HOW TO TALK TO YOUR KIDS ABOUT CREATION AND EVOLUTION

HOW TO TALK TO YOUR KIDS ABOUT CREATION AND EVOLUTION

Ray and Sue Bohlin

In this pamphlet, Ray and Sue Bohlin discuss how to talk to your kids about creation and evolution.

Problems with Evolutionary Theory

Basically I said you should only believe what there is evidence for. After spending years studying evolution in bachelor's, master's, and doctoral programs, I can tell you that, first of all, there IS evidence for small changes in organisms as they adapt to small environmental fluctuations.

Second, there IS evidence that new species do arise. We see new species of fruit flies, rodents, and even birds. But when the original species is a fruit fly, the new species is still a fruit fly. These processes do not tell us how we get horses and wasps and woodpeckers.

Third, in the fossil record, there are only a few transitions between major groups of organisms, like between reptiles and birds, and these are controversial, even among evolutionists. If evolutionary theory is correct, the fossil record should be full of them.

Fourth, there are no real evolutionary answers for the origin of complex adaptations like the tongue of the woodpecker; or flight in birds, mammals, insects, and reptiles; or the swimming adaptations in fish, mammals, reptiles, and the marine invertebrates. These adaptations appear in the fossil record with no transitions.

And fifth, there is no genetic mechanism for these large-scale evolutionary changes. The theory of evolution from amoeba to man is an extrapolation from very meager data.

The evolution of the horse

It does not prove much about evolution at all. David Raup, with the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, says: We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.

There is no chronological sequence of horse-like fossils. The story of the gradual reduction from the four-toed horse of 60 million years ago to the one-toed horse of today has been called pure fiction. All that can be shown is the transition from a little horse to a big one. This is not significant evolutionary change, and it still took some 60 million years. It does not say anything about how the horse evolved from a shrew-like mammal.

Homologous and Vestigial Organs

Homologous organs are organs or structures from different organisms that have the same or similar function. Evolutionists say this similarity is due to common ancestry. The important question is, Do these organs look and function the same because of common ancestry or because of a simple common design. In other words, do they look this way because they are related to one another, or were they designed to perform a similar function? Homology is not a problem for creationists; we have a different but reasonable explanation. It is the result of common design, not common ancestry.

According to evolutionary theory?

Yes, according to evolution. But we have discovered that these structures do have a function. The prime example is the one you mentioned, the tailbone. The coccyx serves as a point of attachment for several pelvic muscles. You would not be able to sit very well or comfortably without a tailbone. The appendix was also long thought to be a vestigial organ, having absolutely no function within our bodies, but now we find it is involved in the immune system.

It does have a function. It is true that you can live without it. However, as we learn more about the appendix, we realize that if it remains uninfected, it may be serving a very useful purpose. Yes, very often we have called these things "vestigial" because we never bothered to investigate their function because of their reduced stature. Now we find that things like the coccyx and the appendix really do have a function. And if they have a function, then we cannot call them vestigial; they are not leftovers from our evolutionary past.

Embryological development does not follow the history of our evolutionary past. That idea was proven wrong 50 or 60 years ago. It is unfortunate that this error is still in the textbooks. Obviously, there are some similarities among species very early in embryological development; for instance, among mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds. That is because they all start from a single cell. As development progresses, they become less similar. That is exactly what you would expect from an evolutionist OR creationist perspective.

The Early Atmosphere of the Earth

This particular section is confusing at best and misleading at worst. Clearly they have described Miller's classic experiment, but researchers today agree that the atmosphere used for that simulation did not exist. But yet Miller's experiment produced results. If you use the atmosphere that the textbook describes as the real one, the results are much less significant. The textbook gives the impression that chemical evolution is easy to simulate. But this is far from the truth. One experimenter says: At present, all discussions on principles and theories in the field [meaning the origin of life] either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance, but you would definitely not get that impression from reading this section of the book.

