Genesis and Non-biblical Origin Stories

The “striking similarities between creation stories from numerous cultures worldwide and the Genesis account have been hard to explain for evolutionists. They typically dismiss them as resulting from ‘Christian influence.’ However, . . . this has been flatly denied from many indigenous peoples . . . who are hostile to the biblical view.”1

Vine Deloria

One such gentleman was Vine Deloria Jr., professor of history, law, religious studies, and political science at the University of Colorado, Boulder, USA. He was a creationist in the general sense, but certainly no friend of Christianity. Indeed, in his book Red Earth, White Lies2 (the main point of which “is to bolster the scientific validity of native beliefs”3), he made some interesting statements:

Of those societies that found a way to create a written record of the past, the Hebrews have been the most influential, since it was the adoption of the Hebrew version of ancient events that came to be accepted, through the spread of Christianity, as the valid and incontestable explanation of how this planet came to be.

Deloria obviously studied the origins debate for some time and often found himself in a difficult position. On one hand, he “attacks the evolutionary story of natives coming from [some] group of pre-humans (ape-men/hominids).”4

However, as a non-Christian, he denied biblical authority and attempted to explain away the many similarities between his beliefs and Genesis.5 And whether he realized it or not, “by downplaying the OT [Old Testament] creation narrative, he is actually shooting himself in the foot.”6

For example, he recognized that there are flood legends from people groups around the world.

Flood stories are almost always linked with the concerns of fundamentalist Christians, who believe that Indian accounts of a great flood will provide additional proof of the accuracy of the Old Testament. With their cultural blinders in place, it never occurs to them that the Old Testament may very well provide evidence of the basic accuracy of the Indian story.

Of course, he faced a mirror argument (that flood stories support the OT), but unfortunately for him, the Genesis account is far more plausible than other flood legends, especially when considering factors such as the size, dimensions, and seaworthiness of the rescue craft described among the various narratives.

Also, the OT as a whole is extremely reliable regarding geography, history, and prophecy, such as its claims “leading up to the coming Messiah [Jesus Christ] and His resurrection, the most verifiable event in ancient history.”7

“Most NA [Native American] stories begin with familiar biblical themes and eventually wander off into fanciful stories with no verifiable way to support them, unlike the OT which becomes more and more testable as it progresses.”8

Caught in the Middle

Deloria was an anti-evolutionist who found himself uncomfortably caught in the middle of the biggest foundational worldview brouhaha out there: biblical creation vs. the story of evolution. And he believes he knows why.

Any group that wishes to be regarded as the authority in a human society must not simply banish or discredit the views of their rivals, they must become the sole source of truth for that society and defend their status and power to interpret against all comers by providing the best explanation of the data.

When secular science defeated Christian fundamentalism, in its victory it was able to promulgate the belief that all accounts of creation or of catastrophic events were superstitions. . . .

. . . if the Bible were to be shown to be mythical fairy tales, and it was the confirmed word of God, the accounts of other peoples . . . would be even less reliable. When secular science defeated Christian fundamentalism, in its victory it was able to promulgate the belief that all accounts of creation or of catastrophic events were superstitions . . . .

The Global Flood Is a Key Battleground

There is much truth to Deloria’s statements, and his repeated mention of “catastrophic events” reveals that Deloria understood that the account of a worldwide flood is a key battleground in the fight against the story of evolution.

Why? Because “evolutionists cannot afford to entertain the concept of a global flood as a real historical event because to do so would upset the time scale on which they have built their own secular creation myth [the story of evolution], millions of years.”9

If the vast majority of the rock layers we see around the world have been laid down within a short time period (typically a year or less in most flood narratives), then the secular creation myth (evolution) would vanish. No “millions of years” means no deep time to evolve anything—which would be the death knell for any kind of evolutionary story.

And like biblical creationists, he certainly recognized their frequency, stating,

When we reach Washington State, we discover that hardly an Indian group exists that does not have a flood story.

Flood Stories Hard to Explain for Evolutionists

Indeed, the sheer frequency of these narratives has been problematic for evolutionists. “Evolutionists have been hard pressed to explain away the abundance of flood stories (which indicate a common history among people groups of the world) other than ‘missionary contamination.’”10 This concept may be justifiable in a few cases, but there are too many where the groups in question vehemently deny that they were somehow “given” these stories and claim ownership and authorship from their ancestors—not strangers.

