Is the World Only 6,000 Years Old? 10 Arguments for Evolution

Overview: 10 basic arguments for evolution and how it works with Torah. Arguments from geology, biology, geography, physics, DNA, and Genesis itself. Following that are 10 arguments that anti-evolutionists make and the responses to those arguments.

 

Presented are 10 basic arguments for evolution and an Old Earth exceeding 6,000 years:

1. Genesis isn’t “history”: Just as in TV and contemporary books, ancient literature had many genres. There’s historical, there’s fictional, there’s religious inspiration, and there’s “based on a true story” narratives. These genres are found all throughout the ancient cultures. Genesis (Bereshis) doesn’t necessarily need to be “historical” in order to be “true.” If the intention of the narratives was not historical, then its truth lies in its intended genre. The book of Job (Iyov), for example, was understood by some Talmudic scholars to be a metaphor. That doesn’t make the book of Job a lie, but rather a metaphor to inspire faith in God in troubled times just as Job withstood the test of faith. Many sages understood the Garden of Eden story in Genesis to be a metaphor, as well as other parts of Tanakh.

There are many indications to take early Genesis (chapters 1-11) as a metaphor, including the many contradictions between chapter 1 and 2 regarding the creation of the world. Genesis 2:4 even suggests a one-day creation instead of a 6-day one.^[1] There are also many mythological appearances including the longevity of the people living then (Gen. 5:27), talking snakes (Gen. 3:1), fiery sword-wielding Cherubim (Gen. 3:24), and Nephilim demigods (Gen. 6:1-4). See here for more on interpreting Genesis as a metaphor. Many rabbis interpret the “days” in Genesis Ch. 1 to be referring to “eras” – a phase in the evolving creation of the world from primitive to sophisticated.

Evolution is not a contradiction to God or to His Torah. The same God who would have worked 7 days in creating a world, could have worked several billion years using the forces of nature to create the world. God is not an issue for evolution; in fact God enhances the evolutionary process, helping forge the humans and the world He desired.

 

2. Science is reliable: The vast majority of scientists accept evolution as fact. It explains so much in physics, biology, DNA, anatomy, geography, archaeology, anthropology, and medicine. Skepticism is often healthy but not when executed unreasonably against the scientific evidence, such as in this case. Going against the sciences often strays into conspiracist territory and is called pseudo-science.

Almost all anti-evolutionists are religious bible-believers attempting to defend the sacred text of Genesis. But from a purely scientific view, there is no indication for a 6,000-year-old Earth. Yet even so, even the vast majority of Christian and religious scientists in the field do accept evolution, in recognition of the overwhelming evidence in its favor.

In general, it is important to base an opinion on the professionals if one cannot learn about the subject on their own. We trust doctors for health questions, architects for building questions, and lawyers for law questions. Science should be no different; we should accept the scientific consensus for a scientific question.

 

3. Microevolution: Microevolution contrasts with macroevolution. It’s the small-scale evolution seen with our own eyes. In just a small amount of time, animals can change their features and appearance via interbreeding and natural selection.

What is natural selection? Let’s use an example. In the 1950s there was a worldwide effort to eradicate malaria by eliminating its carriers, the Marsh mosquito. They used a pesticide DDT spray to kill them out of extinction. At first the spray was highly successful in killing out the mosquitos, but over time it became less and less effective. Why did it become less effective? Since a few of the mosquitos had a different gene than their fellow mosquitos. This anti-pesticide gene allowed them to survive the spray. They gave birth to offspring, who also carried that gene. Eventually, they multiplied so much, all the while their fellow mosquitoes died out from the spray. The population shifts in favor of the anti-pesticide mosquito. A similar phenomenon happens with flus and viruses where they mutate eventually to be resistant to a specific medicine invented to counter them.

But why did these few mosquitoes to begin with have a slightly different gene in their system to be able to resist the pesticide? This phenomenon is called genetic mutation. When a cell reproduces, or when parents reproduce, they create a genetic clone of themself. But many times there is a genetic mutation, a code in the DNA that changes slightly from its source. This mutation is usually negative, messing up a previously embedded code, but at times it can be a positive mutation. Such was the case for animals brought by scientists into a new island environment. 30 years later, their offspring developed new features to better adapt them to their new environment. The ones who haven’t had this genetic mutation, died out in this new environment they were unfamiliar with. Whereas the offspring of a mutated child with an advantageous change, had a better chance of survival and thus outlived their counterparts eventually to take over the island’s population of that species.

