Making Sense of Creation & Evolution

Author’s Thoughts:

That is not a unique problem for the Christian or any person beginning with God as eternal. The evolutionist has the same problem. You may fairly ask, “Where did the evolutionist’s matter come from?” They have to assume matter is eternal, or even worse, say that it came into existence at some point from nothing! To get started in origins, both creationists and evolutionists must assume something has always existed, either an intelligent Being like the Christian God, or the material elements. Neither can reasonably start with nothing. Everyone can agree that getting life, persons, and minds is far more reasonable and predictable if the origin starts from a directed cause (intelligence); that is, a Being who has life, is a person, and has a mind; rather than to start with an undirected cause (chance); that is, chemical elements which have none of these.

Author’s Thoughts: Examples: Genesis 1:1; Psalm 8:3-8; 33:6,9; Isaiah 45:12; Matthew 19:4; John 1:3; Romans 1:18-20; Colossians 1:16; Revelation 4:11.

Author’s Thoughts: It is the lens through which every person sees and understands reality, which at the least includes God, the universe, humanity, and time (history). For example, a worldview needs to have an explanation of the origin of the universe, plant/animal life, and humanity; of the nature of humanity and of destiny, etc. Worldviews can be evaluated and tested to determine whether and how well they explain and make sense of these parameters of reality. In other words, one’s worldview should not be mere opinion or arbitrary. It should be a “best fit” with known observations and facts.

Author’s Thoughts: First, the field of genetics was discovered years after Darwin proposed his theory. The DNA molecule is now known to consist of very complex and specified information, which is always an indicator of intelligence and not of chance (as we will see in Part 2). The science of Intelligent Design, and the concept of irreducible complexity clearly points to an origin of the diversity of life groups by design rather than the natural selection which Darwin proposed. Second, the original conflict was considered to be science versus the Bible. Today it is science (evolution theory – undirected cause) versus science (Intelligent Design – directed cause). This is new. Both positions are scientifically testable by the observation of nature itself.

Author’s Thoughts: There are several but two stand out. First, evolution is perceived as being the scientific position with real evidence from real scientists. Creation is perceived to be what religious people hold based only on tradition and the Bible. This is no longer true, as the answer to the second part of question number one above reveals. Both positions are now based on observations of the natural world, i.e., science. Second, the demonstration of micro-changes over time in organisms (for example, Galapagos finch beak size changes or the peppered moth population changes) allegedly proves that macroevolution is true. However, microevolutionary changes (adaptation) don’t prove macroevolution unless successive transitions between them are also found in the fossil record (the missing links); for example, if intermediate fossils were found leading from invertebrates to fish (one kind of creature to another) it would support macroevolution. However, such has not been found.

Author’s Thoughts: No, it cannot. The survival of the fittest includes sickness and predation which lead to death. The Bible says that death is a consequence of man’s sin (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). At the end of the creation God declared that it was “very good” (Genesis 1:31) a statement which clearly does not fit the concept of millions of years of evolutionary death and decay. The original world was destroyed by a global flood (2 Peter 3:6) and the current earth is in a state of corruption and decay (Genesis 3:17-19; Romans 8:19-22). This is not the way it was originally created. The survival of the fittest is a part of this corruption.

Author’s Thoughts: Neither Darwin nor his family ever said or wrote anything about that. In all probability and without any evidence for that, it is doubtful that he did.

Author’s Thoughts: Fossil formation is a rare event. The fact that fossils are not being formed today under uniformitarian conditions, clearly suggests that the many fossils that we do find in the sediments must be the result of catastrophic burial, such as would result from the biblical global flood. Whether a plant or animal dies on land or sea, the usual scenario is for the body to be eaten or rotted away. Only rapid burial can preserve and fossilize it. That rarely happens under existing conditions.

Author’s Thoughts: No. The point of this presentation on fossils is to demonstrate that the transitional fossils which would prove macroevolution are lacking. So, to imagine that fossils have proven evolution is a false impression. Regarding human evolution, despite the hype associated with every new ape or human fossil find (which are very few), the scientific evidence for any connection between humans and apes is lacking. The fairly numerous Neanderthal fossils are fully human. The australopithecine fossils are clearly apes. There are a couple of fossils types which are rare and it is as yet uncertain where they fit; for example, Homo erectus. There are some fascinating theories, both secular and Christian, about how the few primate fossils fit together. Since the views change rapidly, I chose not to include “human evolution” in my presentation and only a short section in my seminar manual (pp. 16-17). The Christian asks how a view of human descent from apes, making early man a “dumb brute,” can be reconciled with the obviously intelligent and fully-human first people (Adam and Eve) who are described in Genesis chapter two.

