Recent Fiat Creationism: Rendering Evolution & Old-Earth Evidence Irrelevant

This article was written to answer the questions, “What if evolution were proven to be true? How would that affect your faith?” 

by Ken Hamrick

One of the best ways to defeat an opposing argument is to render its evidence irrelevant—establish that even if their evidence is accepted for the sake of argument, your position remains intact. Of course, this is rarely possible. But when it comes to defending a recent fiat creation (RFC), rendering the evidence for evolution and an old earth irrelevant is indeed possible, as we will see below. While I do not accept the theories and conclusions of evolutionists, I think it could be instructive to show how the RFC view remains solid even if the evolutionary evidences are given as true.

RFC, as opposed to YEC (Young-Earth Creationism), does not argue against radiometric dating methods or in favor of a “young” earth. Instead, RFC emphasizes the supernatural nature of God’s creating, as well as the nature of supernatural acts to be beyond scientific inquiry. In short, RFC does not posit a young earth, but an old earth that was recently created by divine fiat. When God creates out of nothing, He is not limited to creating things “new.” God created Adam and Eve as physically mature adults and not as infants. He created mature, fruit-bearing trees for immediate food. “He made the stars also”—and made a universe with mature light-trails already existing so that the stars were already visible. All of these imply a time-consuming natural process that was well under way at the first moment of creation. God chose to create not at the beginning of these natural processes, but somewhere in the middle—as if these processes had been going on long before the moment of creation.

Why would God create the world in such a way as to leave no scientific evidence whatsoever of His creating, but leave plenty of evidence that natural processes predated the RFC found in the natural reading of the Biblical account? Quite simply, God created in such a way that He would not be found by scientific evidence but only by faith. This is not to say that the created world does not point to God and reveal a Creator to those who are willing to believe, but only that God and His creating cannot be established by any materialistic evidence. There are no “miracle particles” that science can measure to determine that creation by fiat occurred. Any unbelievers who insist on scientific evidence for God’s existence or His creating will find only natural processes. God requires faith. Truth is first a spiritual matter, and unbelief is the ultimate spiritual rebellion.

Here’s where it gets interesting. Let’s say we accept for the sake of argument that the evolutionary hypothesis is true, as far as it goes. It still remains consonant with RFC that God would supernaturally create (without a trace of evidence) a world already in process—even if that process is evolution. Just as the immediate visibility of the stars at creation can be seen as evidence of a natural process already in progress, the existence of evolutionary processes that were apparently in progress at the moment of creation provides no threat to the RFC view. That man evolved as the crowning achievement of a billions-of-years-long natural process, and that he was supernaturally created out of nothing around 6000 years ago, are perfectly compatible… if God “stepped into” that process right at the point where modern man would have evolved* had God allowed everything to develop over billions of years, and created everything out of nothing at that point in the virtual chronology. In short, this proposes that God in creating the world also created a virtual past full of scientific processes that in themselves are capable of explaining all that exists—that indeed would have resulted in all that exists had God not chosen an RFC.

Although the visibility of stars implies an ancient past, we trust God’s testimony that He recently created light by fiat. Just so, although the evidences for evolution imply an ancient past full of death, we trust God’s testimony that “through one man, sin entered into the world, and death through sin…” Therefore, while God supernaturally created Adam in what might have been the middle of a virtually ancient process of death and survival of the fittest, He suspended the principle of death in the reality of His created world on the sin of the man that He recently created. Again, God’s truth must be accepted by faith and not proven by scientific evidence.

This is not to say that I believe the outlandish claims of the evolutionists, but only to say that even if they were to some day prove their theory beyond all doubt, the RFC found in the Bible would not be disproven. Therefore, the debate over origins should be restricted to faith and hermeneutics. Scientific evidences and theories are irrelevant to the question of a Recent Fiat Creation. One either believes or not.

Ken Hamrick, 2014

* The spiritual nature of human beings could never evolve, but could only be supernaturally created. But neither does the spirit leave any trace of scientific evidence. Humanity in its current state is scientifically assumed to be in its most evolved state, and God needed only to step in and provide that spiritual part of man when he created everything supernaturally out of nothing, effectively bringing man into existence in his most evolved state in that point in the implied chronology.

This entry was posted in Indigenous Posts, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Recent Fiat Creationism: Rendering Evolution & Old-Earth Evidence Irrelevant

  1. This sounds like Tuesdayism. That is “Everything, including our memories was created last Tuesday.” Tuesdayism is the last refuge when all the evidence is against you. It is an appeal to magic and superstition on the grandest of scale.

  2. Ken Hamrick says:

    Magic on the grandest of scales? That sounds like an atheist description of the supernatural, omnipotent God. Of course the world scorns such ideas. Faith itself is scorned. However, scorn disproves nothing. The truth hinges only on whether the supernatural creative event happened or not.

  3. parsonsmike says:

    Can one be a RFC and not a YEC? Young in YEC seems to include the recent in RFC.

    While i am not sure of all these things, i do believe that God can only be apprehended by faith, and i am glad Ken points this out.
    Now if I can get him to apply that idea to soteriology!

  4. Ken Hamrick says:

    Yes, Mike, one can hold to RFC and not YEC. I’ve stopped calling myself a young-earth creationist, because I do not argue that the earth is young. Rather, it was created already “old.” Specifically, YEC-ers spend a lot of effort arguing against radiometric dating methods, etc., and trying to scientifically show that the earth is really young. I see little point in that.

    Of course, I do not think that when it comes to soteriology, God can be apprehended by scientific methods, so I have no idea what you mean. But then again, that’s a different discussion.

Comments are closed.