Similar results can happen via interbreeding of genetically-related species. This interbreeding has resulted in scores of dog species that were domesticated. This process is even done by farmers and their seeds, resulting in superior produce.

No one denies this minor evolutionary scale, called microevolution. What some scientists deny is macroevolution, that one species can evolve (change) so much over time that it eventually turns into another species altogether. But given enough time and countless generations, we can easily perceive one species turning into an entirely new species with new features and appearance. If the world had enough time, a fish could, theoretically, turn into a reptile, who eventually turns into a mammal who eventually turns into a human. And this is exactly what the evidence tells us – starting with the microevolution we experience with our eyes.

4. Geological Column: One of the most compelling historical records we have is none other than the ground itself. Over the years, artifacts and bones get buried deep beneath earth or beneath rock. The deeper paleontologists dig into the ground, the deeper into time they are usually heading. By digging at hundreds of sites across the globe, they begin to collect data and find patterns. What patterns are found in the ground beneath us? At the bottommost level of the strata, called “geological column” in scientific terms, they find fish fossils remnant of fish populations that once existed. Most of these fish no longer exist but their memory is embedded in the strata that they were buried in. As we go higher in the Geological Column, we begin to find more sophisticated vertebrates (fish with backbones) that didn’t exist at the lower levels of the Column. As we continue to ascend up the Column, we suddenly find new species known as cold-blooded reptiles. Further up are birds and mammals alongside dinosaurs. At the very top are primal animals (monkeys, apes, chimpanzees, etc.) and humans.

What are the implications of this surprisingly neat pattern? That a long time ago, only fish existed, some of which were buried in the fossil record of the Geological Column. Only afterwards, did reptiles live and die to be buried a little higher up (and of course many of the fish continued to be represented in the fossil record all the way to the top – since fish still exist today). Long after reptiles were introduced into the scene, do mammals suddenly appear, soon to be followed by primates and humans.

This is exactly what evolution predicts! Evolution claims that life began as a living cell that cloned itself in reproduction only to continue this process until this very day. Over the course of many generations superior cell-features will outlive the less sophisticated features.^[2] The more sophisticated survivors will continue to flourish, growing useful limbs and eventually the most sophisticated systems like vision and brains. The jump from limb to limb would have taken thousands of generations. The key secret recipe for evolution is time and natural selection. When both are granted, a living cell can eventually become a worm, then a fish, then a reptile, then a mammal, then a primal, and finally a human.

Perhaps the most persuasive fossil evidence for evolution is the consistency of the sequence of fossils from early to recent. Nowhere on Earth do we find, for example, mammals in Devonian (the age of fishes) strata, or human fossils coexisting with dinosaur remains.

 

5. Animal similarities:

Another basic evolutionary observation we can make is our similarities to animals, and the similarity between animals themselves. Similarities indicate a common ancestor, similar to the way siblings are often similar in feature, personality, and especially DNA. These similarities we have with animals extend much beyond physical appearances; it goes into our very DNA and explains much of the world’s animal geography as shall be explained.

As stated briefly earlier, there’s an evolutionary tree that scientists have mostly mapped out, explaining where each animal derives from. This map is not only based on outside features that have us connect the two species, but also based on DNA evidence as well as the fossil record discussed earlier. Animals’ genetic relationship can be evident from several indications. Their similar anatomical features, similar DNA coding in several factors, and similar geographical locations and migrations.

Non-functioning organs: When we look at our bodies today, we see remnants of our primitive past before our species became human. Scientists call these vestigial traits. We have a tailbone, leftover from the tail that once stemmed out of that bone (science explains why these bones were no longer useful for humans and how evolution got rid of the tail for humans). Many of us have wisdom teeth, reminiscent of the strong back-teeth once needed to chew raw meat before humans mastered the fire and discovered the cooking of meat. The appendix, goosebumps, and body hair are other examples of this explained at length in scientific works, well beyond the scope of this writing.

Humans are not the only ones with useless or semi-useless body parts. Fish in an underground cave ecosystem were found with blind eyes, after the cave was opened for the first time in millions of years by humans. Their eyes were inherited from their ancestors who needed vision to survive in the open world. But then some of these fish got trapped in this underground cave for millions of years, eventually losing their useless eyesight since there was an absence of light in the cave. But they still kept their eyes – without the vision – since those organs haven’t yet evolved out of their DNA system. Similarly, whales still contain hip bones and some snakes still have useless leg bones buried beneath their muscles. This suggests that before snakes became snakes, they were a footed reptile.

