There has been an enormous amount of debate on creation vs. evolution, mostly by people more educated on both sides than I. However, I feel that the Lord has pressed the need on my heart to add my two cents’ worth. One reason for this is that I have studied both sides of the debate to some extent and have asked some serious questions of my own heart when confronted by the theory of evolution.
From my experience of listening to experts on evolutionary science and creation science, I find that there are some unfortunate similarities amongst both groups. Both sides, especially when preaching to their own audiences (e.g. evolutionists to students and creationists to churches), tend to mock the other view as ridiculous and the followers of those views as ignorant. When I say this is unfortunate, I am specifically referring to the creationists’ side. They are Christians and should behave as their Lord did – He did not mock sinners who were blinded by the wisdom of the world, instead He gently guided them into His marvellous light.
Furthermore, I find it disturbing that both sides see the need to try and base their arguments from a purely “scientific” point of view. In doing this, one group will point to some form of evidence to support their side (e.g. Darwin’s finches for the evolutionists and the irreducible complexity of ‘simple’ organisms for the creationists) and build a case for their point of view. Although this is understandable, as that is how one would go about ‘winning’ the average debate, I feel that this particular topic should be approached differently. Particularly from the creationists’ side, it is important to realize that at its heart, this is a debate about faith rather than science.
That said, I am not denying that there is indeed a mountain of evidence supporting God’s Word. This should be faithfully gathered and communicated to those that doubt His truth. I am all for scientists studying nature carefully and coming to the conclusion that such tremendous complexity and intrinsic beauty must be the design of a Master Designer. All that I am saying is that when you get into a debate, you must understand the core reason for the debate and attack that root, rather than trying to prune the branches by presenting bits of evidence. We all know that debates are never truly won and, more often than not, they result in both sides being more convinced of their own opinions than before they started.
In giving you this rather large preamble, I want to emphasize that this article is not meant to merely provide evidence of creation with the intention of strengthening the creationists’ debating team. Furthermore, I will make every attempt not to mock the people that are thoroughly convinced of evolution. Although I believe in my heart that they are wrong, most of them are simply lost sheep following what seems to be a logical explanation of how things came to be. I am far more disturbed by those that call themselves Christians, but try to replace God with evolution than by unbelievers that are hoodwinked by Satan into believing the lie.
My aim for this article is to examine more carefully the roots of evolution and expose its frailty when compared to God’s Word. In doing so, I will seek to convince Christians that we should not be afraid of the lie and in so doing deny the Truth. Furthermore, my request to the reader who believes in evolution is that they may bear with me, read this article to completion and seriously consider their belief and the consequences thereof.
So, when looking seriously at the debate between God and man, creation and evolution, where should we begin? Well, as always, the best place to begin is the beginning: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1). This, to me, is one of the simplest verses in the Bible. God could not have made Himself any clearer – He created everything in the beginning. For those who try to believe God and evolution at the same time, this verse must be quite difficult to get around. Evolution states that everything is continually evolving in a never-ending process. If you do not believe the first simple verse in God’s Word, then how can you claim to believe the rest of His Word?
The fact that this verse is so simple points out a very important difference between God’s statements and man’s theories (known commonly as science). The Word of God is designed to be so simple that even a child can understand it and can be saved by it. One can pick up the Bible, turn to any chapter in any book and understand its basic message immediately. The beauty of it is that although it is so simple at face value, you can spend your entire life studying it and still find new nuggets of truth on every page.
Science, on the other hand, is designed to be limited to an exclusive club of highly educated adults. One only has to read through a journal article or scientific textbook to realize that the knowledge contained in them is aimed only at those who have already studied that particular field. When I was an undergraduate at university, I remember having to read some journal articles three times over before even having the faintest clue as to what they were trying to say. I have recently read a few pages in a statistical textbook that for all intents and purposes could have been written in Greek!
Why is there such a difference between God’s Word and modern science? As explained in 1 Corinthians 1:25 – Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. God designed His Word to be simple so that even the simplest of people (a child, for example) can enter into His Kingdom. He also uses the simplicity of the message to point out that man’s cleverness cannot save him. In our innate rebellion towards God, we try to make things complex so that we feel as though we have accomplished something when we figure it out. This feeling of accomplishment then brings forth pride, which is a sure sign that we have not realized how small and insignificant we are in the grand scheme of things.
