[bct] Re: creation science

  • From: "Shane Jackson" <jack728@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:21:39 -0600

Hi, Mary and Dan.  Well, this is indeed a great discussion topic, but I just
hope it doesn't get out of hand.  What a friendly list we have, and we would
certainly hate to alienate anyone, as you both have so clearly stated.
Therefore, here is an article from "Creation Magazine," and it presents the
conservative Christian response to evolution.  As a very devout Calvinist,
this is the position that I take.  Thank you both sincerely for your
friendly way of stating your opinions, and I hope you will accept my support
of this article as taking and presenting a position that agrees totally with
my opinion.  All the very best to you.  Article follows:

Pre-Adamic man: were there human beings on Earth before Adam?
by Russell Grigg
Could there have been human creatures, commonly called ?pre-Adamites?,
living on
Earth before God created Adam?  Many readers, no doubt, will think this a
foolish
question, but it is, in fact, the belief of many evangelicals.  And leading
?progressive
creationist? Hugh Ross teaches something similar when he says that ?bipedal,
tool-using,
large-brained primates roamed Earth for hundreds of thousands (perhaps a
million)
years?.
1
Ross does not believe in biological evolution, although he accepts cosmic
and geologic
evolution and the evolutionary timescale.  He also believes in the same
general sequence
of events and the same order of appearance as evolutionists.  Although he
believes
that God made Adam from the dust, he also accepts the evolutionists?
long-age interpretation
of the fossil record.  But human fossils are found ?dated? earlier than
Adam?s genealogies
could possibly allow.  This requires Ross to postulate the existence of
creatures
with human-like characteristics, but ?spiritless? (see
Skull Wars
 p. 51 this issue).
2
,
3
 Ross says, ? ? these creatures went extinct before Adam and Eve came on the
scene.?
4
Why did they ?become extinct??  According to Ross, because the world was a
place
of death, violence and decay for hundreds of thousands/millions of years
before the
Curse recorded in
Genesis 3:14?19
.  He makes the extraordinary statement: ?The step-by-step approach to
bipedal primate
creation that we can see in the recent fossil record may reasonably reflect
God?s
understanding of the difficulty other life-forms would encounter in adapting
to sinful
humans.?
5
This is a classic example of the confusion that Christians get themselves
into when
they depart from the text of the Bible and allow outside influences,
especially long-age
naturalism, to dictate the meaning of Scripture.
Pre-Adamism has a long history
In 1655, Frenchman Isaac La Peyrère published his theory that not only did
Adam come
from pre-Adamic stock (rather than being formed by God from the dust of the
ground),
but also Cain?s wife and the inhabitants of Cain?s city came from
other
pre-Adamic stock.
6
 (See
bottom box
.)
In the 18
th and 19th
 centuries, because white and non-white people looked superficially
different, a
minority of Christians thought that God had created non-whites separately
from Adam,
and so they must have descended from pre-Adamic creatures.  Hence
pre-Adamism took
the form of
polygenism
, or multiple creations of different races.  Proponents of this idea often
thought
that non-whites were inferior beings who could be treated as slaves.
Pre-Adamism
thus became the scientific justification for slavery, and a defense for
racism.
Pre-Adamites were also an integral part of the now-discredited gap theory.
7
  In this the pre-Adamites were soulless beings which all perished in a
catastrophe
called ?Lucifer?s Flood?, which allegedly occurred between verses 1 and 2 of
Genesis
1 ?in the far-distant dateless past?.
8
Modern pre-Adamists
In the 20
th
 century, with the rise of Darwinism and the continued discovery of
allegedly very
old human-like fossils, many evangelicals compromised by adopting theistic
evolution.
They accepted a relatively young age for the Biblical Adam (if they retained
belief
in him at all), but said that the ?old? human fossils came from pre-Adamite
human-like
creatures.
