A personal journey into the world of Science and Human History

Category: Creation Science

Eric Metaxas and the Unprovable Theory

Even the most ardent evolutionary biologist would probably admit that finding that one moment in time where life suddenly happened from non-life is almost impossible. I know a few atheist apologists out there who might be willing to weigh in on the issue in the comments, and if they do, I’ll try to keep up.

I’ve used the argument before that we cannot know when the first cell developed. I’ve also asked the question, “where did the material come from for the Big Bang? Apparently, the answer to that one is that it came from a previously existing universe. Honestly, I can see how that might have happened. Of course, it doesn’t explain where the material from THAT universe came from, but this becomes a pretty circular argument and doesn’t prove creation any more than saying “God did it” and not having a better answer proves evolution.

Eric Metaxas, a writer I trust and enjoy (especially his biography of Bonhoeffer), wrote a piece on Break Point about how evolution is now even more difficult to prove since a discovery in Australia has shed some light on the earliest signs of life. In essence, the article suggests that life started further back than evolutionists currently claim. In Metaxas’ mind, this signifies a problem for evolutionists because it forces them to do two things.

  1. It throws off their numbers, beginning with when things first came to life. If it happened a few hundred million years before they originally thought, then they have to redo all of the other numbers too, and that presents problems.
  2. According to Metaxas, life started too early in the evolutionary timeline to allow for evolution. At the time of these living rocks, Earth was still too hot to really hold life. How could evolution have really happened?

So a few issues. First, evolutionists will quickly point out that life has been created in a lab. I disagree slightly with the idea that this equals life, since it was really a modification of an already existing bacteria. Still, it is life, as it were. Metaxas makes the argument that life cannot be created. That’s a side project in his article, and honestly I wish it wasn’t even there. It’s not relevant to his actual point.

Second, disproving evolution doesn’t prove God. This is something Christians have to stop doing. I’ll give you the atheist answer: We understand that this evidence disproves what we believed was true about life’s timeline. We’ll go back to the drawing board on that note and figure it out. You see, an evolutionist never stops trying to figure out the science of the issue.

Third, proving that life started earlier than scientists first imagined doesn’t prove creation because IT’S STILL HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO! By making his claim against evolution, that it started so much earlier than scientists first thought and that therefore evolution can’t be correct, Metaxas is saying that God created these living organisms millions of years before Christians accept his creation. It’s a horrible circular argument and a byproduct of trying to find the smoking gun against evolution.

Too many Christians think they can find evolution’s achilles heel. There isn’t one. Each obstacle in science merely produces a new direction for research.

Look, it’s hopefully become very clear over the last few months that I’ve tipped my hat toward creation. I am a Christian and I believe God created the world. I believe scientific thought can show us how that happened, not that I need to have it proven by science. Still, it’s so vitally important that we not shut the door to those doing this research for us because we need their research to understand God more. We’ve got to stop thinking that we have the smoking gun, especially when all we end up doing is alienating ourselves.


Should a Christian Study Evolution?

I hesitate to even write this post. What if I sound fake? What if I sound like I’m throwing my conservative upbringing aside? What if I’m labeled a heretic and never get to minister in theologically conservative churches again?

Yes, Christians should study evolution. Here’s why: Your kids are in school! My son is in advanced biology. He brought home an assignment a few days ago that detailed a certain aspect of evolution. I talked with him about it, and it became clear that, while he rejected the notion because of what he was taught in church, he was still being fed evolution in the classroom. Our kids may not be able to differentiate the issue enough to know that they actually are the same. Instead of realizing that teachers are trying to tell him his God didn’t create the world, he’s compartmentalizing school and church.

And I don’t know that our church is teaching him this either. Not that it’s really my church’s purpose. I am his father. It is my job. Time to get busy. What I learn over time I will be teaching you.

As an involved father, at least as involved as I can be my navy career notwithstanding, I need to be a part of my children’s learning process. I can’t just say, “Well, it’s not true,” when they bring home an assignment. Why? Because their grade depends on them writing papers and doing projects that support evolutionary theory! So what do I do? I study the issues so I can arm my kids with facts.

Here are a few other reasons we should study evolution:

  1.  Some of it is probably true: I’ll be writing a post in the next few weeks about dating methods
  2. Evolutionary theory can show us how God created the world.
  3. Most importantly, studying evolution and realizing points 1 and 2 can help the conservative church restore humanity to God.