Similar DNA: DNA is the coded system of living cells that make up how we look, what we act like, and pretty much everything about us. Biologists have mapped out our DNA as well as those of animals. An astonishing discovery was made. Human DNA is 98% similar to that of chimpanzees, about 50% with mice, 26% with yeast and even some shared DNA with fruit flies. This suggests a common ancestor that passed on these genes to all these different species, with each species mutating the DNA to become its own species.

These similarities are not only in positive DNA codes, but even in broken DNA codes. The DNA code responsible for vitamin C production in animals is not present in humans. Instead, humans need to consume vitamin C from other vitamin-C rich sources. Scientists actually see that code and how it’s broken in the human DNA coding. Surprisingly, the same broken DNA code is found in other primates as well, suggesting that the common ancestor of humans and primates lost this DNA code some long time ago and passed on this broken code to its descendants. Ironically, guinea pigs and fruit bats also cannot self-produce vitamin-C also because of this broken DNA sequence. However, their code is broken in a different way since they are in a different evolutionary line than humans and primates. Each of these species lost it at a different time, in a different way – but humans and their distant primate cousins share the same broken code.

Another DNA commonality with chimpanzees is junk DNA, also known as pseudogenes. This is basically useless DNA codes that don’t have any meaning. It’s similar to the meaningless combination of letters sfbfbekghwelghweiruhfwefjbw. But these genes as well are passed on from generation to generation. Humans and other primates share almost the exact same junk DNA, suggesting a common ancestor passed them on to both their descendant species. The primates as well have this sfbfbekghwelghweiruhfwefjbw meaningless coding. Same goes with harmful virus genomes found in both humans and primates. Of course, humans and primates are just one example; the same observation is made with other species thought to be related in the evolutionary tree.

In short, the same DNA that can identify our parents and cousins, tells us that we are distantly related to chimpanzees, and going back even farther, we are related to mice, and even farther back – fruit flies.

Homologous features:

Homologous features are unique physical characteristics shared by species. For example, a specific complex bone-structure or a body layout. Humans and animals have homologous features, often strikingly similar bone structures, suggesting, once again, a common ancestor.

One classic example is the forelimbs shared by whales, humans, birds, and dogs. On the outside each of these can look different but internally these forelimb bone-structures are remarkably alike, although each species uses their forelimbs for different purposes suited for their environment.

Biogeography: The geographic distribution of organisms on Earth follows patterns that are best explained by evolution, in combination with the movement of tectonic plates over geological time. Before the splitting of the continents that were all once connected (called Pangea), many animals have evolved. These animals are distributed around the globe even now that the continents have drifted apart. In contrast, animals that evolved only later, appear in specific continents. Australia is home to marsupials (mammals that carry their young in their pouch), a feature lacking in continents outside of Australia. Many species are native and exclusive to the Hawaii islands. In complete isolation from the rest of the world for millions of years, these species took on new forms that better suited their isolated and harsh environment on the Hawaiian islands.

Molecular clock: The molecular clock is a term for a technique that uses the mutation rate of DNA to deduce the time when two or more life forms diverged. The specific methods used are beyond the point at hand here. What is important to know, however, is that molecular clocks are consistent with what evolutionists have found in the fossil record and with other similarities in both DNA and features between human and animal.

 

6. Dating methods: In most cases of ancient fossils, the DNA is no longer alive. Instead, scientists will use what is called “radiometric dating” to determine the age of the fossil.^[3] Radiometric dating involves the measurement of the remaining elements in the fossil. The most commonly used metric is Carbon14. Because carbon-14 decays at a constant rate, an estimate of the date at which an organism died can be made by measuring the amount of its residual radiocarbon. Similar estimates are made using other elements and their decay rates. These dating methods almost always are in sync with one another, suggesting the overall accuracy of these methods. In some cases, the methods will fail or conflict with one another, and this is caused by outside forces that can tamper with the decay rate of that specific element. Radiometric dating by and large confirms the fossil record in determining the age of things; confirming that indeed the lower down we dig into the fossil record, the older the fossils are. Carbon14 dating has dated organisms to as old as 50,000 years old, and other methods such as Potassium-Argon dating have yielded dates going back millions of years for some fossils.