One such neo-evangelical is Londoner John R.W. Stott (who also compromises
the Bible?s
teaching on eternal conscious punishment for the unsaved because it offends
his sensibilities).
He writes: ?[M]y acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical is not
incompatible with
my belief that several forms of pre-Adamic ?hominid? seem to have existed
for thousands
of years previously.  ? It is conceivable that God created Adam out of one
of them.
? I think you may even call some of them
Homo sapiens ?  .?
9
Pre-Adamism has thus been used by some Christians to try and harmonize
science and
the Bible.  However, in doing this, Stott and his fellow-thinkers not only
add something
to Genesis that is not there (i.e. pre-Adamites), they also deny
Genesis 2:7
, which specifically says: ?The Lord God formed man from the dust of the
ground??the
very dust to which Adam would return after God had pronounced the death
penalty for
sin (
Genesis 3:19
).
Pre-Adamism of this type is also starkly contrary to what Genesis tells us
about
Eve, namely that God made her from one of Adam?s ribs (
Genesis 2:21
), not from some pre-existing creature; and that Adam named her Eve ?because
she
was the mother of all living? (
Genesis 3:20
).
Evangelicals who cannot accept the plain text of the Bible regarding the
creation
of the first man from the dust of the ground often do not accept what the
Bible says
about the Flood being global, because they accept the fossil layers as
evidence for
millions of years, not the result of the sequence of burial by a global
flood.  John
Stott writes: ?The flood seems to have been a comparatively local?though
widespread?disaster.?
10
Christian creationist anthropologist Marvin Lubenow describes the evidence
of a sin
nature in the (allegedly pre-Adamic) human fossil record, including examples
of cannibalism,
and injury due to violence, scalping and disease, including syphilis.  He
writes:
?Most pre-Adamite and old-Earth advocates seem to be unfamiliar with the
extent of
this human fossil evidence and may not realize the full significance of what
they
are proposing when they place the bulk of the human fossils prior to the
Fall of
the Biblical Adam.  ? The human fossil record reveals the pre-Adamite theory
to be
in error.  ? We find in [the human fossils] the conditions we would expect
to find
after the Fall of Adam, not before.?
11
Implications of pre-Adamism
The Bible says nothing about the existence and death of
any
pre-Adamite creatures, either spirited or spiritless.  Some Christians say
that Adam
was the first man to be made in the image of God, though there were also
human-like
creatures before him.  But they have assumed that the alleged Pre-Adamic
fossils
constitute a reliable record; i.e. the fossils have been interpreted
correctly in
both anatomy
and
age.  They are also, in effect, saying:
1. that the first land animals and man were not created by God at the same
time, namely
during the 24 hours of Day Six of Creation Week, as Genesis 1 clearly
states;
2. that the short age timescale in Genesis (obtained from the genealogies
and other
parts of the Bible, e.g.
Mark 10:6
) is not correct;
3. that the Curse of death in the created world was not the result of Adam?s
sin, as
Genesis 3 states.  If pre-Adamite creatures were living and dying for
hundreds of
thousands/millions of years before Adam, then the connection is lost between
the
first Adam, who brought physical death into the world, and the last Adam
(the Lord
Jesus Christ), who brought physical resurrection from the dead (
1 Corinthians 15:22, 45
).
12
 As Adam was federal head of the entire creation, his Fall affected
everything else
(
Romans 8:20?22
).  The fact is that, Biblically, all physical death has occurred
since
Adam?s Fall, not before.  ?As sincere as they may be, those [Christians] who
espouse
the pre-Adamite theory and its history of death before Adam are actually
endangering
the very doctrine of salvation they hold dear.?
12
4. that the ?very good? world which God created included carnivory, despite
the
Genesis 1:29?30
 teaching that animals and humans were originally vegetarian.