Author’s Thoughts: “Wannabees” is a term coined by the author to identify fossils which are alleged to be intermediate or transitional between major groups of biological organisms; for example, a reptile that “wants to be” a bird but isn’t fully there yet. This is a key scientific problem with macroevolution—there just aren’t any certain wannabees. In his Origin of Species… book, Darwin said there should be millions of transitional fossils (wannabees). Yes, a few candidates are proposed from time to time, but they are usually based on some similarity of structure (called homologous structures). This is circumstantial evidence which can also be explained as the result of Intelligent Design.

Author’s Thoughts: The geological column is supposed to represent a vertical cross-section through the earth’s crust, with the most-recently deposited (therefore youngest) rocks at the surface and the oldest, earliest rocks deposited on the crystalline rocks at the bottom. Where would you go to see this geological age system? Not in nature—only in the textbook. A text by Brown, Monnett, and Stovel (Introduction to Geology) explains why: There is no place on the earth where a complete record of the rocks is present… To reconstruct the history of the earth, scattered bits of information from thousands of locations all over the world must be pieced together. The results will be, at best, only a very incomplete record. If the complete history of the earth is compared to an encyclopedia of thirty volumes, then we can seldom hope to find even one complete volume in a given area. Sometimes only a few chapters, perhaps only a paragraph or two, will be the total geological contribution of a region; indeed, we are often reduced to studying scattered bits of information more nearly comparable to a few words or letters. In other words, there is no complete geologic column at any one place on the earth.

Author’s Thoughts: Evolution maintains that dinosaurs became extinct at least 65 million years ago because no dinosaur fossils are found in sediments more recent than that (assuming geological ages). Imagine finding a living dinosaur today in a national park unchanged from those in the fossil record. That would be referred to as a “living fossil.” In 1938, a fisherman pulled up an odd-looking fish in Indonesia. It was a coelacanth, a fish which evolutionary scientists said had been extinct for 70 million years. In 1994, a park officer accidentally found a Wollemi pine tree grove in Australia. These pine trees were thought to have been extinct for 200 million years. What do “living fossils” like these tell us? If evolution and millions of years are true, then surely the coelacanth or the Wollemi pine would have changed some (evolved) over tens of millions of years (or become extinct). Yet we still find them today, virtually unchanged. This fits with the biblical view that representatives of every kind of organism were created only thousands of years ago. Living fossils give credence to the position that their fossil relatives are only thousands of years old.

Author’s Thoughts: Intelligent Design (I.D.) contends that the universe, and especially living organisms, exhibit complexity and specificity (order) which cannot be explained or accomplished by blind and random natural processes of chance. The detailed enzymatic and structural components of the human blood clotting mechanism require intelligent involvement. Chance cannot evolve all the detailed order of the blood clotting mechanism, just like it could not be responsible for the faces on Mt. Rushmore. Furthermore, it cannot develop a software program or a musical score. When anything in nature has a high CSI value (complex and specified information), the best proposal is that it arose as a result of intelligence. It should be noted that this is not a biblical or Christian premise imposed on nature. Instead, it is science, the result of the observation of nature itself. Moreover, it belongs to probability and complexity theory (just like forensic science, cryptography, archaeology, and SETI—the search for extraterrestrial intelligence). It does not to belong to the fields of metaphysics and theology. Another example of I.D. is the human brain. It is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. The human brain contains at least 10 billion brain cells with over 100 trillion neurological interconnections. If all these were laid end to end, they would circle the equator four times. The brain can hold the information content of 25 million books, filling a bookshelf 500 miles long.

Author’s Thoughts: The contention by evolutionists is that intelligent design is just creationism with a new name. This accusation reveals a lack of understanding of the difference between biblical creation and intelligent design. Creationism is the body of knowledge about origins based on the teaching of the Bible. Everyone, even Christians, understand that in our present maligned concept of the separation of church and state, someone will sue any public teacher and school who attempts to teach the Bible and creationism. In contrast, intelligent design, while consistent with what the Bible teaches, is not derived from, nor does it teach, the Bible. The subject matter of I.D. has arisen from a scientific investigation of nature. Thus, it is science and can be tested. The science of I.D. should not have to come in through the “back door.” It qualifies to be included in science curricula just like all other scientific observations of the natural world. The fact that its conclusions point to a Designer is not relevant unless it is your intent to also exclude from science any evidence that might imply that a Designer does in fact exist.

