EVOLUTION AND CREATION

Chapter 6

The evolution/creation debate has been the biggest obstacle to discovering the existence of God. This one issue has probably produced more atheists and agnostics than any of the other issues combined. But as many mature believers and honest atheists are coming to realize, evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. Nor are the facts which form the basis of the various theories of evolution in conflict with the existence of a loving, intelligent Creator God. And one need not be a scientist or biologist to resolve the dispute. The application of logic and reason can do wonders.

I propose, as have many others, that

Evolution is the technique of creation

—creation occurring over an extended period of time—and that God engineered and then fostered the evolutionary process either directly or through His own agencies. This proposition leaves room for the gradual evolution within a species and the more sudden appearance of new species, and is consistent with the fossil record. None of the credible theories of evolution are in conflict with these propositions.

The religionist should not be offended by the concept of evolution as a technique of creation. Evolution is seen all around us. A seed evolves into a fruit tree; and a zygote evolves into a baby. As knowledge grows, wisdom evolves. It is undeniable that growth and evolution is the way life works.

A major stumbling block for both believers and atheists is their primitive notions about God. Atheists may ridicule believers for their doctrines about a wrathful, jealous God who magically created the world, shows favoritism, and is appeased by blood, but it appears that many atheists hold those same primitive ideas. I say this because practically all the arguments by atheists are designed to attack the concept of a wrathful, jealous, magical God. If both believers and atheists understood the concept of God as Jesus described Him—loving, wise, intelligent, patient, impartial, and superbly divine (whether or not they chose to believe in Him)—it would open more eyes to the probability that God is real and is the First Cause and Sustainer of all that is.

The Believer's Challenge

Science has put forth great and admirable effort into better understanding the works of God. For many scientists and many lay believers, the process of evolution provides even more reason to believe in, to love, and to worship God.

Unfortunately, the evolution/creation controversy persists because many religionists view the Genesis account of creation as the infallible word of God. They are determined to contest any view on any subject that challenges anything in the Bible. This resistance is what fuels the aggression of atheism. Consequently, I believe that if religionists took a closer look at what the Bible actually says, especially the New Testament, much of the fuel of atheism with respect to the evolution/creation debate would burn out.

In particular, take a look at 2 Corinthians 3:12--17 and 1 Corinthians 13:9--12 mentioned in Chapter 4. These verses teach that knowledge is progressive, and as we gain more knowledge, we should put away old stories. And more directly, the apostle Paul writes that reading the writings of Moses (which include the Genesis account of creation) dulls the mind and interferes with a believer's freedom to find truth.

This does not mean that we should discard the Old Testament as rubbish. Rather, we should view it as Jesus and the apostles did—not something that was destroyed, but something that was fulfilled (Matthew 5:17--20), culminated (Romans 10:4), canceled and taken away (Colossians 2:14) and is now outdated and obsolete (Hebrews 8:13).

Clearly, the Bible writers viewed the scriptures as

Inspired by God, but not as the infallible and complete word of God.

The Old Testament will maintain an eternal place in humanity's religious history, but it should not be allowed to prevent our progress or our progressive understanding of the works of God.

The Atheist's Challenge

I am astounded at how much effort has been expended in attempting to remove God from science and scientific discovery. I understand why atheism contends against primitive religion. But turning its wrath on God is wholly unnecessary and actually exposes the unreasonableness and hypocrisy of atheism's primary arguments.

For example, whenever one of the sciences seeks to discover if there is or was intelligent life, it looks to what was left behind. When excavating various places on earth, archeologists look for items that are out of the ordinary. When they discover items that appear to have been fashioned or designed for some purpose, they use these finds as proof that intelligent life must have been there. When astronomers seek for life out in the universe, they look for patterns that do not naturally occur. They conclude that if they receive a radio signal that has some pattern to it, this would be proof that intelligent life exists off the planet. Consider also the precision of the pyramids of Giza, the circular rock formation at Stonehenge, and the many amazing archeological structures around the world. No one knows who built them or how they were built, yet no credible archeologist postulates that they somehow naturally or spontaneously formed themselves.

No credible scientist of any branch spends one moment engaging in experiments to see if it is possible that these structures or artifacts spontaneously generated themselves.

They accept without question that an intelligent mind must have designed and built those marvels. Yes, in every scientific undertaking, design denotes a designer, and purpose denotes intelligence—except when it comes to God. When it comes to God, the atheist concludes that the design and purpose revealed in nature and in living organisms somehow arose without the intervention of an intelligent, purposeful mind. That is hypocrisy!