Phylogenetic Trees

Evolutionary trees, or phylogenetic trees, are regularly misrepresented in high-school textbooks. The nice solid lines give the impression that there is plenty of evidence, plenty of fossils to document these transitions, but the transitions are not there. If we were to look at this same type of diagram in a college textbook (all those connecting lines), the transitions would be dotted lines, indicating that we do not have the evidence to prove that these organisms are related.

The transition is an assumption. They assume these organisms are related to each other, but the evidence is lacking. Stephen Gould, a paleontologist and evolutionist from Harvard, says, The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches. The rest is inference, however reasonable: not the evidence of fossils.

Natural Selection and Speciation

Natural selection is a process where, the organisms that are fit to survive and reproduce, do so at a greater rate than those that are less fit. It sounds circular, but it is a simple process, something you can easily observe in nature. <> They keep showing up because the peppered moth was the first documented example of Darwin's natural selection at work. There were two different color varieties of the same moth: a peppered variety and a dark black variety. The peppered variety was camouflaged on the bark of trees, but the black variety was conspicuous. As a result, the birds ate a lot of black moths. The most common variety, therefore, was the peppered variety.

But then the bark of the trees turned dark or black because of pollution. Now the dark form was hidden, but the peppered variety stood out, so the birds ate up the peppered variety. The proportion of peppered moths to black moths shifted in response to the change in the environment. So here was a change of frequency. At one time we had more peppered moths, and now we have more dark ones. A clear example of natural selection taking place. But the question is, Is this really evolution? I don't think so. It just shows variety within a form. This does not tell me anything as a biologist and a geneticist about how we have come to have horses and wasps and woodpeckers.

Here is another area where we need to be careful. Speciation is indeed a real process, but speciation only means that two populations of a particular species can no longer interbreed. The two populations get separated by a geographical barrier such as a mountain range, and after a time they are no longer able to interbreed or to reproduce between themselves. But all we have really done is split up the gene pool into two different, separate populations; if you want to call them different species, that's fine. But even Darwin's finches, although there are some changes in the shape and size of the bill, are clearly related to one another. Drosophila fruit flies on the Hawaiian Islands (there are over 300 species) probably originated from one initial species. But they look very much the same. The primary way to distinguish them is by their mating behavior. There is a lot of variety within the organisms God created, and species can adapt to small changes in the environment. But there is a limit to how far that change can go. And the examples we have, like peppered moths and Darwin's finches, show that very clearly.

Responding to Evolutionary Theory

First, don't panic. This should not be a surprise_ you knew it was going to come eventually.

Second, understand that evolution is a very important idea in society today. It is important to know about it and to understand it. Try to explain it to your kids in that way. You do not have to believe it or accept it, but you need to understand it, know what people mean when they talk about evolution. Here it can get a little sticky. You may feel that you have to lie in order to give the answer the teacher wants. But I do not think that is the case at all. What you are doing is simply addressing the issue of evolution; you are showing that you understand it. You do not have to phrase your answer in such a way that says, "I believe this is the way it is." It may come down to how you state your answer. But you are simply demonstrating your knowledge about evolution, not your acceptance of it.

The concept of respect, I think, is extremely important, because you have to realize that as a middle-school or high-school student, you are dealing with teachers who have studied or taught evolutionary theory for many years. Their level of understanding is much deeper than yours. You cannot simply go in there and try to convince the class that the teacher is wrong, or that evolution is wrong; you need to play the role of a student. And the role of a student is to learn, to try to understand and comprehend the ideas being discussed. But you do not have to communicate in such a way that you appear to believe evolutionary theory. Here we have to realize that what is being taught is not science anymore; this is a world view. This is a statement of naturalism. Obviously, evolution is extremely important to the naturalistic world view, and the authors are trying to communicate its significance. We are going to see more and more of this bias in textbooks.

Genesis 1

There are a number of different ways to interpret Genesis 1. Let me just run through three of the most prominent views among evangelicals today:

The first is the LITERAL or the VERY RECENT creation account. Some people would call the proponents of this view "young earth creationists." They believe that each of the six days of creation was a twenty-four hour period similar to our days today. These days were consecutive and in the recent past, probably ten to thirty thousand years ago. They hold that the flood was a world-wide and catastrophic event and that all the sedimentary layers were a result of Noah's flood. All the fossils, therefore, are a result of the flood of Noah.