I don’t often agree with the strategy flavor of the week. I don’t think that churches should be marketing themselves (more than simply making themselves known in the community), I don’t think things are really “purpose” driven, or driven in any other way (Gospel, Community, whatever). I think churches should be places where the sick are cared for, the poor are elevated, where women and children are equals, and things like this.

However, after reading some of the book The Next Christians, by Gabe Lyons, I realized an unsettling truth…I’ve spent a lot of my life trying to be separate from the world, and from less-conservative (theologically) churches. Lyons calls it restoring the world to a relationship with God, and that’s true. If our faith story starts in a perfect garden, but science doesn’t teach that, then we have an issue. My work on this project seeks to find the truth so we can restore the unbelieving world to a relationship with God.

So we study.

What’s faith got to do with Science?

In my estimation, the average atheist scientist has as much or more faith than the average Christian. 

I’ve been studying the ideas of evolution and creation for almost a year now. My reason for examining science has been many fold, and will be covered in a different post. I’ve researched cystic fibrosis, which is something near and dear to me as it runs in my family. From there I started studying human origins. To that end, I’ve written about Neanderthals and I’ve got a post in the works on Lucy, thought to be one of the first human ancestors.

In doing this research, with what I believe are now proper motivations, I’ve started feeling pretty good about myself. After all, I want to find out how God did it. How did he design the whole thing? Did he use a long time? How did he move one species to another? While sometimes I admit that the process gets me down, overall I’m quite excited about the research.

Until recently when I read Hebrews 11. Of course, as a person who grew up in the church, I have read the faith “hall of fame” many times. Hebrews 11:1 is a verse that (in KJV) I know by heart to this day.

The verse that got me thinking was the third verse: “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”

Suddenly, I was unnerved by the Word of God. I do still believe in the Bible, don’t I? even if I’m willing to admit that Genesis 1 may not be the whole story, don’t I believe in the first verse? As I write this post, yes, I do believe that, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Scientifically speaking, this is the big bang. Whether the point of singularity was God-created (for Christians) or a dense piece of matter (evolutionists), the heavens and the earth were created at some point.

But do I believe that it was God? and if I do, isn’t that as far as I need to go? Shouldn’t it spell the end of the blog/research project?


I don’t think so, although the situation reminded me to keep this research project in perspective. I do believe it is important, from a purely apologetical perspective, to discover as much about science as we can. But more important than that, studying how this all came about helps us reach the lost. It helps us understand the average Joe’s base mindset going in to a discussion.

To answer the question posed in the title of this post, faith has everything to do with it. An evolutionary scientist does not know how everything came about, but he or she believes with great faith that science will betray the answers of the universe in time. In my estimation, the average atheist scientist has as much or more faith than the average Christian.

I don’t mean that flippantly, like some Christian apologists do when they say, “It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does the Bible.” I don’t think that’s a true statement. I mean that, for the gaps that still exist in science (and there are plenty), the average scientist believes with an amazing amount of faith that the answers will be found and that those answers will continue to prove out the modified theory of evolution.

Yet I also have faith…faith that their research will give me answers in my research!

Because I’m convinced that this research project holds value as a tool to understand how God created everything, I will continue it, albeit at a slower rate than I had been going. Human evolution, or whatever it is, intrigues me, as does the overall age of the universe. I expect to learn a great deal while studying these things.

Until next time…

Transition to the next Topic

Your children, as you already know, are inundated with ages of the earth that are astronomically different than most evangelical estimates. This can cause some confusion and leave evangelical children outside looking in socially and educationally in public schools. The goal of this blog is to keep that from happening by arming you with real data in as unbiased a manner as possible.

The central question to be asked in order to combat his issue is this: Can Genesis and evolutionary science reside together? I hope so, but I have concerns that must be addressed. This post attempts to do so while providing a path ahead.

We know, in general terms, what evolutionary science tells us about the “creation” of everything. Most notably, it takes a very, very long time and like doesn’t always give way to like. Creation accounts from Genesis, however, suggest that creation was fairly short, certainly not billions upon billions of years, and that God created everything, “after its kind.”

This is the problem: If God created everything, and evolution says everything happened by chance, how could they coexist?