     The Bible tells us that Adam was the first biological man?in Genesis
1?5;
Deuteronomy 32:8
;
1 Chronicles 1:1
;
Luke 3:38
;
Romans 5:14
;
1 Corinthians 15:22, 45
;
1 Timothy 2:13
; and
Jude 14
.  So, how many parts of the Bible are they willing to concede as being
?errant?,
or in need of ?reinterpreting?, in order to accommodate the
evolutionary/uniformitarian
interpretation of the fossil record?
The key issue
Hugh Ross and his fellow progressive creationists, along with the other
pre-Adamite
proponents, are trying to rescue the Bible from a perceived conflict with
?science?
by reinterpreting the Bible rather than by questioning the ?science?.  This
is because
they erroneously think that ?science? speaks with more authority than God?s
Word
about origins and the age of the Earth.  Such a mindset overlooks the fact
that where
modern science deals with origins, it is based on strict naturalism (the
humanistic
view that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural, not
supernatural, causes
and laws).  Unfortunately compromise of this sort means having to
continually change
one?s position to keep up with evolutionary pronouncements.
For example, Ross stated on his Web site in 1997: ?Starting about 2 to 4
million
years ago God began creating man-like mammals or ?hominids.?  These
creatures stood
on two feet, had large brains, and used tools.  Some even buried their dead
and painted
on cave walls.  However, they were very different from us.  They had no
spirit.
They did not have a conscience like we do.  They did not worship God or
establish
religious practices.  In time, all these man-like creatures went extinct.
Then,
about 10 to 25 thousand years ago, God replaced them with Adam and Eve.?
13
Notice that Ross states that Adam and Eve lived 10?25 thousand years ago (he
realizes
that he can?t push the genealogies too far).  However, when the same dating
methods
in which he trusts said that the Australian Aborigines and American Indians
lived
40?60,000 years ago, he changed the sentence in the above quote to read:
?Then about
10 to 60 thousand years ago, God replaced them with Adam and Eve.?
14
  Presumably the change was made because the 25,000 year limit would mean
that the
Aborigines and Indians could not have been descendants of Adam and Eve.
However,
his adjusted range of dates does not solve the problem.  If it is
possible
that Adam and Eve lived 10,000 years ago, then this implies it is
possible
that such indigenous people are not descendants of Adam and Eve (which would
mean
that
they could not be saved through Christ, our kinsman/redeemer?
Isaiah 59:20
).
15
No doubt, further adjustments will appear should some evolutionist claim
that Aborigines
lived 80,000 or 100,000 years ago.
The same problem shows up in the writings of well-known Old Testament
scholar Gleason
Archer.  He struggles with having human skeletons dated, by the secular
methods he
and Ross trust in, as older than could possibly fit into the genealogies in
the Bible.
Hence their need for soulless pre-Adamites.  Gleason writes: ?To revert to
the problem
of the Pithecanthropus, the Swanscombe man, the Neanderthal and all the rest
(possibly
even the Cro-magnon man, who is apparently to be classed as Homo sapiens,
but whose
remains seem to date back at least to 20,000 B.C.) it seems best to regard
these
races as all prior to Adam?s time, and not involved in the Adamic covenant.
We must
leave the question open, in view of the cultural remains, whether these
pre-Adamic
creatures had souls (or, to use the trichotomic terminology, spirits).?
16
Gleason goes on to assert that only Adam and his descendants were infused
with the
breath of God and a spiritual nature corresponding to God himself, and to
say that
all mankind subsequent to Adam?s time must have been literally descended
from him.
However, he retains the concept of pre-Adamic races (e.g. Cro-Magnon man),
and says,
?They may have been exterminated by God for unknown reasons prior to the
creation
of the original parent of the present human race.?
16
In reality, no scientific method exists for measuring the age of something
directly.
All
dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.  The evidence suggests there
is something
radically wrong with the assumptions upon which radiometric dating rests
(see
page 20
 this issue).  Christians, when opting for dates in the Earth?s fossil
record, should
use the chronology of the Bible.  This is because it is an accurate
eye-witness account
of history which bears within itself the evidence that it is the Word of
God.