I note that atheism is quite comfortable labeling "nature" as the originator of life or qualifying "nature" as intelligent. But it simply cannot countenance the possibility that what they refer to as "nature" might have personality, or that there could possibly be an intelligence in the universe greater than humanity's. Personality—the ability to think, to form conclusions, to have intent and purpose, to have feelings and compassion, etc.—is what elevates what is perceived as "nature" to the status of Great Divine Personality. Atheists do not want to be accountable to a Great Personality or subject to a Greater Intelligence, so they put tremendous effort into finding ways to explain away the Great Personality, even if they have to contort facts and reject common sense. Arrogance can be blinding.

As for the various theories of evolution, evolution explains only a process of development of preexistent life. They do not reach back to the beginning to explain how life appeared in the first place. After we have been educated on how the various species of life on earth may have evolved from one to another, the question remains:

Where did the first or original species come from?

Thus, the possibility or probability that life originated as the creative act of a Great Personality remains a viable option that has not been and (I propose) cannot be excluded by any theory of evolution.

Astute atheists and agnostics know this. Yet atheism is hesitant to admit that the theories of evolution do not provide any evidence that would negate the existence of God. Nor should these theories provide any reason for the religionist to abandon his or her faith and belief in God.

At this point, I must acknowledge that one school of thought does attempt to negate the need for God in the origin of life. It is called "abiogenesis," which is defined as "the natural process of life arising from nonliving matter." But this theory is also ineffectual.

Abiogenesis

As a preliminary matter, even creationists believe that the earth was once barren of all life and then, through the activity of God's spirit, life was in some manner catalyzed from nonliving matter. The difference is that atheists believe this transaction occurred spontaneously, without any outside influence. In support of this belief, they point to the supposition that biologists may have discovered some of the steps toward the catalyzing of life. But having discovered a method does not exclude God as the Primary Actor—the Great First Cause—nor does it negate the fact that the biologists could never have made their discovery if God had not done it first.

Think of it this way. A skilled chef creates a beautiful chocolate soufflé. A chemist comes along and is able to determine which ingredients the chef used and in what quantity. He may be able to determine the order in which the ingredients were added together and whether they were merely stirred together or melted or whisked. He may be able to figure out that the soufflé must have been baked in an oven as opposed to an open grill, and he may be able to explain how the interaction of the heat in the oven with the ingredients caused the soufflé to rise. Yet none of the chemist's discoveries or explanations exclude the chef from the equation. All the chemist has done is explain how the chef made the soufflé. Even if the chemists could follow the chef's recipe and replicate the soufflé, that still does not prove that the chef was not the maker of the original soufflé and the creator/engineer of the recipe.

It is the same with creation.

Science may be able to figure out "God's recipe," but that discovery does not exclude God as the Great First Chef.

Humankind's Challenge

I propose that science will never be able to present sufficient credible and unassailable evidence to eliminate the actions and intervention of God. Yet, that is exactly the type of evidence atheists expect of believers. More hypocrisy!

Science can only follow behind God's work and attempt to explain what He already did. To its credit, science has revealed that the universe was not created by magic. It works according to precise laws—laws set in motion by a Great Mind far more intelligent than man, who accomplished His creative work in accordance with those laws. And because the Great Mind is also responsible for not only earth but the entire vast universe, man has a lot more to discover!

That life exists because God wanted it to exist and acted to bring it into existence is the simplest and most widely accepted explanation for the origin and existence of life. Design denotes designer; purpose denotes intelligence.

We are reminded of what is called Occam's razor, a proposition that the simplest or most obvious explanation of several competing theories is the one that should be preferred until it is proven wrong. Until science is able to present conclusive evidence that eliminates the possibility that there is a Greater Intelligence who is the First Cause of all things, believers have no reason to abandon their faith.

Nevertheless, religious thought must evolve. Modern man cannot be held captive by the limited understanding of illiterate desert nomads who lived 3,500 years ago. They were spiritual babes who were given explanations consistent with their capacity to comprehend. But 21st century humankind has the capacity to understand far more details about creation. We have more evidence, we have more facts, and we have more unanswered questions. We must keep up with our God-given capacity and divine commission to "keep on seeking, asking, and knocking" (Matthew 7:7--8).

Unfortunately, the evolution/creation debate will persist until both religionists and atheists let go of their primitive ideas about God. If they could each open their minds to the possibility that a God who could create all that we see must be greater than what Moses or the primitive nation of Israel described, then the great divide between science and religion, and between evolution and creation, could be healed. This is one of the greatest challenges of the twenty-first century.