 

7. Light-Years: Going beyond our Earth, outer space consists of gassy spheres called stars. The light of these stars passes through space to be visible to us on Earth. Being that light travels at the incredibly fast rate of 186,000 miles per second, the light of the sun that reaches us is 8 minutes late. But the sun is relatively close to Earth compared to stars at just 92 million miles away. The most distant stars, however, can’t even be measured in miles and are instead measured by “lightyears” – the distance that it takes for light to travel in a year. Based on sophisticated and highly accurate astronomical calculations, we are able to know the distance of stars that were observed. The farthest star is calculated to be 9 billion light years away. That’s the amount of time that it would take for that star’s light to reach us given its vast distance from Earth. Being that universe is estimated by scientists to be about 14 billion years old, this makes sense.

Not only stars are seen from such a great distance, but also shooting stars are seen, as is dead star matter visible in the form of scattered gas mass (that exploded many millions of years ago, only to be seen now on Earth).

 

8. Natural clocks: In addition to the scientific methods used to test fossils in the laboratory, nature itself offers a variety of natural clocks. Here are two classical examples. The first being tree rings. As the seasons pass each year, certain trees develop an additional layer over the ring it developed during the previous year. When counted, these tree rings serve as a measurement for the age of the tree. The problem is that trees die after several hundred years, or at best just a few thousand years. The oldest tree known today is called the Methuselah tree, named after the biblical figure who is said to have lived a monumental 969 years. It is dated to 4,853 years as of 2021, based on its ring count.

Some ingenuity, however, gives us the ability to count even farther back. Although individual trees don’t surpass several thousand years before dying, their overlap with other trees can give us a larger year-count. Each ring in the tree is a different size, depending on the rain-level of that year. We can identify years in the early rings of a live tree and then compare those rings with the later rings in a dead tree. If those rings perfectly match, then we can decisively conclude that the live tree sprouted at the later years of the currently dead tree. So if we add the new rings of the live tree plus the older rings of the dead tree, we can trace back forests that go back far past 6,000 years old.

Another classical example is the ice rings of Greenland and Antarctica. Each year, the glaciers melt and then freeze, leaving vertical deposits aside the glaciers. But the air inside can’t all escape resulting in trapped bubbles that can be used as markers for the years. This pattern is still observable today as each annual cycle passes. If we trace back these annual layers, we reach 110,000 years in Greenland and Antarctica yielding even longer years.

 

9. Intermediate fossils: As evolution predicts, there should be intermediate species as one progresses to another. These species show us bone structures that have resemblances to both its predecessor and successor. The fossil record provides exactly that. Below are examples from whales, horses, and hominids (ancient humans).

Whale:

Horse:

Hominid:

 

10. Independent lines of evidence: While each of these lines of evidence are pretty solid on their own, they can perhaps all be explained with another explanation. But what is perhaps the strongest evidence for evolution and an old Earth, is the correlation between all these independent observations and how they all overwhelmingly confirm what the scientists have long claimed. Microevolution is observed so if we have enough time – as the distant star light suggests – Earth can produce millions of sophisticated species out of one living cell. This evolution is evident in the fossil record that neatly lines up with the evolutionary tree. Radiometric dating methods also support old dates for these fossils, and the lower we dig into the fossil record, the older the fossils become. Also shared features between animals suggest their common ancestry, as does their DNA coding, their junk DNA, and broken coding. The living conditions of the species also fits into the picture, and the tree rings and ice layers all point to an old Earth.

 

This concludes the basic 10 arguments in favor of Evolution. We will now briefly address the common myths and misrepresentations often said concerning evolution.

 

 

 

10 responses to common anti-evolutionist claims:

 

1. Evolution is just a theory: A common saying is that evolution is just a theory. While that is certainly true, we need to understand what a theory means in science. In science, a hypothesis is a limited, untested explanation of a phenomenon; a scientific “theory” is an in-depth tested explanation of the observed phenomenon. A “law” is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept. The more a theory explains, the more likely it is to be true. Gravity, for example, is called a theory in scientific terms since it itself is not observed yet it is used as the underlying explanation for the movements of masses. As far as science goes, the theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories out there, having been tested and demonstrated in so many different fields like physics, biology, DNA, anatomy, geography, archaeology, anthropology, and medicine.

 

2. Missing links: It is often claimed that the fossil record lacks key intermediate fossils needed to prove evolution. But this objection became less and less of an issue as more fossils were found, demonstrating evolution more and more with additional missing links being found over the past half-century. However, it is still true that many missing links have yet to be found. But this is not an issue once we understand how fossilization and evolution works.