The second way of looking at Genesis 1 is the DAY AGE THEORY, sometimes called PROGRESSIVE CREATION. Here, each of the six days of creation is a very long period of time, perhaps hundreds of millions of years. God would have created progressively through time, not all at once. The flood is a local event in Mesopotamia or perhaps even a world-wide, but tranquil flood. Therefore, the flood did not leave any great scars or sediments across the earth.

The third view understands Genesis 1 as a LITERARY FRAMEWORK. This view suggests that Genesis 1 was not meant to communicate history. Peoples of the Ancient Near East used a similar literary device to describe a complete or perfect work; in this case, a perfect creation. God could have created using evolution or progressive creation; the point is that there is really no concordance between earth history and the days of Genesis 1. We need to explain to our children the view that makes the most sense to us, but at the same time let them know that there is some disagreement between evangelicals. You may even be confused yourself, and it is okay to communicate to your children that you do not know, either, and that not knowing is all right. We need to give direction but leave the doors open for other options. Creation is a mystery. We need to show respect, not only for the mystery, but also for those people holding different views. Evangelicals with backgrounds in Hebrew and Greek differ on their understanding of Genesis 1. So how can we expect a ten-year-old to grasp the problem and make an actual decision?

Early Human History

This is a very important question, and I think it is one that most evangelical scholars can agree on. Adam and Eve were real people, and almost all evangelical scholars agree that they were created by God. The reason is that this is the one creation event where God gives us details as to how He went about it. When He created the other mammals and the sea creatures and the birds, He MADE them or He CREATED them or He FORMED them, but we are given details about Adam and Eve's creation. We are told how God did it.

Adam was formed from dust, and Eve was created from a rib taken out of Adam's side. It is clear that humans do not have an evolutionary origin. Australopithecines most likely are simply extinct apes. Some quibble as to whether they walked upright and therefore may have been on their way to developing into human beings, but even if they did walk upright, that is not a real problem.

They are still extinct apes, and they really had no human qualities whatsoever. There is a very good book that you may want to look at called "Bones of Contention." There are a couple of books called "Bones of Contention," but this is a recent one by Marvin Lubenow. Lubenow goes into great detail about the actual fossil finds (what they mean, where they fit) all from a creationist's perspective, and he does a very good job. He talks about the fact that human remains seem to span the whole era of supposed human evolution from four million years ago to the present, and that even the one particular type of fossil called "homo erectus" covers a very broad range. Homo erectus does not really fit where he is supposed to, and the fossils seem to contradict evolutionary theory rather than support it. <> In some ways it is surprising that this question seems to be so perplexing to people, but in another way I really understand it.

Clearly, Cain married a sister. We react against that idea today because of the many laws we have today concerning incestuous relationships. We have laws against incest because the children that result from that type of relationship are often afflicted with a genetic disease. This is because all of us carry detrimental recessive genes within our chromosomes. Closely related family members may carry similar if not the same set of recessive genes. When we marry within the family, those recessives can pair up and result in a child who is genetically handicapped. But in the original creation, there was no such problem. These were the originally created beings, there were no genetic mutations to worry about.

Noah's Flood

We are talking about an historical event and one that is very serious. It is spoken of in Genesis in a historical narrative, but evangelicals do disagree as to just how it happened. There are basically three different views:

One is the universal catastrophic flood account, where the flood was a world-wide event. It did indeed cover all the high mountains at that time, and it was catastrophic lots of tidal waves and breaking up of the fountains of the great deep.

The other view is that the flood was universal, it covered the whole earth, but it was a tranquil event and probably did not leave any scars or sediments on the earth.

And the third view is that the flood was just in the Mesopotamian area. Since its intent was to destroy mankind, and mankind had not spread very far, the flood only had to cover the Mesopotamian area. Again, as with the creation account, we need to tell our kids what our conviction is. What do WE think about it? And again, if you are not certain, if you are not sure about your view, go ahead and communicate your uncertainty as well. It is okay to be uncertain about some of these things--scholars do not really know everything about them, either.