17
Christians today have no mandate from God to reinterpret His infallible Word
to make
it fit any current fallible atheistic human opinions.  As noted American
evangelical
theologian Dr John MacArthur says, ?Scripture, not science, is the ultimate
test
of all truth.
And the further evangelicalism gets from that conviction, the less
evangelical and
more humanistic it becomes
(emphasis added).?
18
MacArthur also says: ?Evangelicals who accept an old-earth interpretation of
Genesis
have embraced a hermeneutic [i.e. interpretation] that is hostile to a high
view
of Scripture.  They are bringing to the opening chapters of Scripture a
method of
biblical interpretation that has built-in antievangelical presuppositions.
Those
who adopt this approach have already embarked on a process that invariably
overthrows
faith.  Churches and colleges that embrace this view will not remain
evangelical
long.?
19
,
20
Cain?s wife?s origin: why it matters!
In the 17
th
 century, some Bible expositors, it seems, could not answer the question of
where
Cain got his wife.
1
  One such was Isaac La Peyrère, a Jewish convert to Catholicism from
Bordeaux.
2
  To solve what he considered to be a problem, he proposed that Cain?s wife
and the
inhabitants of Cain?s city all came not from Adam but from pre-Adamic
stock?beings
who had lived in ?the indefinite amount of time before Adam?.
3
He said that Adam was the first Jew and the father of the Jews, but not the
father
of mankind, so it is not surprising that La Peyrère rejected the doctrine of
Original
Sin, i.e. that innate depravity is transmitted to all mankind because of
Adam?s sin.
He said that in the
world to come everyone would be saved (universalism).  He also argued that
Eve was
not the first woman, but the first
Jewish
woman, wife and mother.  To explain the presence of Gentiles post-Flood, and
to avoid
the conclusion that they were all descendants of Noah and his family, he
said that
the Flood was local, not global.  The Gentiles were descended from various
pre-Adamites,
not from Adam.  This polygenesis of the Gentiles was his method of
explaining the
existence of the Negroes, Chinese, Eskimos, American Indians, Malays and
other people
groups being discovered.
He also denied that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (i.e. Genesis to
Deuteronomy), and
he questioned both the accuracy of Genesis and the authenticity of the
Biblical text.
Although he was soundly refuted by Jewish and Protestant theologians, and
declared
to be a heretic by the Catholic Church, his questioning of the authority and
accuracy
of the Bible was the beginning of modern biblioscepticism.  From it came the
so-called
modern ?higher criticism? of the Bible.
In the 20
th
 century, the claim that other-colored people originated from pre-Adamites
has been
a key pillar for theistically inclined ?white? racists.
4
  These have included British Israelites, Christian Identity, and some
factions of
the Ku Klux Klan.
5
  What an incredible legacy of hate derives from the failure of the leaders
of these
organizations to correctly answer the matter of who Cain?s wife was!
References and notes
1. For the answer, see our booklet Where Did Cain Get his Wife?
available from the addresses on page 2.
.
2. This section resourced from Popkin, R.H.,
Isaac La Peyrère (1596?1676) His Life, Work and Influence
, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1987.
.
3. Some modern pre-Adamitists believe that Cain was biologically fathered by
the serpent,
in contradiction of
Genesis 4:1
.
.
4. Some have even said that non-whites were included in the ?beasts of the
earth? (which
are listed before Adam in the Creation account (
Genesis 1:24
)), and so escaped the Flood because they were included in the creatures
that Noah
and his sons took aboard the Ark!  Such teaching, of course, attacks the
image of
God in all humanity (
Genesis 1:26?27
).  See Larson, V., ?Identity: A ?Christian? religion for white racists?,
<www.equip.org/free/D1100.htm>,
19 June 2002.
.
5. See for example ?Profile Christian Identity?,
<www.watchman.org/profile/Identitypro.htm>,
19 June 2002.
.
