Inspirational Readings for Your Daily Walk with God:

Christian Mediation

 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15



10. Creation and Science

IN preceding chapters consideration has been given to the scientific facts that have a bearing on the question of whether the earth and its life came into being by direct creation or were evolved by natural processes. It would he well in conclusion to review these main points briefly and to bring together the major scientific aspects of the creationist philosophy as it stands opposed to evolution.


Although matter and energy are realities, they must be considered as realities of creation, not of independent existence. The chemical elements and compounds are so diverse in their manifestations, which we call “properties,” that it is impossible to imagine them as eternal, having always possessed these properties. 

But when we begin to analyze the complex properties of chemical substances, we find it absolutely out of the question to explain the more complex in terms of the simpler. For instance, water is a compound of oxygen and hydrogen. But its properties are not a combination of those of oxygen and hydrogen. Similarly, sulfuric acid is made of hydrogen, sulfur, and oxygen; but its properties are not those of its components.

The only satisfactory explanation for the properties of matter is that God created material substances as instruments through which to manifest His power. He has ordained that certain combinations shall manifest His power in certain ways, but the properties are not the result of any inherent activity of the matter itself.

The Greeks conceived of matter as made up of discrete particles, which they called atoms, because they were supposed to be the final indivisible units. The properties of matter were supposed to be due to the sum total of the properties of the atoms themselves. This hypothesis, however, did not settle any of the problems, for ultimately there remained the question as to what gave the atoms their properties. 

The difficulty in all such materialistic interpretations lies in the failure to recognize the fact that the atoms are complex dynamic systems, made up of units of force, such as electrons, protons, etc. This dynamic system, therefore, does not exist as an ultimate lump of matter, but as a combination of forces. 

But forces must have a source; they cannot exist in and of themselves. Thus we arrive at the conclusion that there must be some ultimate cause of causes back of and behind all material things. This makes it a logical necessity that we accept the creation of matter as the only possible interpretation for its origin and its properties. We have now overcome the difficulty in the idea that matter is self-existent.


Matter and energy, even though they might have existed independently, could never have constituted an organized universe. The very existence of organization is a proof for creation.

Let us suppose we have enough type to set up a copy of the Constitution. How long would we have to pick at random and place the type in composing sticks before we happened to get every letter and punctuation mark in the right place? How long would it take for blind chance to “compose” a living creature? How long to bring together a world? And what about solar systems, galaxies, and super galaxies?

The laws of chance are so remote, even on the smaller units of existence, that when we think of the greater units we cannot but see the hopelessness of trying to bring order out of the chaos by any kind of blind, automatic action.

The creation record of Genesis is not simply a record of origin, it is a record of organization. The matter was first created, then formed into land, sea, and sky. Then living creatures were produced, each “after his kind,” in systematic order.

From the organization of the simplest atoms, throughout the complex groups of substances, to the minerals and rocks, to the living creatures, from atoms to worlds, from cells to living creatures, from worlds to systems and systems to galaxies-in and through all this marvelous universe may be seen divine plan and order. And this order is so complicated that none but an Infinite Mind could have planned and directed it. The very fact that so much mental effort is required to understand scientific principles is evidence of the Intelligence that is back of all natural phenomena. Things did not “happen;” they were the products of the power of Infinite Wisdom.

Nature is full of evidences for design. Take, for example, the manner in which physical factors are related so as to make life possible upon the earth. The range of temperatures between interstellar space and the interior of stars is millions of degrees. Even on this earth, temperatures range from below zero to thousands of degrees above. 

Life can exist only in a small part of this range. How is it that the surface of the earth is maintained so closely within the limits that allow the existence of life? Surely not by chance, for the laws of chance would not make such a small range likely. We must recognize that the hand of the Almighty is controlling the physical factors acting upon our earth in order to allow life to continue.

When one enters the field of biochemistry, the wonder becomes even more profound. For life exists, not in a simple mixture of elements, but in an almost incomprehensible complexity of chemical substances making up what we call “protoplasm.” The wheel within a wheel of Ezekiel’s vision is probably the best concept one can suggest for the complexity of the activities by which life is carried on. Not only does protoplasm contain mixtures of protein, fats, sugars, and minerals, but it actually manufactures other substances such as hormones and enzymes and uses them to regulate its processes.

Amazing as is the chemistry of living bodies, even more amazing is the manner in which these bodies develop from simple cells during the embryonic process. Take for example, any of the well known animals. Each begins as a single microscopic cell. Within this tiny bit of protoplasm is a small portion, the nucleus, inside of which are groups of protoplasmic thread known as “chromosomes.”