We must always go back to the beginning. Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” We can debate timeframes later. The important thing to understand is that it doesn’t allow for macro forms of evolution. “Read literally, this precludes evolution of one “kind” of plant or animal to another.”[1]

Genesis isn’t the only place that this occurs. John 1:1-3 tells the same story, but introduces Jesus as the co-creator with the Father. Here is the passage:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

My concern is that both of these passages, if read literally, remove the allowance of any macroevolution of any kind into the mind of the faithful follower of Christ. It probably doesn’t remove the idea of microevolution, as my daughter’s cystic fibrosis (CF) didn’t create a different kind of humanoid, but just a mutation that is at least hypothesized to defeat tuberculosis.

The Bible says that God created all of the “kinds” of animals, plants, fish, etc on this planet and left no place for the creation of one “kind” from another by chance. If evolution were proven correct, then, it would leave little place for the Bible. At best, it would remain as a testament to an older time of myth. At worst, it would be a relic of ignorant fools.

The example I can’t shake is the Mammoth, which is a cousin to the Asian elephant via some ancient, prehistoric elephant. If AiG and ICR are correct, then the Mammoth and the Asian elephant were together on the ark. Presumably the African elephant as well. Genetics suggest a different story.

I read a good book on this subject called How to Clone a Mammoth, by Dr. Beth Shapiro. It’s an excellent book on cloning, genetics, evolution, and extinction. The problem is that it lays out a good case for how the mammoth and other elephants evolved, and that wasn’t even the goal of the book!

The biggest issue is the genetics connection between the mammoth and the Asian elephant. Geographically, it makes sense that the two are related because Asian elephants could have been a natural southern cousin to the northern mammoths. But the problem is that they’re different species, yet have so much concurrent genetic code that we can use Asian elephants (someday) to clone a mammoth (or something close to it).

I don’t want to be too forward in invoking the dad card here, but we’ve simply got to figure out this stuff. First, does the Bible allow for this sort of evolution? I’m not sure it does. Genesis 1:1+ and John 1:1-3 seem to allow only for God in creating actual species. I don’t think the Bible cares how long we’ve been here, but I do think it wants us to know that He created all of the species.

Unfortunately, naturalists have known for a long time that not all species lived together at the same time. As early as the 1820s, long before Darwin sailed to the Galapagos Islands, naturalists and paleontologists knew that different strata in the geological record had different specimens. More than that, the specimens appeared and disappeared, indicating different creations and extinctions.[2] This idea had sprung up around the same time in England with a fellow named William Smith, who, as a canal digger, realized that different strata along his canals contained very different specimens. While Smith never made a conclusion against faith, and as far as we know stayed true to his religious stance, he did realize that something wasn’t as traditionally taught.[3]

But there were no other creations, at least not without a gap theory, and we’ve looked into that and found that theory lacking, unfortunately, though more research is needed.

So I’m going to turn my attention from cystic fibrosis (as a research project) to the fossil record, particularly with the mammoth, to see if I can find an answer to the issue at hand.

Your comments are welcome below, as is your subscription to this blog, which you can get by clicking HERE.

[1] Larson, Edward J. Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. Random House. New York, NY, 2004. Pg 11.

[2] Ibid, pg 29

[3] Prothero, Donald R. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters. Columbia University Press, 2007. pg 55.

The Fall of Man, Microevolution, and the Cruelty of Nature

As I review the scientific literature, I become more and more convinced that some microevolution occurred and probably still occurs. I also believe that this microevolution could be the result of the fall of man. The end of this argument postulates that the fall of man created the petri dish of the current natural order.

Let me give you an example:

Darwin made the case for evolution based in part on how cruel the world was, including how vicious animals were in the wild (humans too really). This was to counter the idea that God’s creation was perfect and that, even in its fallen state the natural order continued in the design of almost benevolence.[1]

I think that the fall of man demands cruelty in the natural world. When Adam and Eve fell, the world order crumbled under the weight of their sin. Natural order that had existed suddenly didn’t. Replacing it was the necessary reality that many animals continued to eat plants, but some animals became adapted to eating other animals, and humans adapted to eating both. Teeth structures, digestive systems, instincts, etc, need time to adapt, so it would probably have been several generations for this fall to fully come to pass. During that adaptive process, mutations of other sorts also occurred, such as my nemesis, cystic fibrosis.

I realize that I’m speaking as an apologist in this post. I am, at my core, a believer in Jesus Christ who is wrestling with the natural history of the world. I am simply a husband, father, and believer seeking to find answers. The answers I’m finding so far, however, don’t tell me that evolution is true as natural selection suggests.

