Allegory and Evolution

I recently listened to a pastor I respect talk about old-earth creationism. He made a statement to the effect that if you believe that Genesis should be interpreted allegorically, you shouldn’t even call yourself a Christian. It may come as a shock, but I pretty much agree with him on this.

You see, if Adam and Eve were allegorical, then their sin was also allegorical. And if Adam’s fall is allegorical, how can Christ’s redemption be anything but allegorical? This interpretation necessarily denies the reality of original sin and reduces Christianity, at best, to Pelagianism, a view that clearly contradicts the teaching of scripture (John 6:44, Rom. 5:19, Eph. 2:3) and that has been denounced as heresy by multiple church councils. Orthodox Christianity requires a literal Adam and a literal fall.

Now let’s take a look at evolutionary creationism, also known as theistic evolution. According to this model, God directed the process of evolution by which simple organisms eventually developed into humans. (BioLogos is an organization that promotes this view.) According to evolutionary theory, it is populations that evolve, not individuals. As a result, if humans evolved by natural selection, it is not possible that there could have been a single first human or pair of humans (Adam and Eve).

Now it can be argued that Adam and Eve were not the first humans but that, instead, God took these two individuals from among the population of modern humans and breathed into them the breath of spiritual life, instilling into them the image of God. According to this view, the fall remains a literal event. I think that this may be the only position regarding Adam and Eve that an evolutionary creationist can take without falling into total heresy. Although I do not consider this view heretical, I will still argue that it is wrong.

Genesis 2:7 says, “the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground.” There are other verses in the Bible that speak of God forming people. In Psalm 139:13, for instance, David says, “You knit me together in my mother’s womb.” However, I think there is a big difference between God forming a person in his mother’s womb and God forming a person from the dust of the ground. It seems to me that Genesis 2:7 indicates a special act of creation not involving birth from a mother. If Adam were taken from an existing human population, then God did not form him from the dust of the ground.

This is why I do not think that the theory of evolution by natural selection (at least concerning the origin of man) is compatible with biblical Christianity. Eventually, I will explain why I do not think biological and paleontological evidence demands an evolutionary interpretation. However, that will have to wait for another time.


The Grand Canyon and the Toutle River

In my last post, I began a discussion of the Grand Canyon. I pointed out that although floods certainly can create layers of rock, a flood could not possibly have created the specific layers in the specific sequence found in the Grand Canyon. Now let’s consider the formation of the canyon itself. Young-earth creationists frequently compare the Grand Canyon to the Toutle River canyon, which was formed by a mudflow during the eruption of Mount St. Helens. They claim that water released after the flood by the breaking of a dam could have formed the Grand Canyon. However, these two canyons really are not at all alike. I can identify four different reasons why the method by which the Toutle River canyon was formed cannot explain the formation of the Grand Canyon.

  1. This canyon was created by a mudflow during the eruption of Mount St. Helens.

    The source of the material that produced the Toutle River canyon is evident. There is no evidence of a reservoir that could have provided the water necessary to quickly produce the Grand Canyon. Because the amount of sediment removed from the canyon has about the same volume as Lake Michigan, the reservoir that formed the canyon must have had a volume at least equal to several times that of all the Great Lakes combined. The prehistoric lakes that are invoked to explain the source of the water simply do not have sufficient volume to remove this much material.

  2. The Toutle River canyon is most pronounced near the foot of the mountain.

    The Toutle River canyon is most pronounced close to its source at Mount St. Helens and diminishes as it moves away from the mountain. This makes sense for a canyon that has as its cause a release of fluid from a particular source. The Grand Canyon, however, begins as a relatively small canyon in central Utah and becomes deeper and wider as it travels through the Colorado Plateau, until reaching its widest and deepest point hundreds of miles downstream in northern Arizona. This is not consistent with a catastrophic formation.

  3. The Grand Canyon has plenty of twists and turns.

    The Toutle River canyon is more or less straight, although it does make a few gentle turns as a result of the topography of the surrounding terrain. The Grand Canyon follows a meandering path, including a number of U turns, across an otherwise flat plateau. Water rushing with enough force to carve out a canyon does not follow a meandering path.