On these are infinitesimally small granules, the genes. These genes not only transmit the stream of heredity from one generation to the next, but they also govern the development of the body from the single cell to its fully completed state, and do so in such a way that when it is fully developed it has not only become a new individual “after his kind,” but possesses those peculiar characteristics that enable one to recognize its exact relationships to others of its kind. In other words, heredity is so accurate in its laws that we say of a child: “He has his father’s features,” or “He is a perfect image of his mother.”

It is hard to see how anyone can follow through the changes in the embryo without seeing in them the working of a superintending Providence. The single cell divides to form a ball of cells; they in turn become a hollow tube; three germ layers appear, the ectoderm, mesoderm, and entoderm. 

From each of these arise certain tissues, which combine into organs. Each part arises at exactly the right time and in exactly the right place so that they all fit together perfectly to form the completed organism. There is in each developing embryo an inconceivably complex chemical mechanism, by which enzymes and hormones are released in exactly the right proportions and at the right stages to stimulate the development of new tissues and glands, which in turn liberate other substances to carry on the process. How can such a complicated series of events come by accident?

We might go through the whole realm of biology and point out wonder after wonder that require intelligence and design. A few of these might be mentioned: the social life of ants, termites, bees, and wasps; the relationship between the yucca flower and the Pronuba moth. The fig wasp and the development of figs; the relation between insects and flowers in general; devices for preventing self-pollinization; bird migration; different types of eyes, as seen in mollusks, arthropods, and vertebrates; faculties of the human mind.

The thousands of adaptive structures by which plants and animals carry on their life and maintain their existence constitute abundant evidence for intelligent design in nature. Let anyone try to figure how these things came by chance and he will see how unreasonable is the materialistic view of nature and how necessary it becomes to believe in creation.


Belief in evolution rests on the unproved and unprovable hypothesis of uniformity-that throughout the past, natural processes have gone on at the same rate as now. According to this idea, all the actions of the past have been uniform, and there has been no universal catastrophe to destroy the earth.

Not much thought is required to arrive at the conclusion that the uniformitarian hypothesis is incapable of proof. Accurate scientific records have been kept only a comparatively few years; how can we prove that climatic conditions have always been like those we know? How can we prove that the sedimentary rocks of the earth have been deposited under conditions now prevailing? How can it be proved that the uplift of the mountains and the outpouring of the molten rocks were slow and uniform? These and many other phenomena are assumed to have taken place naturally, but this assumption cannot be demonstrated.

Creationism and Flood geology are based on the idea that God brought the world into existence by supernatural means, and that He destroyed it by a catastrophe. Each of these two ideas supplements the other. To be consistent, we must believe in a literal creation and a world-wide destruction.

The doctrine of creation is based on the plain statements of the Bible, and supported by logic and reason, as previously pointed out. Flood geology rests on the literal interpretation of the Genesis record and is supported by evidence from the rocks. The ecological zonation theory, as already suggested, will explain the sequence of the fossils without recourse to long ages of deposition.


On this point it is important to notice that although biological science has arrived at a fairly clear understanding of the manner in which modern species and genera have arisen, there is no scientific evidence for the origin of the higher categories-the families, orders, classes, and phyla. 

To the creationist who believes that God created all plants and animals after their kinds, this fact is significant. Between the families-for example, between the dog family and the cat family-there are such clear cut distinctions that it is practically impossible to believe that any known genetic changes are capable of deriving one from the other or both from common ancestry. 

In this case, therefore, the family seems to some students of the problem to satisfy the requirement as an original Genesis “kind.” On the other hand, families appear to have been divided into smaller groups. In the case of the cats, it is likely that lions, jaguars, lynxes, and such groups have descended from separate original “kinds.”

The fact that no proof can be given for the origin of new “kinds”-new families, orders, etc. -constitutes a complete scientific vindication of the Genesis story of the creation of each “after his kind.”

The fact that variation has taken place, and that the variants have been distributed over the earth in a mosaic of species and subspecies in no way proves evolution. On the other hand, once it is recognized that these variations have all taken place within the kinds, or by means of a limited amount of confused crossing between similar kinds, the more clearly can it be seen that all the facts of variation, adaptation, and distribution fit into the creationist viewpoint.


In conclusion, it can be truthfully said that scientific theories which are not in harmony with the simple record of the Bible are unproved and unprovable. The established facts of science can all be fitted into the literal Genesis record.

Whether in the field of logic, mathematics, astronomy, geology, archaeology, biology, or in any other field of science, the creationist who accepts the Bible story as inspired history finds it possible to interpret the data in accordance with this literal story. 

It is said that the greatest reason why men have accepted evolution is not that it can be proved, for evolutionists generally admit that positive proof is impossible, but rather that known scientific data can be interpreted in the light of the evolutionary theory.

Thus, one ought to be as ready to accept the creationist doctrine if it can be shown that scientific data can be correlated with it. The purpose of the discussions in this book has been, not particularly to disprove evolution nor to prove creation, but rather to show how the facts of science fit with the Scriptural doctrine of creation. The way will be open, then, to accept creationism as a plausible explanation of the earth and its life.