It is therefore not surprising that the theory of evolution is rather complicated. It is this complexity that protects it against scrutiny. The general feeling I get from most people who have not studied evolution is that they do not really understand the theory, but simply trust that evolutionists know what they are talking about. Evolutionists are trusted because they are known as scientists, which are considered to be unbiased observers and students that follow a tried-and-tested scientific method. Lastly, the general popularity that evolution enjoys is because it provides people with an excuse to not seek God.
Incredibly, although science and God are generally thought of to be at odds with one another, there are examples where scientists have unwittingly confirmed God’s Word. One such example is the definition of a species. Although there are many scientists that have tried to define what is known as a species (or, simply a kind of plant or animal), one of the oldest definitions is still the most popular (the biological species concept, defined by Ernst Mayr). It goes as follows: a species is a group of organisms where two of the opposite sex can produce viable offspring that exhibit the characteristics of that species. Compare this to: Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. (Gen. 1:11, emphasis mine). The words “according to its kind” are repeated several times in the chapter, for every family of organisms that God created (e.g. sea creatures, birds and beasts of the field). God defined a kind of plant or animal (i.e. a species) as something that can viably reproduce according to its kind. A great deal of scientific philosophizing could have been spared if scientists had taken the time to read Genesis chapter one!
So, if science does occasionally agree with God’s Word, then is it not an intrinsically evil endeavour? I don’t think so, I call myself a scientist and I do not believe that I was disobeying the Lord when I decided to study science at university. This is the reason why I entitled this article as God vs. Man rather than God vs. Science. It is man that struggles against his Maker, science is simply one of the tools he has used to do so. By definition, science is the gathering of knowledge. The tendency to desire more knowledge comes from our nature as intelligent beings – God made us in His image, and He is the definition of intelligence. Through sin, man has warped every good thing given to him by God (including his intelligence) and has used it to rebel against his Creator.
To take this line of reasoning a step further; is the theory of evolution intrinsically evil? Once again, I do not think so. A theory is simply an idea that is proposed to explain observations made of the world around us. This idea should then be refuted or accepted, according to the strength of the evidence for and against it. As evidence is continuously gathered by scientists, theories are meant to be continually evaluated in the light of new evidence. One of the first studies used to formulate the theory of evolution was one that Darwin conducted on finches occurring on an island.
From the observation that different types of finches ate different types of food (e.g. fruit vs. seeds) and each type had a beak suited to its diet, Darwin concluded that these types of finches came from one ancestral type of finch. Now, this conclusion is logical and has been supported by studies on the variability of characteristics that are found in plants and animals. This variability allows plants and animals to adapt to changes in their environment. It also provides a means of diversification within a new environment (as was the case for the finches that arrived on an island where there was an abundance of food for them in different forms). Thus far I would agree with his use of scientific thinking to come to a logical conclusion.
However, Darwin then made a vital mistake in his thinking – he decided that he could extrapolate his here-and-now observations back in time. He stretched his theory to say that this ancestral finch must have come from another type of ancestral bird and that all bird types ultimately come from one ancestral bird. Evolutionists have stretched this theory even further to say that this ancestral bird came from a reptile-like creature and so on, until we get back to the unicellular organisms “billions of years ago”.
When Darwin first started stretching his once-decent theory, he neglected to take into account the definition of a species, as defined by God and modern science. While he was observing his different types of finches, I am sure that he gave each type a different name (since Adam named the first plants and animals in the Garden of Eden, people have been exceptionally good at naming things). He thus gave them the distinction of being separate species, which may not necessarily have been true. Either way, all the birds he was observing were still identifiable as being part of a natural bird group, what we call finches. When the finches reproduced, they brought forth more finches (according to their kind). As with all other types of plants and animals on earth, they cannot overstep the boundary of reproducing according to their kind. Darwin proposed that some ancestral form of bird that was not a finch could reproduce and bring forth not only finch-type offspring, but also offspring that became other species. One species producing many other species has never been observed, nor ever will be as it is simply beyond the realm of possibility.
From the creationist’s point of view, it is not beyond reason to say that God created two finches with enough genetic variability to be able to diversify when encountering a new environment (He is God, after all, who knew how His creation would change over time). Thus, He created what Darwin thought of as the ancestral finch-type bird, which brought forth other finch-type birds, thus staying within the boundary that God had set for them. Since they were created, finches may have diversified and have thus become what people classify as separate species, though this is man’s classification, not God’s.