  4. Here, a tributary joins the Colorado River in a canyon of its own.

    The Toutle River canyon is a single channel. The river in the Grand Canyon has numerous tributaries. These tributaries, where they join the Colorado River, are in “tributary canyons” as deep as the primary canyon. Water originating from a single source and rushing with enough force to create a canyon does not form tributary canyons.

So yes, canyons can be formed quickly. But the Grand Canyon could not have been formed quickly. The explanation more consistent with the physical evidence is that it was eroded over the course of many years through solid rock by a river following a meandering path across a relatively flat plateau.

Rocks of the Grand Canyon

I’m not sure whether a debate about the age of the earth has taken place in recent times without any reference being made to the Grand Canyon. Most scientists claim that it must have taken many years to form, but those who believe in a young earth claim that it could have been formed quickly. These people point primarily to two known facts: Large floods can deposit layers of sediment, and canyons can form quickly. Using this information, they conclude that a global flood could have created all (or most) of the rock layers seen in the canyon and that a large flash flood caused by a dam bursting shortly after the flood could have carved out the canyon itself. Does this explanation hold water (pun intended)? What are the facts concerning the Grand Canyon, and are they compatible with formation by a global flood? Today I will address the formation of the rock layers seen in the Grand Canyon, and next time I will address the formation of the canyon itself.

Nobody disputes that floods can and often do deposit layers of sediment. However, a more specific question is warranted: Could the particular types and sequence of rock layers found in the Grand Canyon have been formed by a single flood event? This is a question that I have never heard young-earth creationists address.

The young-earth creationists typically point out that if you shake up a jar of muddy water and let it settle, it will form layers according to the densities of the suspended particles. They claim that this is how rock layers formed in the flood. It is true that floods can form layers in this manner. The coarsest sediments end up on the bottom, and the finest sediments end up on the top. However, this is not what we observe in the layers of rock found in the Grand Canyon area.

You see, the top layer of rock in the Grand Canyon area is limestone (#1 in the diagram). Beneath that is a layer of sandstone (#3). Beneath the sandstone is siltstone (#4), and beneath the siltstone is more limestone (#7). If these layers were all formed at the same time by settling of particles after a global flood, then we should expect the sand to have settled before the silt. It should not be possible in this context for a sandstone layer to form on top of a siltstone layer. Also, it should not be possible for these to be sandwiched between different layers of limestone.

Limestone is a type of rock that can form only in a marine environment, and both layers of limestone (#1 and #7) contain numerous marine fossils. Sandstone can be formed either on land or underwater. However, the sandstone (#4) in between these two layers of limestone could not possibly have formed underwater. It contains no fossils of marine organisms. Also, it contains numerous fossil tracks, including reptile tracks and also tracks from small arthropods such as centipedes and spiders. It also contains raindrop impressions. These cannot be formed underwater.

So the evidence clearly points to this: The land was submerged under water for some time. At some point after this, it became a sandy desert. After this, it was again submerged under water for a long enough time to form several hundred feet of additional limestone. I simply cannot figure out how this can be explained by a single global flood. I have searched the internet and cannot find even a single source that attempts to explain this.

If you can explain to me how the specific layers of rock found in the Grand Canyon area could have formed in the observed sequence by a global flood, then please do. Really, I mean it. I’m dying to understand this.

The Distant Starlight Problem

The history of the universe is recorded in the stars. Seriously. By looking into space, we can see events that occurred billions of years ago. Let me explain.

The sun is 8 light minutes from the earth. This means it is far enough away that light from the sun does not reach the earth for 8 minutes. If the sun were to suddenly explode, we wouldn’t even know it until 8 minutes later. By looking at the sun, we are looking 8 minutes into history.

stars in the sky

Stars as seen from Earth

The distances to about 100,000 of the closest stars to earth has been directly measured using basic trigonometry. These stars are distances of 4 to 1600 light years from the earth and represent less than a ten-thousandth of a percent of the stars in our galaxy. Studying these stars reveals a definite, reliable connection between color, brightness, and distance. Because the color and brightness can be observed for stars that are farther away, this connection can be used to calculate the distances to other stars in our galaxy. It turns out that some of the stars visible in the night sky (such as V762 Cas) are up to about 15,000 light years away.

