In Depth:  John Peet

Adam of Genesis 1-5 is basic to much biblical teaching. The Genesis account makes it plain that we are all descended from this one man.

This is reiterated by Paul, who says that we are all descended from Adam (Acts 17.26; cf. 1 Corinthians 15.45; Genesis 3.20). Of course, continuing with the biblical record, we are all descended from Noah too. Paul also uses Adam’s existence as a base for various theological arguments, especially in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5. His arguments for the historicity of Adam are powerful and make it difficult to deny as he links Adam’s actions to those of our Lord Jesus. In accordance with these teachings, evangelicals have traditionally believed that Adam and Eve were directly created by God and are the historical parents of the entire human race.

Darwin has a much-quoted statement about the eye.

In his work On the Origin of Species, he wrote: ‘To suppose that the eye … could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree’.¹ He adds: ‘Yet reason tells me …’ that it must have happened by variations and natural selection. This was recently referred to again in an article in Scientific American by Trevor Lamb.² He believes that he and his co-workers have solved this dilemma.

In contrast, Bible-believers would quote the Psalmist: ‘He who formed the eye, does he not see?’³ It is clear that this verse is stating that the eye is not the result of non-directional evolution, but the intention of our God.

Christians researching any area of the created world need to continually interact with the relevant scientific research and assess the work and their position in the light of the outcomes.

Is there an alternative interpretation of the results? Do they harmonise with Scripture — or our interpretation of it? If not, why not? This obviously affects the matter of origins, whether we hold to a position of ‘special creation’ or ‘theistic evolution’.

Views on the importance of the fossil record to the theory of evolution have varied between the experts (palaeontologists) over the years.

Some, like Stephen J. Gould, have even used the problems of the fossil record to propose different evolutionary approaches to those held by the Darwinists. Darwin and his followers believe that the fossil record can be used to demonstrate the gradual change in the pattern of living plants and animals over time. Gould and his supporters have argued that evolution has not changed in small steps but through sudden (on a geological time-scale!) large leaps forward.

It is often thought that the ‘intelligent design movement’ is a 21st century invention by creationists. This is clearly not the case.

Even Darwin recognised the argument. He wrote in his autobiography: ‘When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man …’

It is difficult to conceive of the problem that faced Darwin and his contemporaries when we compare the level and nature of his knowledge with that which we possess today.

We can join him in postulating how morphological changes could accumulate, gradually transforming one kind of animal into another. What he did not know about was the massive area of science covered by branches such as microbiology and molecular biology. These had not yet been revealed.

In this year of Darwnian anniversaries, Dr. John Peet starts a series which questions the accepted evolutionary orthodoxy.

Surely no one can be unaware that this year, 2009, is the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his book, On the Origin of Species?

It has spawned a multitude of powerful sermons and a few carols. It is there in our English translations of the Bible and yet it has been long known that it is not a correct representation of the text. It is an interpretation based on English culture in the days of King James! Middle Eastern experts have known the truth (and written on it); archaeologists have exposed it by excavation of buildings from the time of our Lord; even Jeremy Bowen (of the BBC!) has got it right (mind you, he’s another Middle Eastern expert).

I refer to the clause, ‘because there was no room for them in the inn’ (Luke 2.7). We all know the imaginary scenario of them knocking on the door and ending up in a cave behind the inn. But this does not resemble the cultural and historical reality.

In 2006, Benedict XVI, pope of the Roman Catholic Church, made a statement challenging the Islamic world about their militaristic and terrorist practices throughout history and so questioning the frequent claims that it is a peaceful religion. This statement was, not surprisingly, unwelcome to the Islamic religious authorities as it exposed a truth that would hinder their aims and progress towards increasing control of the Western world.

