Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth

Married to Darwin

For the sake of the children, must we abandon Genesis?

You have {{ remainingArticles }} free {{ counterWords }} remaining. You've read all of your free articles.

Full access isn’t far.

We can’t release more of our sound journalism without a subscription, but we can make it easy for you to come aboard.

Get into news that is grounded in facts and Biblical truth for as low as $2.99 per month.


Already a member? Sign in.

Marvin Olasky

Marvin is editor in chief of WORLD and dean of World Journalism Institute. He joined WORLD in 1992 and has also been a university professor and provost. He has written more than 20 books: His latest is Abortion at the Crossroads. Marvin resides with his wife, Susan, in Austin, Texas.



Please wait while we load the latest comments...


Please register or subscribe to comment on this article.

Jeff Grubbs

AMEN Brother!!


Hey all, love you with the love of The Lord!  I believe the bible (genesis) to be the inspired word of God. I do not believe it is a science book. The Bible tells me WHY God created; not HOW God created.  I'll  leave that to the scientists and dispute them when they claim our meaning and happiness is found in something other than my loving creator and redeemer. 


Thanks, Marvin, Teach the controversy. Seems to have kept my kids on track. I gave them my beliefs so they could sort it out, with one sticking with deistic evolution, the most ardent Christian of my kids. It's such a small matter. Even Freshman bio has about 5% of the total grade coming from those ideas. If you teach both sides, they can still give the prof what he wants with a caveat of personal opinion dropped in a personal note to the professor later. Such minor issues are blown up into huge fear factors by ardent atheists and narrow pastors.  The DNA and the Big Bang can provide proof positive that  the evolution that occured was divinely driven. Once there, the special creation of man may or may not have drawn on special soils or earthly elements. It's not really knowable, except that we do have common gene structures, so the similarities are there whether we  believe they were from earthly soil or derived from prior designs. 

Richard L

Thanks Mr Olasky - Amen and Amen - the Truth does matter - always has and always will!


With God a day is as a thousand years, so Adam died within that day.
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gen 2:17 (KJV)
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. Gen 5:5 (KJV)
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8 (KJV)
4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Psalms 90:4 (KJV)


Jesus Himself validated the historical account of Adam and Eve (Matt. 19:4). If Jesus was not telling the truth, then why should we believe Him or anything else in the Bible?


You assume many things about me GTPman (i.e. my gender by addressing me as Mr. - you got that one right - and that I believe in evolution - you got that one wrong).  I regard Genesis 1 and 2 as not only historical narrative (because Christ viewed Genesis that way and quoted both Genesis 1 and 2 when he taught on divorce) but also as setting up the story for Christ (the second Adam) and His Bride (the church).  The reason for my "persistent needling" (first time ever commenting at World) is I was trying to refute Jim Hasack's claim that the Bible gave an age of the earth.  This claim is not supported by the biblical text, yet I see young earth creationists willing to die on that hill defending it.  The age of the earth is irrelevant to that which is of first importance namely from 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.  I imagine you and most people on this site would agree with me about that which is of first importance, so I encourage us all to remember that knowing the age of the earth will not save anyone, but the gospel message will.  As iron sharpens iron, so friends sharpen each other's faces Proverbs 27:17.  I was sharpened today by nsmithcpa's comments that Adam and Woman were probably not in the garden all that long; however, I have yet to hear reasons to think an evening and a morning in the Genesis account is a 24 hour day.  At the north pole, the time between sunup and sundown is 182.7 days. Time is relative based on point of reference (time dilation).  For the sake of the children, we must never abandon Genesis, and we must never add things to the scriptures that are not there.  Blessings on you and I as we continue as ambassadors for Christ.


Jim Hasak, what does the Bible depict as the age of the earth? What scriptures do you cite? Thanks!


morgandcga, given that 1) they were give a command to "be fruitful and multiply", 2) were still sinless and so were inclined to obey God's commands perfectly, and 3) did not conceive any children before the fall, I would say a very short period of time.


I like your logic, but your poetry trumps it all.

Jim Hasak

Thanks, Marvin.One cannot set the Genesis account of creation aside without also ignoring portions of the New Testament. One notable example appears in the "Heroes of Faith" chapter: "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible" (Heb 11:3). A few verses later we read that "without faith it is impossible to please God."By the way, I know that in the past, "World" has not supported belief in a relatively young earth. I hope you will bear in mind that the concept of long ages arose solely from the desire to promote evolution. As a scientist, I have yet to see any evidence proving that the earth is a single day longer than what is depicted in the Bible.