Clash of the Titans -- By: Ariel A. Roth

Journal: Bible and Spade (Second Run)
Volume: BSPADE 07:1 (Winter 1994)
Article: Clash of the Titans
Author: Ariel A. Roth

Clash of the Titans

Ariel A. Rotha

How can creationists explain, within a short chronology, 50 superimposed forests of upright petrified trees in apparent position of growth? That was the first question faced (see the March-April 1993 Liberty) by 43 creationist theologians, scientists, college presidents, and church administrators during an 11-day geology field trip through four Western states. In this second article of a three-part series on creation and evolution, Dr. Ariel Roth, director of the Geoscience Research Institute, discusses differing concepts of how life originated.

Fifteen major wars have started and ended since the middle of the nineteenth century, when Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) challenged the Biblical account of creation. No guns have been fired in the origins conflict, no territory has changed hands; but barrages of alleged scientific facts have captured university centers and changed the loyalties of millions who were once committed to the Genesis hypothesis: “In the beginning, God. . .”

Today it’s “in the beginning,” Big Bang. The six days of creation week are replaced by an intricate geologic column that measures time in epochs. We are told that an evolutionary process, devoid of God, resulted in development of all forms of earthly life. These ideas have permeated many areas of intellectual inquiry, including psychology, sociology, geography, and theology.

However, some evolutionists outdo creationists in raising problems about their theory. While evolution is broadly accepted, a satisfactory mechanism for the process has yet to come forth. Over the past two centuries at least five major evolutionary mechanisms have been introduced only to be replaced by new ones. At present newer and more complex proposals are competing for survival.1 However variant their viewpoints, most creationists and evolutionists agree that the stakes in the dispute are of epic consequence.


Science is a much-admired enterprise. It can grow plants that glow in the dark, and the technology based on science can build electronic chips less than a square inch that contain a million functional units, and instantly send full-color messages around the world. Such achievements bring science well-deserved esteem while masking its limitations. For example, science cannot adequately answer questions about the origins of consciousness (mind), concepts of good and evil, or free will.

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe

visitor : : uid: ()