1

. The day-age theory claims that each of the six creation days was a long age.

2

. The framework theory claims that the six creation days are a literary device—a framework in which similar creation events that happened over long ages are categorized. The creation days are not chronological. The parallel nature of the some events of Days 1 and 4, Days 2 and 5, and Days 3 and 6 supposedly show that Genesis 1 is not literal history.

3

. The revelation theory maintains that in six days, God revealed to Adam what He created over vast ages. For details see P. J. Wiseman, Creation Revealed in Six Days (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, Ltd., 1948).

4

. Progressive creation maintains that God created, but He did so over billions of years, in many short, miraculous, progressive steps.

5

. In a letter dated 23 April 1984 to David C. C. Watson, Hebrew Professor James Barr at the University of Oxford wrote:

... probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. The only thing I would say to qualify this is that most such professors may avoid much involvement in that sort of argument and so may not say much explicitly about it one way or the other.

6

. This format and some of the ideas were suggested by Richard Niessen’s article “Several Significant Discrepancies between Theistic Evolution and the Biblical Account,” in The Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 16, March 1980, pp. 220–221.

7

. If each effect had a cause that also had a cause, an infinite chain of events would stretch back in time—with no beginning. Philosophically, one must accept either (a) this infinite regression or (b) an infinite God. Scientifically, one can conclude that there was a beginning; that is, no infinite regression. [See “A Beginning” on page 30 and “Second Law of Thermodynamics” on page 30.] Biblically, one needs to read and believe only the first three words of the Bible (the title of this book)—a far simpler task.

8

. Those holding this widespread belief never explain to whom the Sun appeared. Humans, according to these theistic evolutionists, arrived several billion years later.

Claiming that the word “made” (Hebrew: asah) in Genesis 1:16 really means “made to appear” is a deceptive play on words and is not supported by the Hebrew. Every major Bible translation says the Sun, Moon, and stars were made on day four. Had “made to appear” been intended, as when “God said, ... let the dry land appear” (Gen 1:9), the Hebrew raah would presumably have been used.

9

. The Hebrew word for “waters” (mayim) in Genesis 1:2 is used 574 times in the Bible. It always means liquid water, not ice, steam, or a cloud.

10

. Some advocates of the day-age theory say that the light of Genesis 1:3 sustained plants until the Sun appeared an age later. While sunlight produces photosynthesis, light in general does not. For example, light from an ordinary light bulb will not grow plants shielded from all sunlight. Special light bulbs, designed to grow plants, must closely match the Sun’s spectrum across all colors and into the infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths. Some plants, such as tomatoes and strawberries, even have difficulty growing under such bulbs. For most plants, the light must have a day-night cycle. Some plants also need light with annual cycles to cause the plant to change from one stage of growth to another, such as budding to blooming. If the light source’s distance from the plant varies too much, the changing light intensity will harm the plant. The most obvious way for a light source to satisfy all these requirements is for it to correspond to the Sun’s location, brightness, and spectrum—in other words, for the light to come from the Sun.

To understand better the light of Genesis 1:3, see “If the Sun and Stars Were Made on Day 4, What Was the Light of Day 1?” on page 340. Theistic evolutionists do not say what the light of Genesis 1:3 was, what its characteristics were, or where it originated. Therefore, they do not know if it could have sustained all plant life and kept the earth at just the right daily and seasonal temperatures for “three ages” (hundreds of millions of years) until the Sun “took over.” Did the light of Genesis 1:3 just “switch off” when the Sun was made during “the fourth age”? Remember, to most theistic evolutionists the “six ages” lasted 4,600,000,000 years.

Even if the absence of sunlight for “an age” were not a problem for the day-age theory, the absence of animals for two “ages” is a fatal problem. Animals produce the carbon dioxide plants require, and insects are important for reproductive fertilization, especially for flowering plants. Insects, other animals, and the Sun must have existed within days or weeks of the first plants.

11

. The literal Hebrew actually says that “all the high mountains under all the heavens” were covered with water. This double use of “all” (Hebrew: kaal), while redundant in our language, emphasized the universality of the flood in Hebrew.

12

. Even if one never knew that the phrase, “[they will reproduce] after their kind,” is repeated 10 times in Genesis 1, common sense affirms it. Obviously, only chickens come out of chicken eggs, and only chickens lay chicken eggs. This raises the classic paradox: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The answer may surprise you.

Most of us have heard that baby girls are born with hundreds of eggs. (Recent research shows that mammal ovaries regulate the production of even more precursor egg cells in the mammals’ bone marrow.) So, female vertebrates—animals with backbones such as birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians—are born with many potential eggs. (Some fish may be exceptions. Researchers are working to clarify this.) Therefore, with the first chicken came the first eggs. Neither came first; both arrived together.  Paradox solved.

Only evolutionists have this paradox. It disappears when one understands life’s amazing complexity that only an infinitely powerful and intelligent Creator could produce.

13

. Joshua Fischman, “Putting a New Spin on the Birth of Human Birth,” Science, Vol. 264, 20 May 1994, pp. 1082–1083.

14

. Was it improper for brothers and sisters to marry? In many countries today, close intermarriages are discouraged or prohibited by law, because they often produce genetic defects in children. For example, children have a 4.4% greater chance of dying before age ten if their parents are first cousins. This includes late miscarriages, six months or more after conception. [See Kevin Davies, “Cost of Consanguinity,” Nature, Vol. 371, 13 October 1994, p. 630.]

Damaged genes, which are usually caused by radiation and other adverse environmental factors, have steadily accumulated in humans since the time of Adam and Eve. Most defective genes are not immediately harmful, because each person usually has a good corresponding gene from the other parent. However, if the parents are closely related, both have a much greater chance of having inherited the same damaged gene from their common ancestor. If their child then receives this defective gene from both parents, abnormalities usually result.

Because damaged genes accumulate with time, Adam and Eve’s children and grandchildren probably had few genetic defects. (Genesis 1:31) Therefore, close intermarriages would not have had the medical consequences they have today. The biblical prohibition forbidding incest was introduced when Moses was inspired to write Leviticus 18:6–18.

15

. Many atheists—better than most theists—understand just how important this is.  G. Richard Bozarth, writing in The American Atheist, stated:

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god [sic]. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing! G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” The American Atheist, Vol. 20, February 1978, p. 30.

16

. For a fuller discussion of this profound subject, see Arthur C. Custance, Two Men Called Adam (Brockville, Ontario: Doorway Publications, 1983). At one point (p. 250), Custance summarized the issue as follows:

The bond between ... [Adam and Christ] is entirely predicated on a miraculous origin in both cases: the creation of the first man Adam, which was clearly a supernatural event; and the virgin conception of the Last Adam, which was also clearly a supernatural event.
     A body of animal origin acquired by evolutionary processes is an entirely different thing from a body of divine origin acquired by direct creation. As to the former, it is clear that such a body must by nature be subject to death, the ancestral line being through some primate channel where death is natural. As to the latter, such a body becomes subject to death not by nature but only as a penalty.
     The whole Plan of Redemption hinges upon this difference because the Last Adam cannot by nature be subject to death and still make a truly vicarious sacrifice of Himself. He would merely be paying a debt to nature before the expected time.

17

. This is the basic tenet of secular humanism—a belief system that generally dominates our media and tax-supported schools. Most subscribers to this atheistic philosophy are unaware of its evolutionary roots, its definition, or its implications. The U.S. Supreme Court declared that secular humanism is a religion. (Tercaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 1961, note 11.)

18

. Malcolm Bowden, The Rise of the Evolution Fraud (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1982), p. 167.