|
Any kind of evolution from one species to another is ruled out of court in Genesis 1 by the fact that God created all living beings "according to their kind." This clearly indicates that each kind is distinct. Furthermore, there must be a clear distinction made here between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The former happens all the time when a species develops in order to adapt to its environment. Think of the fruit fly experiments, for instance. But the key here is that they remained fruit flies. They did not change into aardvarks. If macro-evolution were true, one would expect evidence of intermediary forms. Science has not produced these. All the so-called fossil evidence isn't. Most of them are hoaxes perpetrated in order to support a theory. There is certainly no evidence of intermediary forms in the world of living animals today. Similarity of form can be much easier explained by the fact that when God created a template that He liked, He used it more than once.
The other problem here is that science can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER prove anything true in a mathematical proof sense. All it can do is theorize. The theory of evolution is not true, therefore, in any sense of the word meaning "proven." Some other theory might very well explain the evidence far better.
As to the Framework Interpretation, several things mitigate against it. The appeal to the creation week in Exodus 20 makes no sense whatever if the week is only a literary framework. Secondly, the apologetic edge against sun-gods Shemesh (Babylonian) and Ra (Egyptian) in Genesis 1 (confer the pointed omission of the names for sun and moon in Gen 1:16) explains much better the correlation between day 1 and day 4 (light and lights) than the Framework Intepretation does. The source of light is God Himself, not sun-gods. Light is not God. Confer also the eschatological direction of Revelation 22:5: as the world began, with God being the source of light, so also will the world end, with God being the source of light. The sun and moon are parentheses. Second, the reference to morning and evening indicates sequence. If it is just there to provide realism, then it is superfluous, and nothing in Scripture is superfluous. Thirdly, the argument about poetry is insane. To say that something is poetry, and therefore ahistorical is simply ridiculous. Are no poems ever written about historical events? Fourthly, the argument that natural preservation was the rule in Genesis 1 (argued by Kline and Futato) runs aground in the fact that their argument does not prove that all of creation was sustained immediately by natural preservation. The literary framework of days 1-3 paralled by days 4-6 fits in with the literal interpretation just as easily as with the Framework hypothesis. Therefore, the FH is not tenable.
|