And we have to be ready to realize that the kids might not even like our particular interpretation, or they may have heard things in school, Sunday school, or church that may differ with our view. But it is okay to give our kids a little bit of room on these kinds of issues.

The purpose of the flood of Noah was to destroy mankind as it existed at that time. Where scholars differ is just how far mankind had spread. Some suggest that the human population may only have been a couple hundred thousand, so they may have been contained in the Mesopotamian area. But if humans had been around for four or five thousand years, and they had a chance to multiply and grow, there may have been several millions or tens of millions of people spread across the earth.

That may be why some suggest that, in order to destroy mankind, the flood had to be universal. But we still do not know whether the flood was a catastrophic or a tranquil event, and so there is some room for discussion. I think all these different theories are helpful because they allow us to investigate God's Word to the best of our ability and try to determine what it really means.

This catastrophic model definitely suggests a very different scenario than the cute animals or the little round boat. We are talking about the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep and huge amounts of water rocking back and forth across the earth. The young earth creationists suggest that most of the sedimentary layers were formed during the flood. Most of the fossils that we find in those sedimentary layers, therefore, would have been laid down as a result of the flood of Noah. There should also be evidence around the earth of the catastrophic formation of all these sedimentary layers. There are a lot of things that it does explain. There is evidence for catastrophic origin for most, if not all, sedimentary layers. Organisms seem to require a very rapid burial in order for them to be formed as fossils. But there are problems with this model as well, and I think it is important that we recognize what those are.

For instance, all the different types of sediment would have to be the result of just one event, a catastrophic flood. When we look at these sedimentary layers, we have sandstone, limestone, mudstone, shale (all different types of rocks) but they all would have had to come from the same event, and that is a bit of a problem. The majority of Christian geologists believe that the strata are due to other events like river floods, deposits from big storms or hurricanes that occurred periodically or, in some cases regarding the sandstones, even desert sand dunes. While the catastrophic model is a captivating idea, I do not see a need to force ourselves to accept it or reject it at this time. There is a lot of work to be done concerning this model. If you have a curious, science-oriented child, why not encourage him or her to pursue a career in science and become a part of the group that tries to investigate it?

Cavemen

Most creationists believe cavemen were the early survivors of the flood. Remember, if the purpose of the flood was to destroy mankind, then most of these fossils would be individuals who survived the flood or lived soon afterwards. Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man, and probably even fossils described as homo erectus, are all post-flood humans, descendants of Noah's three sons. The so-called primitive characteristics could be due to genetic in-breeding, faulty diets, and life in a harsh environment.

Racial Differences

Races would have originated with Noah's three sons and their wives. Several sets of genes produce the wide variety of skin color present in the current population. It is not difficult at all to envision genetically-similar populations becoming isolated after the flood and being the progenitors of the different races. Much of this genetic variability may have been contained in Noah's sons' wives, arising from genetic segregation that took place since the creation of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were probably people of intermediate skin color with most, if not all, of the genetic variability present in their genes.

Dinosaurs

There is no question that kids today, particularly boys, are really enamored of dinosaurs. The answer depends on what your approach is. If you are approaching creation from an old earth perspective, then the dinosaurs have been extinct for seventy or so million years and there is no reason to expect them to be mentioned in the Bible at all. Men and dinosaurs never existed together.

If, however, you are approaching creation from a young earth model, where everything was created in the fairly recent past, then dinosaurs must have existed at the same time as man because they were created on the same day, only ten to thirty thousand years ago. And that raises the question as to whether Noah took dinosaurs on the ark. It is difficult to imagine a brontosaurus getting on the ark, and most creationists answer that by suggesting he probably did not take adult dinosaurs on the ark, just juveniles or small babies.