Fossilization is the rare occurrence of a bone getting buried under ground and being preserved. Only one in several thousand bones are fossilized and found. We have found thousands of fossils, but there must have been many more living creatures who haven’t had their memory preserved in the fossil record. Additionally, archaeologists haven’t excavated the entire world to be able to find every fossil out there. Only tiny samples of land have been undug and scouted for fossil remains.

That being the case, we now turn to how evolution works. As stated above, evolutionary changes happen mostly in isolated environments where a species is forced to adapt to new harsh conditions and where the gene-pool is smaller allowing mutated individuals to have a greater effect on the overall species population. The weaker won’t survive but the mutated superior ones (and their descendants to inherit that gene) will outlive their counterparts and evolve into a new species. This explains why islands have so many species not found anywhere else on Earth and the microevolution observed in animals sent to islands just 30 years prior.

In an isolated environment, a species can jump the slow evolutionary procedure at a rapid pace. This evolved species then returns to the broader Earth environment and becomes a thriving species. If scientists have not found that small, isolated area (e.g., it being under water nowadays or unexcavated), then the result is an evolutionary jump in the fossil record, with the few missing links either not being fossilized (due to environmental conditions in that specific region where it evolved) or due to lack of excavation in those unfound areas.

 

3. Worldwide flood evidence: There’s a popular claim about evidence for a worldwide flood, used in support of the historicity of the Noah flood account in Genesis. While this is certainly true, this is a selective presentation. Sure there are signs of a flood all throughout the world, but each of these floods date to a different period, and given billions of years, we would actually expect nothing less than a flood at so many different sites across the globe at different times.

 

4. Complexity and statistics: Human life is way too complex to have come about by random chance. Even a single living cell is way too complicated to have come about by chance alone. How much more so the eye’s vision and the brain – the two most complex systems in the world – couldn’t have evolved in random acts of nature.

While the sophistication of these are certainly not to be doubted, the only recipe needed for them to have evolved randomly is: time! With billions of years, there are so many different chances for something extraordinarily rare to have happened at some point. Think of a room full of monkeys typing randomly into a computer. Words like uhsirughtiuho and giusrgljetohi will appear on the screen. But eventually, a monkey will by chance put together the right letters to form a word, perhaps a simple word like “hi” or “hat.” If this operation continues for a long enough time, eventually one of the random typings will produce a full sentence. This is simple mathematics. The more time granted, the more chance of the rarest of things happening.

This parable is analogous to Earth with billions of years’ time in its hands. The rarest of chemicals can eventually get together to produce life, and eventually that life – thanks to more random rare acts of nature – will evolve to become more and more sophisticated forms of life.

To further build on this parable, we can hasten the odds drastically if every time the monkey writes a real word it saves in the system. Then the monkeys continue to type for another few thousand years until another sophisticated word is typed – and added to the previously saved word. Over time, this will form a complete sentence. Over millions of years, complete books are written by these monkeys punching in random letters.

In the case of evolution, when a more sophisticated form of life is randomly created, it survives in contrast to the less sophisticated forms of life. This is similar to the word typed being saved in the monkey’s computer. Evolution then continues with the surviving forms of life, in an indefinite procedure happening for millions of years

Some will even argue that God played a strong role in Evolution, guiding it from step to step to make sure it ultimately produces the beautiful world we live in and its humans. This would answer any issues one can possibly have about the odds of evolution.

 

5. Reproduction system: Some may even ask how evolution is possible since reproduction is vital for evolution and continuity of life. But the reproductive system that we have is so sophisticated that it would be impossible to have been created randomly in evolution.

Firstly, with billions of years at Earth’s disposal, even the rarest of things can occur – including the development of our sophisticated reproduction system. Secondly, there are asexual reproduction methods that chemicals and bacteria use that are far less sophisticated than humans and animal sex. Life began with the less sophisticated form of reproduction and then evolved to the sexual reproduction method. The reason it changed to sexual reproduction is because it causes more genetic diversity and has a better surviving rate. Thus, in some isolated environment many millions of years ago, genetic mutations changed a species from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. The sexual reproduction species thrived thanks to new genetic diversity and flourished to become the dominant reproduction method for animals today.

 

6. Inconsistencies in dating methods: The claim goes that the dating methods used are often in contradiction to one another. They also have failed many times to date the artifact to the right time.

While it is true that radiometric dating has its problems, that doesn’t invalidate the scientific measurement as a whole. Just as medicine doesn’t always work for various reasons, dating methods often fail. Yet overwhelmingly, these radiometric dating techniques are incredibly useful in determining the age of fossils and artifacts. They will usually coincide with one another, confirming the dates that another dating technique yielded.