It was the point where Darwin started to stretch his theory back over time, where he could no longer support it with actual observations that it all started falling apart. It takes a good stretch of the imagination to picture that birds as diverse as vultures, ostriches, cranes, sparrows, seagulls and finches (to name a few, you get the picture) all came from one ancestral bird. Where did this ancestor live, what did it eat and how did it manage to become so many different species by sheer chance? Furthermore, it takes a torturous punishment of the imagination to think that the light-weight, feathered creatures that we see today came from a reptile!
The idea that birds came from reptiles is a good example of evolutionists trying to force nature into a theory that doesn’t really fit. Truth be told, there was a great deal of debate regarding which other group of animals birds are most closely related to (and thus evolved from) – they don’t really fit with any other group. For example, birds are known to be highly endothermic i.e. they maintain their internal temperature at a higher level than even mammals are able to. Reptiles on the other hand, are exothermic – they rely entirely on external heat to regulate their body temperature. How then did a completely exothermic ancestral reptile become a highly endothermic ancestral bird? Thus, with a great deal of difficulty and very tenuous/zero evidence, evolutionists forced the bird family in with the reptiles.
This example creates many questions. If the process of science requires solid evidence to be gathered to support a theory, then how did Darwin’s initial good naturalist observations turn into something barely supportable? Why did scientists, who are supposed to be guided by reason and logic, force an entirely illogical grouping of families? At some point in stretching their imaginations, one would have thought that they would have stopped and realized that the theory no longer applies beyond the basic kinds of plants and animals that God created. Ah, but therein lies the rub!
If evolutionists admit that Someone with supreme intelligence must have created the original kinds of plants and animals in the beginning, then they would have to take cognisance of His existence. As human beings in their natural state of rebellion against the Lord, evolutionists are desperate to use their ‘science’ to disprove His existence. At this point, the theory of evolution jumps out of the realm of science (that a theory can be disproved/supported through well-designed experiments or observations) and into the realm of faith (the theory cannot be physically tested and must therefore be accepted as the truth by faith). What helped this jump from science into faith were the millions of years that evolutionists say is required for evolution. As no scientist has ever lived a billion years, it would be impossible for him to ever actually observe evolution or the lack thereof. Thus, contrary to the scientific method, evolution has become a theory that cannot be truly supported or rejected by current evidence.
Similarly, creation has not been directly observed by anyone alive today, so it cannot be conclusively rejected or accepted – it must be accepted as the truth by faith. In contrast to evolutionists, creationists recognize that although evidence can be gathered in support of creation, one must ultimately take a step of faith to believe in it. Thus, when thinking about creation vs. evolution, we must be aware that it is not science vs. religion, but rather one faith vs. another faith.
If this is the case, then how have evolutionists managed to get the general public to believe in their theory and present it as though it is science? To do so, evolutionists have taken over every field of natural science to try and scrape together every tenuous piece of evidence they can find. Putting all these scraps of evidence together, they have made a theory that is complex enough to befuddle most members of the public into believing it. As a biologist that studied evolution at university, I have studied some of these lines of evidence that have been gathered. To illustrate the feebleness of the evidence gathered for evolution, I will use as an example one of its core tenets – natural selection.
Natural selection is studied by evolutionary biologists in the following manner. The biologist will generally use short-lived highly productive organisms (e.g. mice or annual plants) in his experiments. As evolution is thought to take place over a very long time (i.e. many generations), the best chance one has of ever observing it is to use organisms that have short generations. He will then manipulate a naturally variable characteristic in some of the organisms within his species of choice, thus creating an experiment. The result of his manipulation is then measured by the number of offspring produced by his manipulated organism relative to others in the species (i.e. fitness).
The results of such an experiment are then usually discussed in terms of the potential for evolution in the species. The vast majority of these experiments show a change in the offspring produced by the manipulated individuals. Often, the manipulated organism has fewer offspring than the others in the population, thus indicating that the natural state is better than the manipulated state. This result is then explained in a classically evolutionist way: “the organism that was studied is clearly highly evolved and adapted to its environment already, as caused by billions of years of natural selection”. If you were to gather the vast numbers of papers that give this result for a huge variety of organisms, you would start to think that evolution has stopped. Yet, by its nature, evolution must be a never-ending process; if nothing seems to be evolving today, then why should we believe that they evolved in the past?
Natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, basically states that there are forces in nature that act on organisms to give the best individuals in a species the best chances of passing on their genes. Good evidence has been provided for this process by many of the types of experiments I described above. Furthermore, natural selection has been observed to take place in nature where an organism with an undesirable mutation either dies before reaching maturity or is unable to mate. This process effectively knocks the bad genes out of the species gene pool. The theory of evolution claims that this process drives the evolution of one species to another. If you believe this, then you would say that all evidence gathered for natural selection must therefore be evidence for the theory of evolution.
However, like Darwin’s finch observations, whilst natural selection is an observable process, it cannot be stretched back in time to become a driving force for evolution. The studies on natural selection show that plants and animals have variable characteristics that influence the survival of their species. The studies I referred to above conclude that, unless there is a major environmental change, the natural state of plants and animals (i.e. those not experimentally manipulated) is the best state for their survival. This natural state is simply maintained by natural selection.
Thus, it is once again not beyond the realm of reason to say that God (who created DNA) knew that mutations would be possible in many species and thus instigated a process whereby the integrity of His species would be maintained. Natural selection also drives processes that produce organisms such as Darwin’s finches. The ancestral finch had a variable beak size and this allowed the population, through the process of natural selection, to diversify into groups of finches that had different beaks. Thus, through allowing genetic variability and the process of natural selection, God created organisms that were able to adapt to the changes he knew would occur on the earth.
Thus, one of the main tenets of the theory of evolution (sometimes known as the theory of evolution through natural selection) is indeed a natural phenomenon. It can, however, be explained better from the creationist rather than the evolutionist standpoint. Even in their best effort to support the theory of evolution, scientists have failed.
Most scientific hypotheses and theories are designed to be falsifiable – if enough evidence is gathered against them and little good evidence is for them, then they can be proven false. Even when results of good scientific experiments fly in the face of the theory of evolution, they are explained away as “unusual”. Before even commencing with an experiment in evolutionary biology, scientists are biased by their view of evolution as being a fact rather than a theory in their minds. Why has the scientific community, which bases its strength on making falsifiable statements, refused to allow evolution to be falsifiable? The answer is that there is much more at stake than just science.
The explanation for the behaviour of evolutionists clinging to a shaky theory can be found in Romans 1:18-25.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man – and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonour their bodies among themselves,
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
This passage of scripture quite accurately describes how people have tried to suppress the truth of creation by exchanging it for the lie (evolution). Today, two people can enter the wilderness and witness the beauty of nature and its exquisite complexity and yet react to what they see completely differently. If one was a creationist he would stand in awe of the Creator and worship Him for what He has created; if the other was an evolutionist, he would stand in awe of nature itself and marvel at how it evolved by itself. Thus, the evolutionist would worship that which has been created and, if he does not repent, the wrath of the Creator is laid up for him for eternity.
With that very sombre warning in mind, what should our reaction be? As Christians, should we mock those that are following the lie and hold endless debating sessions with them that lead nowhere? To do so would be to forget where we have come from and where we would be now if it were not for the grace of God. He saved us from our sins; He has guided us throughout our lives and has led us in the path of truth. If it were not for the Lord, I shudder to think which lie I would have succumbed to in my life.
If we know the heart of Jesus and His unending grace, we would know that His will is that we preach the gospel to those who have denied Him as their Creator. If they would turn and repent of their rebellion against Him, He would forgive them as He forgave us – He died for all of mankind. It is my heart’s desire that more Christians take the time to understand the theory of evolution and the people that believe in it. Although knowledge of evolution is important for those looking to reach evolutionists, endless debates on the topic will not help. As debates belong in the realm of the mind, and many evolutionists are highly intelligent people, debates will inevitably become jousts of intelligence that accomplish little.
What is needed is a spiritual approach, as that is the battle field where Christians are called to fight. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12) praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints (Ephesians 6:18). We should therefore be praying daily for people who have turned their back on their Creator and have worshipped the creation. We should be motivated more than ever as the day of Christ approaches to preach the gospel with every ounce of our being and in every aspect of our lives. Our attitude should be one of love towards those who do not know Him, rather than that of mockery. It is only through the love of God that we will be able to soften their hearts.
No comments:
Post a Comment