Now that we have placed creation with evolution as a scientific theory, what basis do we have for a choice between them? Here is where we must make our final decision, and it is upon this basis: The evolution theory, including the geological ages and the origin of the present life of the earth by evolutionary processes, is based on human opinions and assumptions.

The creation doctrine, including the origin of the earth, the creation of plants and animals each “after his kind,” and of man in God’s image, is based on the plain statements of the Bible, which is given by inspiration of God.

Upon which basis do we prefer to build our scientific knowledge? The facts are the same for all; whether evolutionist or creationist, we learn the same laws, we observe the same phenomena. The difference lies in the interpretation that is placed on them.

In the final analysis one must choose one of two logically consistent systems of interpretation, either pure materialism, which dispenses with the need of an intelligent Deity, or a system which recognizes that the universe is upheld by the power of a God who personally and directly superintends the activities of His vast creation. A person cannot believe the doctrine of inherent natural force without committing himself to infinite regress, which explains every phenomenon in terms of some other natural phenomenon, with no place for a beginning or an end. 

The doctrine of a personal God centers everything in a personality with a mind and a will. In all reason, therefore, this interpretation is the only satisfactory one. 

Some persons claim that it is unscientific to believe in God. But it should be pointed out that these same persons find themselves in the world, and accept the common facts of daily life without proof. They learn to read, to do business, and to take the experiences of life as a matter of course. Why should they hesitate to accept the idea of a supreme intelligence? 

Men who have received visions of deeper things of the Spirit are confident that there is a God. Why should His existence be doubted because it cannot be demonstrated by scientific methods? Light, gravitation, electricity, and all the other forces of nature are taken for granted, though no one can tell what they are, nor explain them.

 Naturalism has to take all its basic principles for granted. Why should it be considered any less scientific to believe in the existence of God? The difference between the position of the Christian and that of the materialistic evolutionist is that one assumes a natural, material, impersonal cause, while the other assumes the existence of a personal God, as the immediate and direct cause of all natural phenomena.

The Bible has been accepted by millions of men as the revelation of God to man. If this is wrong, religious experience becomes mere superstition, and the skepticism of the critic is lifted to a more exalted position than the deep moral conviction of millions. To replace a belief which is grounded on the experience of men by an unproved and unprovable hypothesis is a serious matter. Let the skeptic weigh carefully the responsibility which the universe would ask him to bear if he denies to God His rightful place as ruler of the material as well as of the spiritual world.

“He that comes to God must believe that He is.” Hebrews 11:6. The element of faith cannot be avoided, even in the scientific field. There is no way to get at the underlying “Cause” of the universe except by faith. Natural forces do not proclaim their own origin. There are only two choices, either a blind mechanical causality or a personal God. The creationist chooses the latter, and offers no apologies for his choice; nor can anyone prove that it is unscientific.

There may be some who think that nothing can be known with certainty-that all human knowledge is merely guesswork, speculation, or imagination. This attitude of mind leads to the conclusion that science is nothing but an accumulation of human opinions, with no settled basis of truth, and that philosophy is only a vagary, the diffuse muttering of disordered minds. Such a viewpoint of life is entirely unsatisfactory, and will accomplish no good result. 

Life must be conducted on a positive plane if any good is to come from its activities. Some settled ground for behavior must be found if men are to continue to pride themselves on being rational human beings. The skeptical attitude leaves a man weak and helpless before the great problems of life. Unless he has faith in some underlying causes for the phenomena of nature, he cannot attack those phenomena with any assurance of understanding them. 

The universe is a cosmos, not a chaos. Things are ordered according to law, and do not occur haphazardly. Science has achieved no greater triumph during the past three hundred years than to reduce an apparently confused mass of natural phenomena to orderly, systematic arrangement, and to discover the laws that govern this organized universe. 

Today no man who has any training in science thinks of questioning the validity of the great mass of scientific knowledge; and all investigators of nature proceed on the assumption that nature is organized in an orderly manner. Order demands intelligence. Who ever heard of inanimate objects organizing themselves into systematic groups? 

Furthermore, the orderly organization of nature is intelligible. In other words, man, as a thinking and reasoning being, can understand the relationships existing in nature, and can get some idea of the meaning and purpose of these relationships. He looks upon the flower blooming above the black soil, and as he studies its life he finds certain laws of physics and chemistry manifested in its structure. He learns that these laws govern the flower’s ability to assimilate its food and to produce its lovely blossoms.

He appreciates the underlying forces at work; and when they have accomplished their purpose and the completed bloom appears, he marvels at the beauty that has been revealed. So in all the phenomena of nature; intelligent organization is displayed. Certainly, if these things are intelligible to human minds, they must have been the product of some other intelligent mind. There must have been a mind at the other end, or our minds would not have been able to grasp the meaning of the orderly processes in nature.