Very quickly a group of scholars representing a range of Islamic thought produced an Open Letter to the Pope and, later, A Common Word Between Us and You. The latter document was written by 138 Islamic scholars to highlight ‘the common ground between Christianity and Islam’. That wording in itself should have been enough to warn evangelicals, and Christians of a wider spectrum! They go on to say that ‘despite their differences, Islam and Christianity not only share the same Divine Origin and the same Abrahamic heritage, but the same two greatest commandments’ (their emphasis). Again that does not require someone to be a theologian to see the flaws.

There have been expressions of concern about the progress of Avian Influenza (H5N1) from Eastern Asia to Europe in recent months.

A parrot has famously died in quarantine in Britain. Though the progress has been slowed by preventive measures, it could lie dormant through the winter and suddenly affect us in the coming year. Migratory waterfowl are the natural reservoir for the virus, but domestic poultry are especially susceptible to epidemics. It can be transmitted between farms by mechanical means. Stringent sanitary measures can reduce the risk of infection.

An increasing number of churches are faced with challenges on the state of their buildings and the need for expansion as the Lord blesses their ministry.

Many were built a century or more ago when there was a growth in church attendance. Our churches today are facing a new period of growth, that is, in the Bible-centred, gospel churches. We are engaged in new approaches to evangelism amongst the youth and adults. How do we respond to this opportunity?

The eruptions last autumn of Mount St. Helens in Washington state, in the USA, reminded the media of the remarkable event almost 25 years ago. Up to May 1980, the volcano stood high above a lovely landscape, a beauty spot with huge forests and a variety of flora and fauna surrounding Spirit Lake.

After some months of rumblings indicating that the sleeper was awaking, Mt. St. Helens exploded at 8.32 am on May 18 1980. It had been preceded by an earthquake (5.1 on the Richter scale) on May 12, and then there were nine hours of explosions on May 18, estimated as equivalent to at least 20,000 atomic bombs. The top 1,300 feet of the mountain were blown away, causing a cloud of dust 95 miles in diameter and 30 miles high!

Recently the BBC has been showing an interesting series of archaeological type programmes, Bible Mysteries, which essentially have been showing the Bible to be based on fact. On March 21, they showed a 'drama documentary' on Noah's ark. They claim to be showing once again that the Bible story has a basis in fact, but it ends up very differently from the Bible account.

The programme was presented by Jeremy Bowen (who was also involved with a helpful documentary on our Lord Jesus a couple of years ago). His interest in the Bible arises from his years of broadcasting from the Middle East, particularly in Israel. The Radio Times announces that Bowen 'deconstructs the myth' and 'rebuilds it into a more realistic account'. I suppose we cannot expect the BBC to present the Bible in the way we would like, but it would be good if they presented the facts (rather than misrepresenting them) and included folk who support the Bible account.

What is it like being tempted these days? At Word Alive we promoted a small survey among EN readers on this. What were your responses?

First of all, it was quite difficult to get people to respond, even though the questionnaire was anonymous! Maybe that fact alone tells us something. We don't like to be reminded of our failures, even confidentially. Perhaps that reveals pride or a smidgen of legalism among us. However, 50 brave souls were prepared to fill out the survey, 28 men and 22 women. It was too small a sample to make our findings reliably representative of the general evangelical population, but nevertheless the results are of some interest.

John Peet interviewed Cecily Maclagan, a Scotswoman, working with the Irish Baptist Mission in Peru.

JP: Where are you working in Peru, and who with?

CM: I'm working right down in the south of the country on the border with Chile, and I'm seconded by Grace Baptist Mission to the Irish Baptist Mission.

Just what are chances of life beginning by chance? Dr. John Peet of the Biblical Creation Society leads us through the arguments.

Professor Sidney Fox, a chemist researching for a mechanistic explanation for the origin of life, entitled a paper 'In the beginning, life assembled itself ...' This is clearly in contrast to the biblical claim that 'In the beginning, God created ...' Is there any reason for believing Sidney Fox? Another scientist said that the origin of life 'can never be repeated by us, but we could ask proper questions, knowing the problem.' So, let's ask the questions.