Author’s Thoughts: “God of the gaps” theology is the practice of attributing to God’s creative power and wisdom anything in nature which we do not understand, or for which we have no scientific explanation. The problem is that if, and when, science discovers a natural explanation, God is no longer needed! The claims of intelligent design are not the result of a lack of knowledge of nature. Instead, it is the result of knowledge gained by the scientific observation of nature itself. Therefore, it is not the result of ignorance (God of the gaps explanation) but of scientific observation and knowledge.

Author’s Thoughts: If something is designed, what is left for the scientist to do? For one thing, it would stop unnecessary millions of dollars going for research to generate stories to account for the origin of the eye (as one example) through a gradual succession of undirected natural causes. For another, science could move immediately to reverse engineering: investigate how objects are designed, how they work, and create applications of the design to improve society. The application of intelligent design is human intelligence determining what a higher Intelligence has done. As a result, intelligent design is not a science-stopper. It can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches have obstructed it. For example, evolution discourages looking for a function for “junk DNA” because it is alleged to only be the remnant of a past evolutionary process. Design encouraged looking for a function and nearly all formerly “junk DNA” is now known to have a function. Another example is that evolution said that the human appendix was a remnant of past evolution without a current function. Design said, “No,” and encouraged further study. Indeed, functions for the appendix have since been found which prove it to be an important organ.

Author’s Thoughts: The function of a wooden mouse trap is to catch mice. The trap has several components which are all necessary for the trap to function. How many mice would you catch with just the wooden base, or the spring, or the bait? What advantage do you gain to eradicate the mice if the trap doesn’t work? The mouse trap is irreducibly complex because you can’t reduce the components and still get the function. Said another way, the trap’s complexity (total of the components) must remain intact to manifest its function.

Author’s Thoughts: This question and its answer are more technical than others in this guide. Components of biological systems are often complex proteins which function together to create structure (like muscle tissue) or to catalyze reactions (like enzymes). Many different proteins work together in multiple systems to create functions (like the blood clotting mechanism and the “motor” of the bacterial flagellum). It has been discovered that at least fifty different proteins work together to create the structure and function of the bacterial flagellum. All must be present simultaneously for the flagellum to work. To imagine that fifty different proteins evolved piecemeal over millions of years and finally came together simultaneously by chance to create the “motor” is preposterous. Where do proteins come from? We know that proteins are manufactured in the cell by coded messages embedded in another molecule called DNA. The coded messages consist of chemical letters which spell out words, sentences, and genes for the manufacturing of proteins which catalyze thousands of reactions in the embryological process to create roses, giraffes, and human babies. Complex information like that embedded in DNA is only known to arise as a result of intelligence (just like like software is programmed) and not by chance. The argument of irreducible complexity in defense of intelligent design is irrefutable when these many layers of structure and function in living systems are considered.

Author’s Thoughts: Evolutionists often assume the individual components must give the organism some advantage even before all the components come together to begin the beneficial function. No one knows what that advantage might be, but evolutionists have faith that there must be one and that eventually science will discover it. They believe this because of their commitment to the theory of macroevolution. There is currently no scientific evidence to support the view that individual components without a known function can give the organism some advantage for natural selection to act upon for evolution to occur.

Author’s Thoughts: Subjective questions with variable answers.

Author’s Thoughts: First, some Christians have a weak view of the inspiration of Scripture being revealed by God. As a result, they feel that some of the Bible is legend, has errors, and does not need to be read literally (especially Genesis). These are the people who often take the most interpretational liberties with Genesis, and their origin theories are viewed by others as compromising the doctrine of inspiration and Christian theology. Second, Christians disagree whether the first chapter of Genesis is history or myth. If it is myth, then we cannot hope to derive any historical or scientific information from the biblical creation account, and facts concerning creation must be derived only from science. If it is history, and we believe in inspiration, then we understand creation to be in six days, to include a literal Adam and Eve, and a historical global flood which laid down the rock strata of geology in recent times. Third, there are many Christians who have not been diligent to study either the biblical account of creation or the scientific data. They don’t base their views on evidence, but just want “peace” between Christians and science. As a result, they are willing to compromise what they think and say in order to just get along.