But that is just in our galaxy. There are many other galaxies that are close enough for astronomers to be able to distinguish individual stars. Using the same method, they have determined the distances to these galaxies (such as NGC 7320, at 40 million light years). And this represents only a small percentage of all the galaxies out there. Most of them are much farther than that.

the Andromeda galaxy

The Andromeda galaxy, approximately 2.5 million light years from earth.

So when we look at a galaxy that is 40 million light years from earth, we see it as it was 40 million years ago. This presents a problem for the young-earth model. How can we see a galaxy as it was 40 million years ago if it didn’t exist 40 million years ago?

I have often heard it suggested that God could have made the light in transit so that we could see it immediately. However, this explanation has a very big problem. We do not just see constant streams of light, but we see events being communicated in that light. For example, we have seen stars exploding (such as SN 2008D). If we observe the death of a star in a beam of light created in transit, then we are seeing a star that never really existed, and God had encoded in a beam of light the history of an event that never actually took place.

Over the course of many years, various people have attempted to create scientific models that can explain how we can see these stars without requiring the belief in a universe that is billions of years old. To date, nobody has succeeded in creating such a model that is compatible with the observed properties of the universe.1 In fact, the very proposition of a young universe that obeys general relativity and in which distant starlight is visible can mathematically be proven impossible.2

However, the inflationary big bang model does a very good job at explaining the observed properties of the universe. It is consistent both with general relativity (which has itself withstood rigorous testing for almost a century) and with observational data.3

So what is the most obvious explanation for light being visible from stars billions of light years away? The universe is billions of years old.

[1] Perhaps the most well-known model in the young-earth creationist community is one that has been proposed by Dr. Russell Humphreys and that purports to solve the distant starlight problem in the context of a young universe. However, this model fails on a number of counts, which include misapplication of known laws of physics and lack of conformity with observed properties of the universe. See reference below for details.

[2] Ross, H. (1999). The Unraveling of Starlight and Time. Retrieved from

[3] Although there is one discrepancy (the horizon problem) between observation and the original formulation of the big bang model, this problem has been solved by the inclusion of an initial period of rapid expansion (inflation) in the model. This inflationary hypothesis has recently been validated by the discovery of the gravitational waves that it predicted.

The Appearance of Age

I often hear people claim that God created the world with the appearance of age. In a sense, I don’t have a problem with this. In another sense, however, I have a very big problem with it.

God created tigers on the sixth day of creation. I’m thinking he probably didn’t create only baby tigers that would have been dependent on their nonexistent mothers for nourishment. I’m thinking that instead he made tigers as adults. Similarly, I don’t think Adam and Eve were created as babies. I think God made them full-grown. I don’t have a problem with this idea.

What I would have a big problem with would be the notion that God may have created Adam with a scar on his left forearm. A scar is an indication of a historical event. If God made Adam with a scar, he would have been creating a record of an event that never actually took place. Because God does not lie, I cannot believe that he would do this. When talking about the appearance of age, we must be careful to make the distinction between God creating something in a mature state and God creating a false historical record.

volcano erupting

It is easy when confronted with evidence that indicates an old earth to simply claim that the earth was created that way. For example, some may say that God made Antarctica with many of the annual layers of ice already in place. However, some of these layers contain volcanic ash. God creating a layer of ice with trapped volcanic ash would mean God creating a false historical record. (Yes, I know of the other interpretations of these layers, and I will address that at another time.)

The phrase “appearance of age” is something that I have frequently heard. However, we must be very careful with this phrase. If we mean that God created something in a mature state, that is consistent with the character of God. But if we mean that God has created a record of events that did not take place, then we are calling God a liar. Anyone who uses this phrase or who suggests that the earth may have been created with certain characteristics should carefully evaluate the implications of this statement.