The extinction of the dinosaurs then was probably due to the flood. Even if Noah did take some on the ark, apparently the climate and ecology of the earth had changed dramatically as the result of the flood and they were not able to survive following the flood. But it also raises the very distinct possibility that some dinosaurs may still exist in small, isolated pockets around the world. I do not want to add too much credence to this, but there are very intriguing stories (and I just want to call them stories for right now, not fact) from the Congo of different kinds of dinosaurs being reported by villagers and even some missionaries seeing very large reptile-like creatures out in the swamps. We have cave paintings from South America of dinosaur-like creatures.

We have legends from all over the world about dragons, in China and the East and in Europe during the Middle Ages. We seem to have it in our heads that big reptiles are out there somewhere. It is a lot easier to think of them as being leftovers from the flood rather than having existed in small pockets for sixty or so million years since they became extinct in an evolutionary perspective. It is also feasible that dinosaurs could be mentioned in the Bible. <> Yes. For instance, Job 40 talks of a creature called "behemoth" in verses 15 to 24. He feeds on grass, he has strength in his loins, he has power in his belly, he has a tail like a cedar, and he ranks first among the works of God. Some think this may be a hippopotamus, but a hippopotamus does not have a tail like a cedar. And you do not think of him as ranking first among the works of God. It could be a mythical creature, but it could also be very real.

Notes

1. David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," _Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin_, vol. 30, no. 1 (1979): 25.

2. Kraus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers," _Interdisciplinary Science Review_ 13 (1988): 348-56.

3. Stephen J. Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_ (New York: Norton, 1980), 181.

4. Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine, "Biology" (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1991), 335. Copyright 1993 Ray and Sue Bohlin

Probe Ministries, 1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100, Richardson, TX 75081 (800) 899-PROBE (214) 480-0240

A note from Kerby Anderson, CEO of Probe Ministries: Dear friend of CIN, Thank you for your interest in Probe Ministries. Because Probe may be somewhat new to you, I thought you might like to know more about us. PROBE IS COMMITTED TO RECLAIMING THE PRIMACY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT IN EVERY AREA OF OUR LIVES. Whether it's a college student seeking help to defend his faith in a philosophy course, a homemaker struggling to witness to a "New Age" friend, or a serious Christian thinker seeking resources for continuing personal growth, you're likely to find Probe involved.

WE AT PROBE BELIEVE THAT THOSE OPPOSED TO THE CHRISTIAN FAITH HAVE DOMINATED THE CENTERS OF LEARNING, COMMUNICATION AND POWER IN OUR CULTURE FOR TOO LONG. Through myths and unproven theories, increasingly aggressive humanists have sought to douse the light of God's Word. How is Probe responding? For 20 years we've been exploding these myths and boldly proclaiming the truth of Jesus Christ. Our team of scholars, speakers, and writers is strengthening Christians and winning non-Christians through our radio programs, in secular university classroom, in churches, and through award-winning literature. MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, PROBE MINISTRIES IS A RESOURCE.

We are pleased to make our radio transcripts available to you here on CIN. Other literature is available from our office. I have written a 24- page booklet entitled "Confronting Key Issues" that deals with such topics as pornography, drug abuse, the New Age, and rock music. We also have a newsletter called the "Probe Vanguard." We want you to be on the vanguard of information and insight. Probe's quarterly newsletter takes you to the cutting edge of issues we address on our daily radio programs by providing excerpts from our best radio programs. It also includes additional material about books, pamphlets, and tape packages. Many of the book review, concise synopses, and book offers can only be found in this newsletter. The Probe Vanguard is regularly sent to Probe donors.

Because you have already demonstrated an interest in Probe Ministries, I wanted you to know that this newsletter is a resource available to you. Your first gift to Probe Ministries will ensure that you will receive the newsletter for the next year. Just drop us a note with your name and address, and let us know if you would like to receive the "Confronting Key Issues" booklet and/or the Vanguard newsletter. Also, please tell us that you received this transcript on CIN. Thanks again for your interest in Probe. Please don't hesitate to contact us if we can ever be of further help. Yours in Christ, Kerby Anderson Probe Radio Ministry Probe Ministries 1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100 Richardson, Texas 75081 (214) 480-0240 (800) 899-PROBE