In Six Days - Why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation
A book review concerning origins
I've finally completed re-reading one of my Christmas presents, from Christmas past: "In Six Days - Why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation." All fifty scientist have PHD's in their field and all of them believe in a literal six day creation period. Am I am now convinced that a literal interpretation of a Genesis chapter one "day" should in fact be 24 hours? Please read on to find out. You may also learn a few things you may have never considered. as I did.
Take note of what God said to Moses: “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day." (Exodus 20). The distinction between days is linked to the forth commandment and the method of creation is clearly communicated. Note also that upon reading Genesis chapter one, the completion of each day closes with the phrase "And there was evening and there was morning, the (1st through 6th) day". Just as the sabbath is a 24 hour period, so also is the cycle of an evening and a morning.
Almost all of the scientists in this book stress that the complex arrangement of DNA, RNA and proteins ALL must exist as a properly assembled and integrated unit in order to function at all. These ingredients for life could not sit idle waiting for the other parts to evolve. One fascinating quote was worded this way "No information can exist without an initial mental source" and certainly nothing organized and fully functional. For example: "Suppose we had an almost bird with feathers, hollow bones, direct respiration, swivel joint -- but no tail. Flight would be impossible. All of these mechanisms are controlled by a nervous system connected to an on-board computer in the bird' brain, all pre-programmed to operate within a wide envelope of complicated aerodynamic maneuvers." And that's just a bird! Mutations are an example of change but they are a modification of existing information, no new information is added to create a new or different animal, bird, fish, ect.
When I think about how often the writers of the Old and New Testaments quoted Genesis and even how the very genealogy of Jesus Christ is dependent on a "real" Adam, I am confident in taking their testimony at face value. Think of these things next time anyone tries to tell you that the Old Testament is somehow irrelevant or unscientific.
Allow me to conclude by saying that I’ll always respect folks who hold to a “millions of years (not days) of creation” position as I believe the Bible leaves room for debate on this issue. Meanwhile let’s have fun discussing this issue while mining a few gems about our Creator’s creation along the way.
I highly recommend this book. Look for it in your library. Or stop by my home to borrow it. 😉
Jim
Thanks, brother Jim! Today, I bought the Kindle version of Dr. Ashton's book. I'm starting to work on my article on inspiration of the Bible, in my Christian Evidences (Apologetics) series. Dr. Ashton's book may become a reference that I cite. The Genesis days are 24-hour, literal days -- not "figurative." I have recommended your website on my Substack website. I will list your website in my "Folks, to Whom I Subscribe" section on my main website (AppalachianIrishman.com). I trust that you approve. God's blessings to you, in His service!