 

7. Flood geology: Many Creation scientists (i.e., anti-evolution scientists) will explain the geological column to be the remnants of the great flood of Noah. They suggest that the flood-waters coming from the “fountains of the great deep” (Gen. 7:11) would first impact the fish, killing them out, followed by reptiles, then proceeding to kill out the mammals, and finally the humans who would have retreated to the mountaintops.

This flood geology fails for several reasons. First of all, a flood is one big mess, and we would expect that at least some of the human fossils end up in the lower strata levels alongside the dinosaurs. This is especially true for humans living away from the mountains and near the beachfront. And this even more so for human tools which would have been left behind in flight from the rising waters. The neat layout of the strata fits far better with the evolution model than it does with the flood model. Second of all, the dating methods as well as DNA and homologous features all fit with the fossil record, too much of a coincidence for the flood model.

Third of all, DNA of these older hominids (such as Neanderthal) are found in modern Europeans today with 2% of their DNA coming from Neanderthal genes suggesting small levels of intermarriage between European home-sapiens (modern-day humans) and their Neanderthal neighbors. What’s ironic is that Africans have none of this Neanderthal gene. This makes sense in the evolution model. In the flood model, however, Neanderthals would have had to have been pre-flood hominids (since they are dated to 300,000 to 30,000 years ago). If they are pre-flood humans whose DNA still lives in Europeans today, then obviously their gene was carried through Noah. But if that were the case, then Africans as well should have had this Neanderthal gene in them – and they don’t.

In all fairness, there are a few exceptions to the fossil record where a fossil seems to be out of place. This is very rare but can be explained by earthquakes and other natural disasters that can dump lower strata over higher strata.

Fourth of all, civilizations have been dated back to older than the claimed Great Flood in the 3^rd-millenium BCE. Civilizations in Sumer and Egypt predate that, and individual cities go even farther back in time. Cuneiform and hieroglyphic writings, each in their own unique languages, go back to at least the 4^th-millenium BCE. This means that different languages were around for a long time before the Flood is said to have happened. But the problem is that according to a literal reading of Genesis, the multitude of languages only occurred sometime after the flood at the Tower of Babel incident.

 

8. Created looking old: A popular Orthodox response to the evidence for evolution is to claim that God created an older looking world with a backstory. What’s good about this theory is that it at least accepts the scientific data, except that it interprets it as God’s backstory for the world rather than a historical record of the past’s reality.

The main issue with this theory is a theological problem. It suggests that God created an illusion for us, deception as it were, purposely giving the world a backstory that isn’t true in reality. It suggests that we cannot believe anything since, perhaps, whatever we see and hear is an illusion. This absurdity can go as far as to suggest that aliens are deceiving us into our belief in God!^[4]

 

9. Shabbos: Another claim is that had evolution been true then Genesis chapter 1 is unhistorical and the day of rest on Shabbos wouldn’t make sense any more.

The idea of Shabbos is a commemoration of God’s creation of the world. God didn’t “rest” on the seventh day of the week any more than He did on the eighth day or ninth day. God’s “resting” is symbolic of His completion of the world. This commemoration is the same whether He created the world in 6 days or millions of years. The 6-day creation story would be a parable of God creating the world similar to the way that a farmer works in the field. First day He creates and then “it was evening and morning” until He proceeds to the next day of work (cf Rashbam on Gen. 1:5). The 7-day framework of the parable was set up in order to better bring out the message that we should take the last day of every week to rest and commemorate God’s creation of the world (irrespective of how long it took Him to create it).

Additionally, according to Deuteronomy 5:14-15 the reason for the establishment of rest on the Sabbath is so that the slaves and laborers get a day of rest. In contrast, Exodus 20:11 gives the reason of God’s rest after Creation. Be as it may, we can see how the point of rest on the Sabbath is more complicated than what we might initially think. It therefore shouldn’t be used as hard evidence against evolution and all the arguments in favor of an old Earth.

 

10. Scientists make assumptive conclusions: This argument actually has much validity to it. Scientists in all fields, including and specifically in the field of evolution will present theory as fact. Oftentimes, these theories are presented as “mainstream scientific view” when they are mere conjecture by a previous authority in the field. Evolution has many gaps, many unanswered questions; much room for speculation. Human nature is to attempt to make sense of these gaps and provide spice to the historical narrative of prehistoric times. This, however, does not invalidate evolution as a whole which has overwhelming evidence supporting it. The devil is in the details, and it’s in those details that theories should stop being presented as facts.