|
What
about Evolution?
Homepage
 Christianity?
In
Depth What about Evolution?
Many people have the impression that in
order to believe the Bible one must abandon science, reason and logic,
and replace it with blind faith. But nothing could be further from the
truth. There is no reason why science and the Scriptures should be
viewed as being in opposition to each other. There has been a silent
divorce, which should never have occurred between the two, for science
and the Bible are allies not enemies!
The question of evolution seems to be at the
hub of the whole debate, and it is of course a matter of immense
importance, for this question deals with who we are, where we came from
and where are we going. For many years people have viewed the evolution
debate as a duel, with the Bible in the blue corner and science in the
red, fighting each other to the death like gladiators in an arena where
there is only one winner. In the next few pages I hope that you will
see these two as friends not foes.
I would like us to consider this question by
first of all providing a definition of what is meant by the term
'evolution'.
What do you mean by evolution?
Have you ever attempted to come up with a
definition of what you believe evolution is? Why not take a moment to
try and think of an answer? Whatever answer you have come up with, see
how it compares with the definition offered by the American National
Association of Biology Teachers (ANABT).
In 1995 the ANABT stated:
'The diversity of life on earth
is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised,
impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with
genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance,
historical contingencies and changing environments.' (Phillip
E. Johnson, Testing Darwinism (IVP 1997), p. 15).
Or, in the words of the famous evolutionist
George Gaylord Simpson, 'Man is the result of a purposeless and natural
process that did not have him in mind.' (Phillip E. Johnson, Testing
Darwinism (IVP 1997), p. 15). That's exactly what
materialist scientists from David Attenborough to Richard Dawkin mean
by the theory of evolution. Everything we see around us evolved by
unpredictable, unsupervised chance. You are nothing but a sack of
chemicals which, somehow over a vast period of time, became a complex
and finely-tuned living machine, but nothing more - or so you are led
to believe. Indeed you have no option but to believe this, for any
other option has been removed by the materialist
scientists. You are, therefore, a complex accident!
Is it a question of science or
philosophy?
Much of the debate about evolution when
closely examined has little to do with science and more to do with
philosophy. If a person is convinced that God does not exist, then
whatever evidence is put forward to suggest otherwise will be dismissed
as irrelevant. The material evolutionists' philosophy will
always prevent them from conceding that there is a Creator.
But this in turn means that they are no longer being governed by
science, but by philosophy. Only the scientist who is willing to
consider the evidence whilst laying aside their preconceived
philosophy, stands any chance of arriving at a truly
scientific conclusion based on the evidence alone.
Let me provide you with an example of
philosophy overriding the scientific evidence. Richard Lewontin is one
of the most influential biologists in the world. He is a material
evolutionist. He has no belief in God and yet even he confesses:
'It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material
explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we
are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to
create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce
material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive,
no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover,
that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a
Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis
Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in
anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any
moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may
happen.' (Philip E. Johnson, Testing Darwinism (IVP 1997)
p. 81, my emphasis).
What he is saying in other
words is that no matter what the weight of scientific evidence is, we
must never admit that there is a creator God, for to do that would be
to betray the philosophy of materialism. The philosophy must
come first (a priori)
even when the weight of scientific evidence goes against that
philosophy. We must do everything to prevent that 'Divine Foot' from
entering the door even if it means using bad scientific practice!
The selective use of evidence
It has been said that you can make the Bible
say anything that you want it to. I agree that this is possible, but
only if you abuse the Bible by choosing to select parts of it out of
its literary context whilst ignoring other sections. In other words, if
one is selective in the use of the information found in the Bible then
it is open to being abused. This is exactly what cults like the
Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Christian Scientists have done.
This problem of the selective use of
information is not uncommon in science either. Why some scientists do
it may be because they are protecting their philosophical
presuppositions, as Professor Richard Lewontin explains: contradictory
evidence is disregarded. Another reason for the selective use of
evidence may be to retain interested parties who are funding a
particular research project. I am not saying that the majority of
scientists employ such practices, but some clearly do when their
argument is weak.
I think one area where there has been a
selective use of evidence is in the whole evolution debate. For example:
Absolute statements without
evidence
Carl Sagan in his famous TV series Cosmos
said, 'The Cosmos is all there is, or
ever was, or ever will be.' But what experiment can we perform to test
that statement? None! This is a statement from his own philosophy.