Author’s Thoughts: The Bible is clear that becoming a Christian (salvation) is a gift based solely on faith in the person of Jesus Christ who died on the cross for our sins and rose again to conquer death (Acts 4:12; Ephesians 2:8-9; 1 John 5:11-13). A particular view of origins is not a condition for becoming or being a Christian. In this presentation, the author has made it clear that microevolution (adaptation) of organisms is observable in nature and is not in conflict with Christian faith or the Bible. Indeed, it gives credit for this to God, who creates with intelligence and wisdom. Only macroevolution is a problem because it states that the mechanism of origins is chance, not God. This can never be reconciled with creation or intelligent design. Many Christians who say they believe in both the Bible and macroevolution maintain that they believe God used macroevolution as His method of creating. This is called theistic evolution. From a macroevolutionary point of view that makes them a “creationist” not an evolutionist. No evolutionist would accept the view that God is the mechanism for evolution. It is this difference which makes creation and macroevolution irreconcilable. In other words you can’t believe the Bible’s teaching that God created all things and, at the same time, believe macroevolution whose mechanism excludes God. Regarding belief in the Genesis account, the author believes that Christians should follow Jesus’ view and teaching. He affirmed the historicity of Adam and Eve, Noah, and the Flood (Matthew 24:37-39; Mark 10:6; 13:19; Revelation 4:11). So did His apostles (1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 45; 1 Timothy 2:13; Hebrews 11:4-7; 2 Peter 2:5; Jude 11).

Author’s Thoughts: Human dignity and worth are lost if we are merely products of chance and are evolved from apes. We are cosmic accidents and cannot know why we are here. In contrast, we have dignity and great value if humankind was specially and purposely created by a personal God in His image and likeness. Furthermore, the fact that there is final accountability to our Creator means our lives (thoughts, actions) have meaning and are significant. Finally, there is ultimate justice (righteousness will be rewarded, evil will be punished) and our destiny is not a mystery—there is life after death.

Author’s Thoughts: In a word, I was indoctrinated. My high school, college, and graduate school education was all based in evolutionary texts and teachers. Some of them were good people and good teachers, but they, too, were products of indoctrination. Public science education, museums, national parks, children’s cartoons, movies, and books all join together to present to everyone today that macroevolution is scientifically proven. I felt I had no choice. To be a successful scientist and to be accepted by my colleagues required that I endorse macroevolution. I became a Christian near the completion of my Ph.D. degree in biology. I began to seriously study the Bible and discovered books by scientists who did not believe the theory of macroevolution to be a fact. For the first time, I became aware of scientific evidence which contradicts macroevolution and which supports creation. It revolutionized my thinking, but it took nearly ten years for me to sort out what I believed about creation and evolution. Finally, I was convicted that God’s Word is true all the way back to Genesis chapter 1. Furthermore, I came to realize that the Genesis creation account is the one view which is most consistent with the scientific discoveries being made today, such as intelligent design.

Author’s Thoughts: There are several areas of evidence, but I will identify three here. First, God left His fingerprints in nature. This was discussed above in the intelligent design and irreducible complexity sections. Specified information systems like the DNA molecule; and the order and predictable laws in nature are only possible as a result of intelligence and not of chance. So the evidence in nature points to the existence of an intelligent being, but doesn’t reveal his identity or name (see Romans 1:18-20). Second, God left His fingerprints in history. Study of the evidence for Jesus Christ as recorded in the eyewitness New Testament accounts will lead to the reasonable conclusion that He is indeed the incarnation of God to earth (the true significance of the Christmas celebration). The evidence for the reliability of the New Testament records of Jesus and His deity are detailed in chapters two and three of my book, Surprised by Faith. So the evidence of history reveals the name of the Designer (see John 1:1-18 and 1 John 1:1-3). Third, God continues to leave His fingerprints on the lives of those who embrace Jesus as their Savior – people of every walk of life (teachers, laborers, lawyers, doctors); every social status (peasants, middle class, governors); every geographical region (U.S., Russia, China, Africa, etc.); every age (children, youth, adults). All share a common testimony that their faith in following Jesus has changed their life in very positive ways. Such uniform testimony supports the contention that God exists (see 2 Corinthians 3:18; Colossians 3:1-17).