Answers in Genesis

Believing it. Defending it. Proclaiming it. Also check @CreationMuseum @ArkEncounter and @aigkenham

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

Today, Christian paleoartist Joel Leineweber reacts to the new nature documentary “Surviving Earth” from a biblical perspective. He reveals why people come to such different conclusions about earth’s history and dinosaurs despite having the same evidence.

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

There is nothing “irrational” about recognizing that observable science is consistent with biblical history.

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

Abortion always takes a human life.

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

The scientific method cannot prove evolution or creation.

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

Even centuries after death, the skeletal structure points to God’s good design of male and female.

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

Biblical history does not differ from scientific observations.

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

There is only one true God.

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

The beliefs of evolutionism try to explain the entire world’s existence by means of evolutionary naturalism.

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

Genesis 1–2 is God’s eyewitness account of what He did when He created the universe.

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

Creation is described in the Bible, the Word of the Creator God.

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

Evolution and millions of years undermined the authority of the Bible in the church and in the culture.

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

Human ideas come and go, but the Bible remains true.

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

Scientific observation confirms that living things do not spring into existence through the random interaction of nonliving components.

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

Evolution fits one of the Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions of “religion.”

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

The Bible is the inerrant Word of the Creator.

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

The genealogies listed in the Bible date the universe around 6,000 years old.

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

“You can’t believe in a literal Genesis or else you’d have to believe that inbreeding is OK, and it isn’t. Just take a look at the Whittaker family in the US!”

Statements like this are often thrown at biblical creationists—not only from Bible skeptics but also from some professing Christians who object to the plain reading of not only Genesis 1 (which explains that we all ultimately originate from our original two parents, Adam and Eve) but of Genesis 6–9 as well.

Genesis 6–9 explain that the human population was reduced to only eight people at the time of Noah’s flood and that everyone since that time came from those four couples who exited the ark after the deluge (all of the males, Noah and his three sons, were from the same lineage). So the Bible clearly teaches that, at least twice in history, there was no choice but for people to marry very close relatives.

The point those skeptics of a literal Genesis are making, of course, is that children produced from unions between closely related people often have severe birth defects that can affect them both physically and mentally. The argument is that only eight people (four of whom, Noah and his sons, were very closely related) could not possibly have had enough genetic diversity to prevent such an outcome and that only two original people could certainly never overcome the massive challenge that such so-called inbreeding would result in today.

The Whittaker family is one of the most recent and popular examples of inbreeding. They are referred to as America’s most inbred family and are featured on a popular video playlist on the Soft White Underbelly YouTube channel (run by videographer, author, and photographer Mark Laita). Just the first featured video on them has over 44 million views.

Laita’s books, website, and YouTube channel are dedicated to showing some of the more vulnerable aspects of human conditions, and his exposé of the Whittakers certainly exemplifies that. An article from The Daily Record describes the family this way, “The Whittaker family, from West Virginia, have a long history of inbreeding, which has left them with a number of heartbreaking genetic defects. . . . Their offspring suffered severe physical and mental defects.”

Seeing the squalor these people were living in, Laita set up a GoFundMe page for the family, which received thousands of dollars from people impacted by his documentary and wishing to help. The funds have been put toward improving the Whittakers’ home and lifestyle, including repairing a roof, remodeling their kitchen, and purchasing a coal heater and a new truck.

Examples like the Whittakers are why the objection to a plain reading of the relevant Genesis passages can seem to be such a strong argument against accepting it as true history

It’s true that God instituted a command in his law prohibiting such close unions. However, we should note that the Genesis passages being protested by Bible skeptics took place a long time before God commissioned this law. In fact, the command in Leviticus comes approximately 2,500 years after creation.

Before this, no law prohibited such marriages, and we can also note that prior to its prohibition being codified, close intermarriage was common in the Bible without any hint of God’s disapproval. A good example of this would be Abraham’s marriage to Sarah, who was his half sister (Genesis 20:12).

Not only does their relationship demonstrate that close intermarriage was not a problem at this time, but it is also a huge clue that many things back then were not the same as they are today—despite the common uniformitarian concept touted by evolutionary thinking that “the present is the key to the past.” It’s actually God’s Word—the Bible’s historical record—that is the key to the past, not evolutionary storytelling.

Many things back during those first 2,000 years of history were different, including the incredible longevity of many people both before and after the flood, some of whom outlived their offspring who died so-called natural deaths.

Human DNA is becoming increasingly more corrupted as time goes on and that corruption comes primarily in the form of genetic mutations. It would have taken quite a while for mutations to build up to dangerous levels, which was likely why God waited 2,500 years after creation to institute the law against close intermarriage. But close intermarriage wasn’t prohibited in the beginning stages of human history, no matter how we may feel about it today. After all, God is the one who makes the rules.

So while marrying a close relative may be considered morally wrong today, it wouldn’t have been wrong in any way (physically or morally) in the beginning. After all, if you are going to populate the earth beginning with just two people, then the first few generations would have had to choose mates from among their immediate family. That doesn’t compare to our present day, where mate selection is infinitely more abundant, the effects of the fall are much more severe, and (likely because of that) God has commanded us not to marry close relatives anymore.

—Calvin Smith

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

Despite minor changes, bacteria remain bacteria, canines remain canines, apes remain apes, and humans remain humans.

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

According to Genesis 1, God equipped each living creature to reproduce “after their kind.”

[Answers in Genesis @AiG]

How do geckos point to the Creator’s good design?