It's life Jim, but not as we
know it!
The current view of evolution believes
that life evolved from non-living molecules. But, what evidence is
there that proves that life evolved from
non-living molecules? The text books tell us that under the right
conditions and over a long enough period of time such life did form somehow!
But the length of time required is only necessary in order to create
the 'right conditions'. Therefore it stands to reason that the length
of time can be drastically reduced if someone purposefully
chooses to create those 'right conditions' within a science lab. Such
attempts have been made, but without success, why? Why hasn't a
scientist created all the right conditions in the test tube to create
even the simplest of living forms from non-living molecules? If man
cannot do it purposefully then how on earth could it possibly have
happened accidentally? Once again we see that the evidence simply
doesn't back up the claims!
Going to the dogs
Material evolutionists such as Charles
Darwin and Richard Dawkin have both used dog breeding as an example of
evolution. On the surface this seems plausible but when one digs deeper
their theory falls down. For a start, this is a poor example to use for
the simple reason that the selective breeding of animals is a process
guided by the intelligence of the dog breeders who know exactly what
they are trying to achieve and how far they can go. One can hardly
equate this as an example of an 'unsupervised, impersonal,
unpredictable and natural process'. Furthermore, dog breeders only
produce variations within a species and not a new species in itself.
So, selective breeding is not the same
thing as natural selection, but it is an example of intelligent design,
which again points to a Creator.
"Its all there in the rocks,
isn't it?"
In his excellent book 'Testing
Darwinism', Phillip E. Johnson points out that, 'textbooks
and museum exhibits highlight fossils that can be interpreted as
possible transitional forms between major groups - fossils that are
quite few in number. They rarely inform the public about the far
greater mass of contrary evidence, such as the absence of ancestors for
the major animal groups that appear in the Cambrian explosion..
Darwin's theory of evolution originally... predicted that fossil
hunters would eventually find a great many transitional intermediates
between the major groups (they didn't) and that animal breeders would
succeed in creating distinct species (they didn't).' (Philip
E. Johnson, Testing Darwinism (IVP 1997) p. 38, 43).
Johnson goes on to say, 'I've
long been fascinated by the conflicting messages Darwinists provide
concerning the fossil evidence. On the one hand, they proudly point to
a small number of fossil finds that supposedly confirm the theory.
These include the venerable bird/reptile Archaeopteryx, the 'whale with
feet' called Ambulocetus, the therapsids that supposedly link reptiles
to mammals, and especially the hominids or ape-men, like the famous
Lucy. These examples, all from vertebrate animals, are pressed very
insistently on me in debates as proof of the 'fact' of evolution and
even of the Darwinian mechanism. I am not as impressed by such examples
as Darwinists think I should be, because I know that the fossil record
overall is extremely disappointing to Darwinian expectations. One prime
example is the 'Cambrian explosion,' the basic animal groups all appear
suddenly and without evidence of evolutionary ancestors. What is even
more interesting is that the evidence for Darwinian macroevolutionary
transformations is most conspicuously absent just where the fossil
evidence is most plentiful - among marine invertebrates (These animals
are plentiful as fossils because they are so frequently covered in
sediment upon death, whereas land animals are exposed to scavengers and
to the elements.)' (Philip E. Johnson, Testing Darwinism p.
59, 60).
Clearly there seems to be a distinct
absence of evidence from the fossil records to support the commonly
held view of evolution. Perhaps it is for this reason that many of the
schools and colleges in America are now beginning to abandon the
'traditional' view of evolution as set out by the ANABT in support of a
Creator. (According to a report in the Daily Mail, November 1998 over
21 states have now abandoned the traditional teaching of materialist
evolution.)
Looking down the microscope
If evolution were possible, one would
expect evidence to leap out at us from every angle.
But, 'molecular biologists don't even
attempt to fill in the Darwinian theory with specific examples because
they don't know how to do it.' (Philip E. Johnson, Testing
Darwinism p.78). It would seem that molecular biologists
accept Darwinism not on the strength of the evidence but simply because
their belief in materialist evolution forbids them to consider an
alternative. If that is not living by blind faith then I don't know
what is!
Microevolution or
Macroevolution?