“Some [secularists like David Leeming] have suggested that local floods were common experiences for all people groups and therefore these incredibly similar tales (flood sent as punishment for sin, favoured survivor(s), wooden vessel, animals on board, etc.) must have appeared by happenstance.”11

In his Children’s Book of Mythology,12 Leeming slips it in on the back cover among his list of common “themes of mythology”: Quest, Flood, Creation, Fertility, Afterlife.

Certainly, flood stories are ubiquitous around the world, but are actual physical floods a common experience among all people? No!

The “answers to where we came from and the quest for knowledge about life and the afterlife are common themes of humanity, but why would ‘Flood’ be a common theme of mythology?”13 Certainly, flood stories are ubiquitous around the world, but are actual physical floods a common experience among all people? No!

As experts Bastion and Mitchell point out in their book Handbook of Native American Mythology,

Mythological narratives regarding a great deluge abound worldwide. In North America, flood stories are found not only where people lived near large bodies of water but also in the drier interior of the continent.

So “why wouldn’t a common mythology of a giant earthquake, plague or a worldwide hurricane be common amongst all people groups if the stories simply came from a common natural experience of local catastrophes rather than knowledge of a common historical event? The reasoning seems desperate”14 and smacks of special pleading.

Deloria drives home the point that the world acknowledging a global flood would be a game-changer when he says,

Scholars in comparative religion, anthropology, psychology, and folklore usually steer well clear of using flood stories for anything except demonstrating that all societies have these kinds of traditions . . . Accepting that these flood stories speak of a planetary event, not so long ago, involving significant psychological trauma, would free minds to make progress in all sciences.

The Battle for Truth

Of course, it is not simply flood stories that evolutionists and anti-biblical creationists like Deloria must contend with, as “there are many other aspects of the biblical narrative that are similar to so-called ‘Indian creation myths.’”15

For example, Deloria quoted a gentleman named Clarence Pickernell (a man with Quinault, Chehalis, and Cowlitz ancestry) regarding earth’s early climate:

[W]hen the world was young, the land east of where the Cascade Mountains now stand were very dry. This was in the early days before rains came to the earth. In the beginning of the world, moisture came up through the ground, but for some reason it stopped coming.16

Deloria, of course, realized the remarkable similarity and direct connection to Genesis 2:5–6:

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground.

But instead of acknowledging the truth of the biblical account, he offers the following apologetic:

Lest scientists begin to hemorrhage, these citations, in my mind, have nothing to do with the validity of any religions—Indian, Christian, Islamic, or Jewish. What we may have here is simply a description of a rather unusual planetary climate which characterized the initial state of the world—when human beings were around to experience it and how they remembered it.

It’s obvious that Deloria faced a bit of a conundrum here. He somehow wanted to validate the Native American narrative by stating it gives accurate information about the conditions of the moisture system on earth in the beginning, while on the other hand saying they shouldn’t support the validity of any “religion.”

But the only reason why scientists (i.e., evolutionists) might “hemorrhage” upon hearing Pickernell’s claim is that the similarity between the native narrative and the biblical text is so unmistakably complimentary that they validate the notion this was a condition that was known by various people.

This once again validates a common history among people groups that further verifies the Bible and speaks against the story of evolution.

This once again validates a common history among people groups that further verifies the Bible and speaks against the story of evolution.

An appeal to moisture coming up from the ground simply being a natural process at some point in earth’s past doesn’t explain away Genesis as history; it supports it. How many other religions speak of this specific, initial condition in their texts?

Creation, Corruption, . . . and Christ

“Throughout the Americas [and around the world] various NA groups share similar, highly detailed creation accounts that mirror”17 the Genesis account in the Bible. And “although distorted by time and countless re-telling, these tales support the Bible’s account of recent creation, fall (corruption by a ‘serpent’), Flood, and Babel (languages) as real history that would have been known to all people groups at one time as they began their journey away from Babel and made their way across the globe.”18

The body of evidence in support of the history described in the biblical creation account is overwhelming, and the conclusion is undeniable. But the most important thing people should consider is that it is the entirety of Scripture that is trustworthy, and this includes not just the creation and fall of man but the message of salvation and redemption as well.

AiG has always made the point that the “earthly things” and the “heavenly things” in Scripture are true, just as Jesus pointed out to Nicodemus in John 3:12:

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

“Perhaps [rather than just arguing for creation or intelligent design] it is time for people around the world to dust off their Bibles and re-read the true history of humanity that really reveals both a common brotherhood of man and their desperate need for the [one and only] Saviour [of the world, Jesus Christ].”19