The very fact that all the laws of science have a mathematical basis should be ample proof that they proceed from a mind of profound intelligence. It requires exact, deep thinking to understand the laws of higher mathematics. These laws are not, and could not be, the result of chance; they must have been ordered by a higher intelligence.

This world is a world of life, and from the tiniest mote that floats in the sunbeam to the mightiest denizen of the sea, all nature vibrates with the forces that life sets in operation. Air, water, and the earth itself-every corner and cranny of our globe-abound with living, active creatures.

Life manifests itself not merely in activity, but basically and fundamentally in expressions of ideas. Gazing at a beautiful painting, the beholder catches the inspiration of its meaning, and says that he understands the thought of the artist, who, as a living, thinking, feeling person, embodied his ideas in the pattern of the pigment on the canvas. His character is displayed in the work which he produces, quite as truly as in the activities of his own body. 

So it is with the sculptor, who puts his own soul into the marble or the bronze. The photographer, even, who catches on the film the subtle beauty of the landscape, composes his scene in such a way as to interpret its meaning to him. The musician draws from his instrument those strains that will tell the story of his inmost heart; his emotions are bared to the world by the chords that he plays.

If he will, the naturalist may find in the world of the great outdoors myriad illustrations of this same truth, for nature stands as a great object lesson designed by the mind and created by the hand of the Infinite. Each manifestation of natural law reveals the character of the great Lawmaker; each strain of natural music tells of the heartthrobs of the Master Musician; each bit of beauty displayed in flower and sky shows the skill of the divine Artist. 

The mighty mountains speak of the wisdom of the Supreme Architect. He who can look at nature and see in it only a blind array of self-operating forces has failed to see the real meaning of nature and science. To the deep thinker the intricate laws revealed in the field of scientific investigation show a Master Mind behind all things.

The charge is sometimes made that the belief in God implies the idea of caprice in the operation of natural forces, that if natural forces are under the direct control of God, they may be erratic in their action. Such a charge is without foundation. The exactness and system observed in natural phenomena is an evidence of the wisdom of the Ruler of nature. His omniscience is so far-reaching that He has no need of changing His manner of working through His created things; yet He is not bound by nature, but can supersede the ordinary manner of working by actions suited to the occasion, when the need arises.


One who takes the position that there is a Supreme Being is bound to look for evidences of His revelation to man. Any system of thought that would deny God the right to communicate with His children would deny the very essence of His personality. In a pantheistic system all nature would be a revelation, and the only revelation possible. According to the materialistic conception, natural revelations are the only ones possible. On the personal basis, special revelation is as reasonable as the idea of the existence of God.

Accordingly, the Bible as the word of God is an essential doctrine to those who believe in the personality of God. There is no alternative; either the Bible is God’s revelation to man or there has been no divinely revealed truth.

At once the cry is raised that the Bible is being placed on a scientific basis and used as a textbook of science. In reply it may be said that it is not a textbook, but does contain the fundamental principles to which all interpretations of scientific discoveries must conform. 

If there is a God, He must be the author both of the Bible and of nature, and the two must agree. If the Bible is to mean anything at all, it must be inspired by the Spirit of God; and if thus inspired, its historical records must be true. When, therefore, human speculative methods of thought presume to interpret the past history of the earth in a manner diametrically opposed to the record given in the Bible, Christians ought to object and to take their stand on the declarations of the word of God. They ought willingly and knowingly to allow themselves to be known as opposing the current interpretations in regard to the origin and past history of the earth. In so doing they may rest assured that these interpretations are not scientifically proved facts, and they may feel that they have the right to take exception to them.

The scientific world is today in a state of confusion because it has denied the truth of a personal God as the center of life and force in the universe. It has interpreted nature as a self-running mechanism and assumed the ability of the human mind to explain the phenomena of nature and to interpret their significance in the moral and spiritual realm. It has refused to accept the divine revelation regarding the past history of the earth and has substituted in its place a speculative theory of long ages of evolution. 

The struggle for existence, the presence of degeneracy and death, and in the moral world the ‘ fact of evil-these and many other points are interpreted in the light of evolution instead of the Bible record of the fall of man and the reign of rebellion. Science has exalted human research; theology has adopted its methods, and has turned to a social gospel instead of the religion that exalts Jesus as a divine Savior.

The greatest need of the world today is not more scientific research, although facts thus brought to light are valuable; the world needs a true philosophy to enable it to make a correct interpretation of facts already known and to guide it in the acquirement of new knowledge. 

A new revelation is not needed, but faith to accept the one already given. When the word of God is accepted as a guide in scientific research as well as in spiritual study and experience, then, and only then, can men hope to solve the great problems of science and religion.