References and notes
1. Ross, H., The Genesis Question, NavPress, Colorado, p. 55, 1998.  See
refutation
 CEN Tech. J. 13(2):22?30, 1999.
.
2. Elsewhere, Ross says: ?They?re just like the primates.  They?re like the
chimpanzees,
orangutans, gorillas ? ?, Ross?Hovind Debate, John Ankerberg Show, October
2000,
analysis by
Jonathan Sarfati
, <
www.answersingenesis.org/ross_hovind
>, 7 January 2002.
.
3. Note: we are not talking here about ape-men, which evolutionists
postulate to be
the forerunners of man, but beings which have the characteristics that
scientists
apply to true man, apart from spirituality, in Ross?s view.
.
4. Ref. 1, p. 30.
.
5. Ref. 1, p. 56.
.
6. Prae-Adamitae[Amsterdam], 1655. An English edition, Men before Adam
, appeared in London in 1656.
.
7. Proposed by Thomas Chalmers (c. 1814) and popularized by G.H. Pember in
his 1876
work,
Earth?s Earliest Ages
.  The idea of a gap was ?canonized? for some Christians when C.I. Scofield
included
it in the footnotes of the
Scofield Reference Bible
 in 1909.
.
8. For a refutation of the gap theory see
Batten, D.
 (Ed.), The Answers Book,
Answers in Genesis
, Queensland, Australia, chapter 3, What about the ?gap? and
?ruin-reconstruction?
theories? 1999.
.
9. Stott, J., Understanding the Bible
, Scripture Union Publishing, Sydney, Revised Edition, p.49, 1984.
.
10. Ref. 9, p. 50.  Just why Noah would spend a hundred years building a
monster ship
instead of simply migrating to far-distant higher ground is usually not
explained.
Ross speculates that God commanded Noah to build the Ark because he needed a
pulpit(!),
but no other prophet needed an ocean-liner-sized pulpit, and the Bible
explicitly
states that the Ark was to save eight humans and representative animals.
Nor is
it clear why
any
 animals would have been needed aboard, as there would have been lots of
others living
elsewhere to reproduce after their kind, and birds could easily have flown
to safety?if
the Flood had been local.  See ?
Noah?s Flood covered the whole Earth
?, Creation 21(3):49, 1999.
.
11. Lubenow, Marvin L.
, Pre-Adamites, Sin, Death and the Human Fossils,
CEN Tech. J
. 12(2):230, 1998.
.
12. Ref. 11, p. 225.  See also
Grigg, R.
,
First Adam?Last Adam
, Creation 21
(1):37?39, 2000.
.
13. Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe Web page, Genesis One, Dinosaurs and
Cavemen, 20 May
1998.
.
14. Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe Web page, Genesis One, Dinosaurs and
Cavemen, 26 June
2002.
.
15. We presume that this is simple sloppiness, not racist in intent.
.
16. Archer, G. Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction
, Revised edition, Moody Press, Chicago, pp. 204?205, 1985.
.
17. See
Batten D.
, Does Carbon Dating disprove the Bible? Answers in Genesis
, Brisbane, Australia, 2002.
.
18. MacArthur, J., The Battle for the Beginning
, W Publishing Group, www.wpublishinggroup.com, p. 26, 2001.
.
19. Ref. 18, p. 20.
.
20. Cf.
Ham, K.
 and
Byers, S.
,
Slippery slide to unbelief: A famous evangelist [Charles Templeton] goes
from hope to hopelessness
, Creation 22
(3):8?13, 2000.
.
Russell Grigg
, M.Sc.(Hons) was an industrial chemist before serving 20 years with
Overseas Missionary
Fellowship.  He is a staff member of
Answers in Genesis
 in Australia.
Copyright © 2006
Answers in Genesis

Shane Jackson
Hoover, Alabama, USA.
Amateur Radio Station: K4JSJ
Web Site: http://www.shanejackson.net
Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Shaneslivejournal 


Other related posts: