evolution reverse that order. Other conflicts between God's creation order and evolution abound. The “how” of God’s spoken order trumps any others for me.
  • Fossils need quick burial and pressure (but not time) to form, which the Flood provided. Normal exposure after death would destroy bodies before presumed eons of fossilization time. I'll believe Genesis 7.
  • To me, rock layers, folds, and geologic processes more than testify to a recent creation and a global Flood. Speculative dating methods can never prove a millions-of-years old earth.
  • Contrary to what many believe, observable science in recent years has produced growing and overwhelming support for the literal Genesis account. That should surprise no one who believes that special and natural revelation have the same Author who never contradicts himself.

I believe it’s only a matter of time before the terminally ill concept of evolution will meet its demise. Some of its supporters are abandoning it, and I’m glad that I no longer embrace it, theistic or otherwise. I’m confident that my YEC belief is more consistent with the Bible and true science, and I invite others unfamiliar with it to check it out. (The websites AnswersinGenesis.org and CreationMoments.com are great references.)

Wow! That's more than enough to fill a coffee hour of discussion for those who are interested. My list is not intended to create more controversy but rather to promote contemplation about God’s wonderful creation account and its impact.

If that thinking keeps me from being “mainstream” in the secular or Christian world, it doesn’t really matter. We are all called in Romans 12:2 to be “transformed” in all our thoughts according to God’s words and deeds rather than conformed to anything “current.” That starts with Genesis 1:1.

And it’s not just because I think so. It’s because God said so.

Related:

The Christian Reformed Church’s position statement on creation and science.

 

Web Questions

  1. The author argues in favor of “young earth creationism.” How would you define that term?
  2. A key factor in the controversy about origins, says DuMez, is how much authority God’s special revelation, his Word, has in relation to his general revelation, his creation. Do you believe one carries more weight than the other? Why or why not?
  3. How does the author reconcile the story of creation in Genesis with scientific discoveries suggesting a much older earth?
  4. “I believe it’s only a matter of time before the terminally ill concept of evolution will meet its demise,” writes DuMez. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
  5. DuMez acknowledges that both “sides” of the debate on origins in the church have many supporters. Is this issue of pivotal importance to our faith? Why or why not?

About the Author

Michael DuMez is a retired Christian school science teacher and a member of First Christian Reformed Church, Oostburg, Wisc.

See comments (18)

Comments

1.   much younger than old

2.   Both scripture and creation have God's word, and authority, but nature says the resurrection does not happen, while scripture says it does, and will. 

3.   scientific discoveries might be misinterpreted.  We see the same things, differently. 

4.   Scientific investigation is discovering more and more problems and difficulties with undirected, onwards and upwards evolution from "goo to you".  Even for evolution which would be intelligently directed, there is not much evidence.   How do you distinguish "directed evolution" from creation by fiat? 

5.  The issue seems to be pivotal if it leads to God sending his son to earth to die for God's sins, rather than for man's sins.  Evolution seems to be following the age old anti-Christian theory that God is the creator and cause of sin.  Wouldn't this be pivotal? 

I meant also to add a thanks to Michael duMez  for writing this article so clearly and generously. 

Thank you Michael Dumez for your wonderful article.

It is rare to find someone in my former denomination that has even the remotest interest or openness to discuss the issues of origins from scientists and theologians who have discovered evidence of a far younger universe and more literal biblical interpretation (i.e. catastrophism). As one who has suffered no small amount of scorn from former pastors and Christian school teachers I find it refreshing to hear your loving challenge crying out in the wilderness. I think that many churchgoers today are shifting away from our first mandate of proclaiming the 'impossible' glory and salvation of our impossiblely awesome God, to the infintesiminally tiny reason of secular theorists.

Briefly answering the questions above:

1. I believe that our universe is no older than 10,000 years though I'm open to discussion.

2. General revelation certainly indicates to us a great big, powerful God but Nature (elements, claw and teeth surival) certainly does not indicate that He is very personable or especially loving. Special revelation (His love and truth letter) only does that.

3. Mankind's models and gizmos for measuring historical, untraceable (like the weather) always assumes patterns, uniform and immovable biases. Everyday observable and repeatable laws can be depended on. The deep past and far future ought to be wide open for debate, but are not!

4. De- Evolution Is observed, not Evolution. Genetic Modifications and variations 'within a kind' (natural selection) is observed and can be manipulated for specific ends, but it never adds more robust complexity. (A wolf and lion are a much more vigorous ancestor than a French Poodle or a domestic house cat)

5. Genesis is not mere allegory. It is essential to understand that a literal Christ died for the literal rebellion of our literal parents in the literal garden of Eden. Sin, thorns and devastation was brought on by the Fall. Redemption comes from the new Adam, Christ. Most people have turned away from the faith because of this issue. "When Adam and Eve fell, they did not merely slip and fall...they brought down the order of entire universe".

 

I applaud this author and his article, and the Banner's printing of it, even though I am personally not in the "young earth creationist" camp.  This topic is complex.  And I would have to be much more engaged in the topic as a occupational matter to be more "entrenched" in my personal position.  What perhaps I regard as the more important points in the arguments are these:

   - there are a great number of nuances in multiple positions (not two but probably at least five or more) about creation (and how to understand Genesis);
   - Christians should be very slow to condemn others on account of their position about creation (and how to understand Genesis), especially in the Reformed tradition because of our recognition and high respect for God's revelation of himself in both scripture and his creation;
   - it is good for Christians -- Reformed or otherwise -- to continue to investigate, theorize, and share their thoughts and conclusion about creation (and how to understand Genesis);
   - positions on the question are best held with at least some degree of tentativeness -- for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the article Michael Dumez.

For those who wonder what science actually says about evolutionary theory, you may want to check out Creation Ministries International at   "creation.com".  Numerous video clips and articles concentrate on the scientific problems inherent in evolutionary theory.  For a slightly lighter approach, but still dealing with the science, Ian Juby's Genesis Week videos also concentrate on the scientific problems with evolution.  Teen age kids enjoy his personable approach to this topic.  His weekly presentation airs first on TV, but his shows and rants are also available on the web. 

A book called "Evolutions Achilles Heels", written by nine PhD scientists in biology, physical chemistry, and paleontology, describes the problems with evolution in detail. 

I enjoy both Dr. Morris from ICR as well as Ken Hahm with

Answers in Genesis. 

And one other book which I failed to mention is called:  "In the Beginning"  8th edition, by Walt Brown, Ph.D.  This is a 432 page book with illustrations, and a great deal of science in it.  He presents compelling evidence for Creation and the Flood.  He deals with life science, physical science, and earth science, and presents an interesting theory for the geophysics of the world-wide flood.  

Thank you Michael for writing this article and thank you to the banner for printing it. Being a YEC in the CRC can be lonely so I am encouraged to read your article.  

While I apprecaite the attempt at a young earth creation, it can not exist with current science. If we are to go with this kind of arguement, then what science is accurate? The best of science will alway be challenged by the margins, but the margins do not need to be the Christian church. We appear to be fools in the mist of a world the believes the sciences are critical to our understanding of existance within the universe.

Furthermore, the God of all creation sytematiclly created this amazing existance. Math and science help explain how things are held together. Either God is trying to make fools of us or we follow his lead.

So long as this discussion is of importance to members of the CRC, the denomination loses its thougtful positions. There are plenty of neo-Calvinist denomiantions longing for support of these people. Becoming a nominal voice among many voices is not where acadamia nor people of persuasion leaning into the kingdom of God wants to find themselves. Our younger generations will simply roll their eyes and immediately consider these kind of voices of no value as well as connect these voices to the institutions to which they belong.  

After five decades of this particular discussion within the denomination, it is time to lay this one to rest. It has no place within a denomiantion that needs to heal from past fights. Picking scabs can be an endless battle for those addicted to it, but it never heals the body. 

It is ironic that evolution uses a scriptural principle for its foundation.  Scripture teaches that all humanity came from one man and woman.  Evolution extends that to say that all humanity and all animals and all biota and all plants came from one tiny amino acid, which came from non-life.  It is ironic that a scriptural principle initiates the evolutionary principle (although incorrectly, because it neglects other parts of scripture).  It is interesting how many laws of the universe were discovered by christian men who were scientists under the premise that the world and universe was created with order and organization, rather than randomly and disordered. 

Current science is very broad, and most of it, about 99% of it, makes sense, is logical, is testable, repeatable, falsifiable and is reasonably accurate.   About 1% of it is not real science, but mere speculation.  This applies to evolutionary theory, which has insufficient evidence, is countered by genetic science, and is based primarily on faith and on geo-paleontology, which has made more errors, and has been subject to more fraud than the ancient alchemies and travelling miracle remedies. 

Evolutionary faith has also led to erroneous conclusions and speculations about vestigial organs and tissues in several species.  It has led to erroneous conclusions about "junk DNA", only because of its assumptions.  It has erroneously called natural selection and mutations evolution in action, when natural selection is designed as a creation correction to mutational errors, and mutations never seem to lead to additional genetic information, and almost always to deleterious effects. 

In other words, even while there appears to be some validity to some measures of age, and particularly starlight measurements, there does not appear to be any validity to the speculation of macro evolution, microbes to microbiologists.  Even with the science of measuring deep time on earth, there are conflicts between methods, and some serious conflicts with common sense methods of estimating ages of fossils, when polystrate fossils are considered, and when dinosaur hemoglobin and blood cells have been discovered. 

Evolutionary science is poor science.   It is like a researcher theorizing that the average yield of a crop is 200 bushels per acre, and then discarding whatever data does not give him that information.  

In all/most  cases where scripture was thought to be inaccurate historically, it eventually was found to be more accurate than most other historical documents, even though it is not strictly speaking a history book.  Evolution is about history, and not about scientific laws and principles.  I have a feeling it will continue to be found wanting as scientists continue to find more and more problems with it. 

The public school system has indoctrinated our students with this theory so it is inconceivable for many that this theory doesn't hold water.  They believe it religiously.  Jonathan Sarfati has eloquently dissected a teachers manual for teaching evolution in the public schools, and shown the poverty of science in dealing with evolution, in his book, "Refuting Evolution". 

The only benefit to this inadequate theory is that it causes more people to examine actual science, its laws and evidence.   Without this discussion, I probably would not know about polystrate fossils, or stretchable dino tissue, or fossilized (soft-body) jellyfish, or residual argon in new volcanic rock, or the difference between a human skull and an ape skull, or the Joggins cliffs, or the rapid erosion of the Grand Canyon, or the Laetoli footprints, or the 70km/sec per Mpc,  the complexity of the ATP motor and the bacterial flagellum, and many other factoids.  I don't know if it is sad that it often takes controversy to stimulate our interest and learning, but there it is. 

 

Just finished watching the movie "God Is Not Dead".   It is interesting how much of modern philosophy and psychology has place God into a place of irrelevance, just as evolutionary beliefs have done.  Yet, in the end, God is not dead, and will have His say in our lives, whether we acknowledge it or not.  Philosophy and science and psychology done from a godless perspective, will usually be found inadequate and inerror.  It was a great movie! 

Michael,

I sincerely enjoyed your article and I also believe there is room for different opinion.  As Reformed Christians we should be well informed with both views of creation. In this sense, I would like to continue the discussion of the points listed in your article.  In no way am I trying to refute your points, I’m only showing that for each point there can be different views by committed Christians.

I absolutely agree with your statement, “May God be honored by our interest and efforts and be pleased by our patience with each other as we discuss” these points. Amen!  Your original points will be in black font and my replies will be in blue font.


·      Since Peter (2 Pet. 3:6), Paul (Rom. 5:12-19), and Jesus himself (Mark 10:6) spoke of Genesis as literal, so will I.

These passages all refer to Biblical events like the flood, how sin came into the world, and that God created humans as both male and female.  I believe exactly what these verses say.  The problems begin when people force these verses to say things they don’t say or are too literal in the interpretation.

 

At the end of my replies, I will give an example where the meaning of a Bible verse is absolutely understood but its literal interpretation is not scientifically correct.

·        The Bible says that death came “through sin” (Rom. 5:12). It does not describe millions of years of evolutionary change before Adam. If death preceded sin, Jesus’ death was unnecessary, and, as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:2, we “have believed in vain.”

The context of both of these passages speak about the sin and death of mankind but there are many things that die. Plants die, animals die, dinosaurs die, even planets and stars die.  But plants, animals, dinosaurs, planets and stars do not sin nor do they take part in the resurrection.

Belgic Confession Article 15 says, “We believe that by the disobedience of Adam, that original sin spread through the whole human race.”

Romans 5:12  says, “just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned”.  

This article and verse directly state that through Adam ‘death through sin spread to all men’.

Concerning the death of Jesus, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.”

Again, this verse indicates that by Adam humans died and by Christ humans are resurrected.  We do not apply Christ’s atoning death and resurrection to plants, animals, dinosaurs, planets or stars. I believe that we had millions of years of plants, animals and planets dying before sin entered the world.

“Current science” by definition changes while God's Word “endures forever” (Isa. 40:8). I will not elevate human constructs to the same level as God’s inspired Word nor use them to determine its ultimate meaning.

Science must change since the scientific method itself is an instrument of change. However, the translation of the Bible and the interpretation of the Bible are ‘human constructs’. God’s inspired Word does indeed ‘endure forever’ but Christians have certainly have interpreted its passages differently throughout history.

·        Current science can be conclusive about things that are observable and measurable, but not about creation events that had only one eyewitness—God himself. I will not ascribe authority to science beyond the limits that it has.

Science is indeed limited to observing and understanding nature, not God. The systematic study of God is theology. God used both natural and super-natural events to create the universe.  Science limits itself to only explaining the natural events and tries not to get too involved explaining the super-natural ones.

·        We can never use imperfect science to prove the Bible, but only to support it. God’s perfect Word can stand on its own authority (Prov. 30:5).

Science has never corrected the Bible but it has often corrected a misinterpretation of the Bible. When Galileo proved that the solar system was heliocentric and not geocentric he didn’t correct the Bible he corrected a misunderstanding of the Bible.

·        God said that he created birds before land animals (Gen. 1:20, 24). All brands of evolution reverse that order. Other conflicts between God's creation order and evolution abound. The “how” of God’s spoken order trumps any others for me.

On July 24, 2014 the journal Science reported, “This finding also suggests that most dinosaurs had feathers, which they used for insulation or attracting mates, only later relying on the fringes for flight, according to a study detailed today”. 

I have no problem with the God’s creation order that birdlike creatures preceded creeping things, wild animals and then livestock as mentioned in verse 24.

·        Fossils need quick burial and pressure (but not time) to form, which the Flood provided. Normal exposure after death would destroy bodies before presumed eons of fossilization time. I'll believe Genesis 7.

I also believe in Genesis 7 and 8 and I also believe there are different ways to interpret it.

The King James version of the Bible, Genesis 8:9  says, “But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

The New International version of the Bible, Genesis 8:9, says "But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark."

Some people interpret the King James version that a flying dove is proof point that the whole earth was cover with water. I think that it’s unreasonable to postulate that a dove flying over the whole earth can be used as proof of a global flood.  I prefer the interpretation offered by the second translation where the Dove flew as far as it could and the surface of the earth was covered with water. 

·        To me, rock layers, folds, and geologic processes more than testify to a recent creation and a global Flood. Speculative dating methods can never prove a millions-of-years old earth.


 

·        Ken Van Dellen has done an excellent job on the replies to the Banner explaining the geology side of the old earth view. He listed several of dating methods that all cross correlate well. The word ‘speculation’ implies some type of abstract reasoning that is more theoretical than practical.  I can guarantee that geophysics, oil exploration and astronomy are all very practical and all point to a ‘billions-of-years’ old earth.


·       Contrary to what many believe, observable science in recent years has produced growing and overwhelming support for the literal Genesis account. That should surprise no one who believes that special and natural revelation have the same Author who never contradicts himself.

I also believe that special revelation and natural revelation have the same Author who never contradicts himself.  But a ‘literal’ translation of the Bible is not always scientifically correct.  Here's a good example.

Isaiah 45:6 says “that people may know, from the rising of the sun in the east and to the setting of the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Clearly this verse is effective and authentic in both its teaching and its doctrine. It says that people from the east to the west may know that God is the LORD and there is no other god. It’s a wonderful statement that I sincerely believe. However, it is not scientifically correct. The sun is actually stationary, it’s the rotation of the Earth that makes the sun appear to move.  People don’t like to think that they are moving when they are standing firmly on the ground.

There are many times when we can interpret a Bible verse or read an article of a confession and absolutely understand its meaning because of context. However, these verses and articles may not be scientifically accurate in the absolute sense because their true purpose was to train people in doctrine and not to train people in science.

 

 

Concerning, question 4,

I went through exactly one week’s worth of the San Jose Mercury News paper. I found at least 14 times that the word 'evolution' was mentioned in multiple branches of Science.  Some of these times, the word 'mutation' could of have used instead of evolution.  

 

For example, here is an exact quote,"The monitoring of the evolving nature of viruses is key to being able to track the changes that could affect the disease manifestation," said famed epidemiologist Dr. Don Francis of Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases.

 

I have a teleconference scheduled for tomorrow with Dr. Francis on the evolution of the Ebola virus in terms of faster detection, a time frame for a vaccination and an eventual cure. I will be sure ask the famous Dr. Fancis if the ‘concept of evolution is terminally ill’.

John, concerning question 5:

 God did send his son to earth to die for man's sins. Both scripture and the Belgic confession are very clear on this.  It is by Adam’s sin that the death of men came into the world and it’s by Christ's atoning death and resurrection that God has redeemed his image bearers.

Please note that plants, animals, dinosaurs and even planets and stars all die.  But they do not sin and they do not participate in the resurrection. Only the human race does that.

 

God did not send his son into the world to die for God’s sins. He sent his Son into the world to die for our sins (you, me and the rest of mankind).  Jesus Christ did not die to save plants, animals, planets and stars from death.  

Concerning Question 2,

The New International version of the Bible John 3;16 says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

We don’t believe that God sent his son into our world to die for plants, animals, planets or stars.  God said, “Let us make mankind in our own image”. No plant, animal or celestial body can claim this.   

Since God’s special revelation contains His plan of redemption for mankind and His general revelation is about nature and the universe, we should be more careful with God’s special revelation.  Science is often wrong about the laws of nature and the universe.  As we have already mentioned, science must continually change because the Scientific Method encourages and rewards change.

 

In contrast, God had a plan for mankind before there was time and before there was a universe. His plan has not changed, but our understanding of His plan does change. The Reformation proved that.

Jake, I appreciate your detailed response to Michael, and at the risk of pre-empting what he will respond, I only want to respond to your last statement, the example of sun rising and setting.   I suggest that this is an invalid comparison, an improper example.  Evolutionists as well as philosophers and scientists of all kinds still refer to the rising and the setting of the sun, as does the meteorological stations around the globe.  Because a different reference point is used, regardless of what scripture says, we use rising and setting of the sun in common parlance.  Thus scripture used it as a common understanding and perception.  This is not true of evolution.  Evolutionists and scientists do not commonly use the phrase we were created from dust, but rather they refer to descending from apelike beings.  This is a much different concept, not changed by context, but changed by belief. 

The rising and setting of the sun does not inform theology in any way that I can see.  It was only a way of describing the fact that the rising and setting, the east and west, was beyond our vision, like counting the sands on the shore or the stars in the sky. 

The theological implications of God creating man from animals is much different.  But more than that, the general evolutionary theory does not include God in the equation, and so it says that man came from animals accidentally.  This has huge theological implications. 

You argue that man's sin only brought man's death into the picture, not the death of plants and animals.  That God only came to redeem man, not animals and plants.  This has some semblance of possibility.  But if man descended from animals, then by evolutionary theory it was gradual and slow, not sudden and abrupt. If slow and gradual, then there would have been death and murder before Adam.   If there is to be a significant distinction between man and animals, then God would have had to intervene, and this is a distinction that evolutionary theory will not allow.   You would have to argue that there were beings that looked and acted and talked like humans, but were not really human.   Is that what you want to do?  Or do you have another alternative?

I quoted:

1 Corinthians 15:39King James Version (KJV)

39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

mentioning that this clearly states that there isn't any evolutionary link between any of these groups.

I know that Almighty God created me as a descendent of Adam, who was made directly by Almighty God, from dust, just as the Word of God (Genesis) says.

Most Christians also believe this.  However there are some who try to claim that we should be listening to what 'Science' says which claims that man evolved, from apemen/ape like creatures.  This contradicts the Word of God and they should not claim to speak for me (and others who place the Word of God) above evolutionary 'science'. If they choose to believe that they evolved from apemen/ape like creatures then they can't claim to be speaking about me and others who also don't believe in evolution.  Therefore they can only speak for themselves.  

If some can't handle this truth and choose to take this personally then what can one say


I thought I would reply to some of Jake's earlier comments from Nov 5.    He has said that God came to die for people, and not for animals.  To an extent I agree with him, but it is also clear that the bible says that the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and the lion shall eat straw like an ox. (Isaiah 11)  This promises that Christ will have an effect on all creation, not just on people. 

Jake has said that science corrects itself, while for scripture, only the interpretation of it needs correction.  To some extent I agree, but it is important to note the difference in the corrections.  The scale of the corrections are quite different.  In science, a fossil tooth was claimed to be human or hominid, while in fact it was a pig's tooth.  This is quite different from saying that the sun rising in the east must mean the sun circles the earth.  We still see the sun rising, because nature can deceive us, or because that's what it looks like to us, and always will look like, even if it is the globe that is turning.  Another evolutionary error is to think that there are vestigial organs, when there are not, or to think that there is junk DNA when there is not.  This is not a matter of nature fooling us, but is rather a mistake of principle, an assumption based on an incorrect philosophy.  We need to realize that the evolutionary theory actually causes errors in science.   It causes people to look at nature incorrectly, and causes them to draw wrong conclusions about the data.   In some cases it even causes incorrect "data".   I think that is quite different from the misinterpretations of scripture.  Scripture does not cause the errors in interpretation, but rather one part of scripture helps us to understand another part.  

X