So the search continues. Click HERE to sign up for updates.

[1] Larson, Edward J. Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. Random House. New York, NY, 2004. Pg 90.

The Day that God Created the Heavens and the Earth

Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The next several verses detail that creative act that takes place, from a literal reading of the Bible, in six days. Yet in Genesis 2:4, the writer says, “these are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”

So did he take six days or one day? Traditionalists, fundamentalists, and most evangelicals will believe that an old earth creation is just not possible because God took six days to create the earth, not billions, and that there are generations for only six thousand years or so.

Here’s the problem with that thinking. If you’re willing to read the Bible literally, and I certainly believe there are parts that should be read that way, then you have to decide if God made the earth in six days, as Genesis one says, or in one day as Genesis two says.

I don’t personally see a problem because I don’t think it should be read literally. I think Genesis one shows that God was intimately involved in the creation of the world and everything in it, and I believe that Genesis two is the general brush strokes that show his artistic style.  I think, by the way, that this is another summary statement, much like Genesis 1:1 and 2:1. If anything, the “day” in Gen 2:4 suggests an “age” of creation, which denotes a progression, but I digress.

Also, there may very well be two writers of Genesis, with a second writer expanding on the first. This really upsets my more traditional brethren and sisters because it suggests Moses didn’t write Genesis with his own hand. I’m sure that I’ll write on that at some point, but I just don’t have time at the moment.

The point of this post isn’t to drive a wedge between Moses and the book supposedly authored by him, but to show my fellow fundamentalists that the traditional reading of scripture isn’t necessarily plausible and never was. Genesis tells us that God made everything, but even by chapter two of the first book of the Bible we have word problems.

In closing, I’m not saying that this is a problem. Instead, it is a fresh drink of cool water as it shows us that we can open up the scriptures and take a look at them, and see how God might have used the fossil record to fill in his gaps in creation. I’m very excited for this, and I hope you are too!

Sign up HERE for more updates.

Nature as the Bible Sees It

In giving evidence for why evolution is a fact, and not actually a theory, Cameron M. Smith says in his book, The Fact of Evolution, “Not only do life-forms come from parent generations, but offspring resemble their parents. Not just on the surface but down to the molecule, life-forms are usually pretty close approximations – replicas – of their parents’ basic form.”[1]

I’d say, “duh” here buy the author is basically saying that with his point. His contention is that evolution is actually easy to understand and that it’s so obvious it’s almost too easy. It’s actually pretty good writing

I’ll get to what the Bible says in just a minute, but notice the key point of Smith’s argument, “Why don’t elephants give birth to fish? The intuitive answer is that there are different kinds of life, and each essentially produces its own kind.”

This is not a foreign concept to believers in God’s creation. All of creation was in fact brought forth and told to reproduce after their kind. Like life gives way to like life (Genesis 1).

It doesn’t take an evolutionary biologist, or a prehistorian (like Smith) to know that life produces after it’s own kind. The interesting thing is that evolution doesn’t actually do that. Of course, for several generations it does, but over the course of millions of years it stops doing that and eventually splits off to become “other” kinds, such as the case of the mammoth and Asian elephant, which were supposed to have a common ancestor some millions of years ago.[2]

In this way, it is difficult to accept evolution when one is a Christian or grew up in church. We were taught from the Bible that everything gives life to its kind. This is what the observable world also shows us. Yet we are also to believe that at specific, accidental times throughout history (a very long history), kinds didn’t necessarily give way to like kinds. At some point, variation allowed for a new species to develop. The easiest way for that to happen in evolutionary science is to geographically separate the two species from each other as they develop so that the Asian elephant, for example, in the southern half or so of the Asian continent, becomes genetically different from the mammoth in the arctic.

This means that, according to science, at one time there actually existed an “Adam.” At some point, enough of the gene differences between our common ancestors with chimpanzees actually created two species (the chimp and humans). We actually have some of this knowledge in the form of mtDNA Eve (mitochondrial Eve).

Evolutionists would argue that an entire generation of Adams would have evolved, in order for the beneficial traits to develop, but the point is the same. At some point in time, Adam came to be. He was like his predecessors, but he was also a new species. No one knows yet when that happened. Many gaps exist in the timeline. Actually, I should be more specific in that science traces Eve more than it traces Adam. Maybe you have heard of Mitochondrial Eve? You will meet her and then get to know her more, as well as her husband Adam over the course of our journey.