It is true to say that many species have
adapted, over time, to their environment. A classic example of this is
found on the Galapagos Islands where a particular variety of finch has
been found to have a longer beak. But this is a sign of microevolution
(small variations within a species), not macroevolution (giant changes
in the body or function that lead to an entirely different species
altogether). Adaptation is not the same as evolution
and no Christian would have reason to doubt that God created species in
such a way as to allow them to adapt to their various environments.
These are just some of the ways that science
has used selective evidence. So have scientists gone beyond their field
of study and authority? I think that many have. Perhaps we need to go
back to basics and ask what the job of science is.
What is science?
Science involves three basic elements:
- observation
- repetition
- interpretation
Scientists observe the universe that we live
in by means of experiments, observations and calculations to develop
theories and then to test those theories. In fact a good scientist will
pay a great deal of attention to ensuring the experiments are
repeatable, so that the same results will be arrived at when performed
by other scientists who don't necessarily hold the same view. A
scientist cannot make an absolute statement if there is insufficient
evidence to support their theory when put to the test by others. At
best, their theory must remain 'a theory'.
'Theory'. the missing word
In the past 20 years the word 'theory' has
been dropped from the vocabulary when people talk about evolution. This
is true in the biology class, the programmes we see on TV and the
articles we read in magazines. It seems that some people want us to
believe that evolution is no longer a theory but an unquestionable
fact. Yet, as we have seen from the information above there is
insufficient evidence to allow the scientists to drop the word 'theory'
from evolution. There simply isn't the evidence to substantiate the
materialist view of evolution. In fact there is far more evidence that
would lead one to conclude that there is a Designer, who created the
universe.
Is creation possible?
I would like you to seriously consider this
question: Is creation possible? If you say no, then on what genuinely
scientific grounds can you base your answer? Secondly, is your answer
to that question based on evidence or a philosophy? I, for one, would
be very interested to hear your reply.
What do I believe?
God only provides two pages in the Bible
telling us about the creation of everything in the entire universe.
The details of creation are not entered
into, for God was not attempting to answer the questions of 20th
century science, but the false polytheistic myths from the surrounding
nations of the day as to the origins of the universe. However, God
designates over one thousand pages to explaining who
made the universe and more importantly why. It
therefore seems obvious that the who and the why
questions are far more important for us to know about than the how
question. The reason is that once you take your last breath on this
earth you will not be remotely concerned about how God created the
world, but you will be concerned about whether you know the God who
created you and therefore to whom you are accountable. Indeed your
eternal destination depends on the answer to that question.
Dr Billy Graham said, 'I do not feel
competent to speak on the various theories held by scientists with
reference to the origin of the universe. But the one thing I am very
sure of - any theory which leaves the Sovereign God out of His own
universe is a very poor one.' (Billy Graham, My Answer,
p.263).
All true Christians believe that God
designed, created and planned (at every point) the universe and
everything in it. What is more, God is currently sustaining everything
in the universe. He has never, at any point in time, wound it up like a
clock and left it to tick on it's own. Without God life simply could
not survive. Exactly how God made the universe
may be open to some debate, and if we are all totally
honest no-one, not even the atheist, can ever be absolutely 100% sure
of the 'how' question. But, the two things the Bible clearly tells us
is that, it was not a series of accidents and more importantly there is
a reason!
The Big Question!
In a tantalising conclusion to his brilliant
book, A Brief History of Time (Bantam Press),
Stephen Hawking writes:
"Even if there is only one
possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What
is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for
them to describe?.Up to now most scientists have been too occupied with
the development of new theories that describe what
the universe is rather than to ask the question why?"
Would you like to find out the
answer to the why question?
Everything that science, physics, biology
and geology have discovered so far points not to an 'unsupervised,
impersonal, unpredictable and natural process' as proposed by the
ANABT, but to a fantastic Designer.
Further reading:
- Kirsten Birkett, Unnatural enemies (St
Matthias Press 1997).
- Sir John Houghton, The search for God
(Lion 1995).
- Phillip E. Johnson, Testing Darwinism
(IVP 1997).
- Michael Poole, A guide to science and
belief (Lion 1994).
- David Wilkinson, God,the big bang and
Stephen Hawking (Monarch publications 1997).
- Stephen Gaukroger, It makes sense
(Scripture Union publications 1988).
To purchase these books online try www.wesleyowen.com
or www.amazon.co.uk
by Colin Webster of
Cornerstone Evangelical Church
(Reproduced with the kind
permission of Cornerstone Evangelical Church)
|