We have to be careful here so as not to enter into some sort of “God of the gaps” argument. The idea of the God of the gaps is that, since science can’t always (or even mostly) fill in the gaps between two species (an example is the mammoth), then God must have stepped in and accomplished that task.

This is bad theology because it doesn’t actually give God credit for creation in the first place, and renders Genesis 1-3 unusable. It’s also bad science, because it assumes that God is really just a word for “I give up.”

This is why Christians cannot be afraid to research the issue. In my own review of the research on the evolution of cystic fibrosis, it has become relatively clear that at no time has science shown the cause of the cystic fibrosis mutation, nor what caused it. All that can be speculated on is that it showed up around 50,000 years ago, and that being a heterozygote carrier (meaning a person has one mutation and one good gene) allows for some advantage over tuberculosis.

Our God is not a god of the gaps, but an actual, creative being with power and mercy. He will either show us himself through our scientific processes or he will be proven to be less of a god than we think he is. I believe he will come out as more than we think he is…more sovereign, more powerful, and more loving.

If we remain faithful, and look into the research, we’ll probably find that God is in the details. Debate all you need to, but in the meantime, I’m going to keep reading and learning. I hope you’ll join me. Click this link to do so.


[1] Smith, Cameron M. The Fact of Evolution. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY. 2010. pg 38.

[2] Shapiro, Beth. How to Clone a Mammoth: The Science of De-Extinction. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 2015. pg 108


Worst Case Scenario

It’s in the very back of my mind almost every time I crack open a book on science or read a peer-reviewed journal article. Reading many biblical peer-reviewed journals compounds the issue as well. Some are traditional and evangelically minded, but many are not.

It’s the issue of whether or not Christianity is sustainable as a non-truth. If it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans came from a lower life form and not the direct hand of God, what happens next? Does it spell the end to Christianity? Of religion in general? Will it lead to the loss of faith altogether? Will it remove all barriers to immorality on the earth?

These are very important questions to those of faith, but many fundamentalists are afraid to ask those questions. Well, we can’t be afraid, so we ask the question.

First of all, most scientists already believe that they’ve proven humanity’s evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. While everyone acknowledges that gaps in the record exist, no one thinks they won’t someday prove how it all happened…through evolution.

Second, AiG, ICR, and other groups continue to think that science does not prove evolution correct. At best, it is a flawed attempt by unbelievers to avoid giving God credit for creation. For some groups, such as the ones mentioned here, any thought other than the traditional six thousand year creation story is heresy, whether it’s OEC, gap theory, or evolution.

Third, it would be very difficult to prove beyond all doubt that evolution is a fact vice a series of hypotheses. What will they find? Another humanoid jawbone? Or a mammal that dragged its useless hind feet on land, but found its home in the water? These things, while possible, are not very probable, and again, it wouldn’t really matter if paleontologists found these items. It wouldn’t change the minds of most fundamentalists.

Maybe this post asks the wrong question. Maybe it has nothing to do with the church in general, and everything to do with the individual Christian that is contained in my skin and bones and the faith in my spirit.

To that end, I have to decide what the scientific evidence means to me. As I continue going through the data, a project that will take me a very, very long time, I continue to be shown evidence that the earth is really old, that dinosaurs lived a really long time ago, and that light from the stars had to start coming toward us an extremely long time ago. Yet the research also shows that science cannot explain how everything really came to be. We have, arguably, millions or billions of years to play with, but no idea where the basic building blocks came from. Oh, there is an answer to that, but it was a dying universe that passed away before the one we have now. That’s not a very good answer, in my unlearned opinion, because it gets circular at some point. It’s as untestable as Genesis One.

And I’ve already shown, in previous research, that genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis are un-provable as microevolutionary events because evolutionary biologists are unable to show exactly when the diseases came about. Unfortunately, this is also true of the Bible’s lack of evidence.

What it means right now is that the earth is older than most fundamentalists want to accept, but not that evolution is a proven fact.

Of course, this is a continuing topic and will be followed up upon in future posts. Click HERE to subscribe to updates.

Apologetics, Science, and the Debate between Evolution and Creation

I’m a big fan of apologetics in theology. I don’t debate all that often, but I’m trained in religion (MAR-Liberty) and I can present most theological arguments regarding Calvinist doctrine, theology, fall of man, etc. I’m certainly no celebrity of course. There are far better men and women out there who know way more than me and how to apply that knowledge. Just the same, I hone my skills with periodic debates and I want my children to understand apologetics as well. My wife and I bought our oldest an Apologetics Bible, which teaches him how to defend the scriptures at different points throughout the Bible. Presumably, our two younger children will also be brought up with apologetics.

Before I go any further, a definition is required. Apologetics is not the art of saying you’re sorry. Rather, it is the art of giving a defense. From the Catholic Encyclopedia: Apologetics means, broadly speaking, a form of apology. The term is derived from the Latin adjective, apologeticus, which, in turn has its origin in the Greek adjective, apologetikos, the substantive being apologia, “apology”, “defense”. The fact that I use a Catholic definition is ironic since I often provide a defense for Protestant views against Catholic dogma. Let me therefore use a standard dictionary definition: systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine). Essentially it’s the same definition.

Most of Creationism is about apologetics. Read through the Answers in Genesis website and much of what you’ll read is why the flood strata (which, as I gather is the same general strata as the Cretaceous period strata in evolutionary science) can prove that the flood is responsible for the death of dinosaurs and only took a few years to develop. I’m still working on this. In fact, I probably won’t really get to the dinosaur issue until I’m at a stopping point in my research on cystic fibrosis (and possibly other autosomal recessive genetic mutations).

Let me remind you of the ExamineScience Project’s methodology: We are going to look at modern science from its own perspective and determine if it allows for God. Then we will look at Creationism and find out if evolutionary science answers some of the questions that the Bible asks but doesn’t answer.

The key to the first part of this is a massive and lengthy review of the scientific data. Key to the second part is a review of the Bible, which will include apologetics. I believe they will both play a role in my life and research in the future.

However, one cannot be used in debating the other. For example, modern scientific data cannot be used to dissuade someone from believing in the Bible because scientific data cannot refute apologetics. Conversely, presenting a defense of the Bible cannot dissuade someone from believing in evolutionary biology. This was proven out in the recent Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. In a supposedly scientific article on the Answers in Genesis website (first published in the Journal of Creation), the author provides ample evidence as to why apologetics and science don’t mix well.

Here’s a quote:

“For most creationists, the extinction of the dinosaurs, as well as other extinctions, is not a mystery. In fact, the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other creatures has an easy answer—they simply died in the Genesis Flood (except those dinosaurs likely taken on the Ark, which probably died soon after the Flood).”

This is not a scientific argument. The rest of the article discredits the scientific theories of why the dinosaurs died out. Again, this is not scientific, but apologetic. Another example is the ICR’s explanation of old earth creationism, wherein unscientific, apologetic debate is used to counter the ideas of OEC.

By the way, I’m not becoming an evolutionist (at least not in the Richard Dawkins vein). Evolutionists have plenty of apologetic persons as well, Bill Nye being one of them, as well as Dawkins (in his many writings against creationism), and others. I think both sides present a defense for their beliefs instead of letting the science tell the story…a story, I hope, which will lead to the God of the Bible being the creator of the world.

As said in other posts, my desire is to be as non-biased as possible, but the reality is that we will all have to pry through the biases of others and ourselves before we find the truth. As always, sign up at this link to keep up to date with additional research!

Out of the Garden and into the Cradle (Part Two)

In part one of this subject, I suggested that Eden could be in Africa, which is where modern scientists postulate our human ancestry begins. One other explanation exists for the contradiction between Eden, which some believe is in modern day Iraq, and the cradle of mankind, which is Africa.

Genesis two tells us about how God created man and then planted a garden in the east (vs 8). He could have “planted” this garden by supernaturally bringing it up from dead ground or he could have grown it through natural process. How he did it wasn’t important. It only matters that he did do it.

And all the Bible tells us is that he planted it in the east. More than likely, in writing to ancient Jews, the writer meant the location of present day Iraq. Remember that the books of the Bible had a target audience, just like any piece of writing does. So while Noah might not have meant that the Garden had been in Iraq based on his renaming of new rivers after old ones (see THIS post), the writer of Genesis seems to indicate this as a location.

Yet the location is really not that important. Again, we believe God created everything because we believe that both the Bible (his written revelation) and nature (his physical revelation) both tell us so. So whether the original writer was right in saying it was Iraq or not is irrelevant.

Because of the above and the previous post on this subject, I believe that the cradle of mankind (eastern Africa) and the Garden of Eden were the same.