Can't Evolution Be God's Creation Tool? - 06/17/2003
If all things are possible through god and there are things about god we could never understand, why can't evolution be a tool of gods creation scheme? the progression of animals presented is genesis is the same progression presented in evolution. I just think one is a matter of science and one is a matter of faith. neither should be used to prove or disprove the other. I believe in jesus as my savior. but I also believe science is an offshot of the curiosity that god put into us and we should pursue as much knowledge as we can be it biblical or earthly. the is no sin in trying to understand what happened here before us. I'm sick and tired of this adversarial relationship between faith and science.
CONTENDER MINISTRIES RESPONSE:
Hi! Thanks for contacting us at Contender Ministries. I don't see an adversarial relationship between faith and science, except for the disdain and persecution some scientists show towards faith. There are many Christian scientists out there, who find that their field of science tends to strengthen their faith. If you're referring to evolution, then the adversarial feelings Christians have are not towards science in general, but to the junk science that is evolution. Yes, I said "junk science." There are many problems with Darwin's theory that no evolutionist can address. The creation of the world was a supernatural act, and cannot be "proven" by science. Yet that does not make it unscientific. The creation can be scientifically studied, and the whole of science yields more evidence that supports spontaneous creation, than there is that supports evolution. You seem to subscribe to what is called, "theistic evolution." That is, that God used evolution as His tool of creation, and the Genesis account of creation is allegorical or mythological. Let me share a few of the problems with evolution, some problems with theistic evolution, and also try to explain the perceived adversarial relationship between faith and science when it comes to origins.
Evolution would have you believe that all of the living organisms you see around you, including the one you see in the mirror, evolved over a period of billions of years from some sort of puddle of organic goo. Evolutionists do not know what caused life to spark from that puddle, they just know it did. Ever since, from a single living cell, multiplications, mutations, and natural selection have resulted in every plant and animal on planet Earth. It’s hard to conceive, isn’t? Look at the complexities in just the human body. Consider your eye, and your brain, and how all your systems and your chemical makeup have to function cooperatively and flawlessly. Look microscopically. There are 3000 proteins in one sequence in a single cell. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated that the odds of producing just the basic enzymes of life by chance are 1 in 1 with 40,000 zeros after it. The odds of randomly plucking a particular electron out of the universe are 500 times greater! It has been said that if Darwin knew then what we know now about the complexities of molecular chemistry and the human genome, he would likely have never put forth his flawed theory.
Klaus Dose, a prominent evolutionist said, “More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution.”
If evolution were true, there would have been literally billions of intermediary stages in the fossil record, where we could have seen lungs develop from gills, etc. Yet no transitional form (missing link) has ever been found. Evolutionists thought they had a find with archaeopteryx, which seemed to show a transitional form between a lizard and a feathered bird, yet archaeopteryx was proven to be a fraud that was actually developed from two separate fossilized remains. Java man, Piltdown man, Pithecanthropus erectus, and Peking man were also missing links that were proven to be frauds.
Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago states that the “250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Robert A. Millikan, in a speech before the American Chemical Society, said, “The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.”
As you can see, there are serious problems with Darwin's theory. It would be a mistake to adopt bad science in the context of theistic evolution. God would not use a process that is so patently flawed. Aside from that, the Bible records God saying He would make man in His image. If that's true, then we either look now as we did when He created us, or He resembles a puddle of organic goo from whence evolutionists believe life began. If that's not true, then can we trust the Bible at all? If you want to strictly disregard Genesis, but believe the rest of the Bible, then you have to account for the fact that Adam is referred to 30 times in 9 books of the Bible. He is also mentioned in the lineage that leads to Jesus Christ. Paul calls Christ “the last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45). If Adam were an early, undeveloped hominid, then why would Paul demean Christ in this way? Why would so many authors of the Bible refer to a man that never existed? You cannot separate faith from the creation of man, as it was a supernatural act (transcending natural laws). Yet creation can be studied scientifically. This is something evolutionists wish to suppress.
Scientist L.T. More said, “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion…the only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.”
That is the crux of the problem, and that is why evolution is still being taught as if it were fact. If you are familiar with the “scientific method,” you know that in order for an idea to pass from the stage of hypothesis to theory and finally to fact, it must be subject to observation. No person has ever observed one species changing into an entirely new species. So at BEST, evolution can only be called a theory. Yet it is presented in schools as an absolute fact, and the powers that be will not even allow the science behind the opposing theory (that of creation) to be presented alongside evolution. This is highly hypocritical! In our history, it was once the other way around – evolution was not allowed to be taught in public schools in some states. When substitute biology teacher John Scopes went to trial in Tennessee for teaching evolution, the ACLU represented him. The ACLU lead attorney on the case, Clarence Darrow, said, “It is the height of bigotry to teach only one view of origins.” Where is the ACLU now that creationism has been banned from the classroom? They fight any attempt to balance the teachings on origins, and have filed suit against even placing labels on textbooks that concede that there are other theories concerning the origins of man, and evolution must be looked at as simply one theory.
The American Atheist magazine once stated, “Destroy Adam and Even and original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God, and take away the meaning of his death.” Evolutionists cling to their scientifically inept theory because they are trying to disprove the existence of God. That is where your adversarial relationship comes in.
You sound like you have an interest in science. That’s great. Jennifer and I do as well. You don’t have to crush that or bury it to believe in the Genesis account of creation. If you take the initiative to study the evidence from more sources than your textbook, I’m sure you’ll find that science proves neither creationism nor evolution, but it definitely supports the Genesis account of divine creation more. If you want to study more about the science of creation, check out the websites and books listed at the end of our email. I think you’ll find these studies will enhance your faith in the Word of God – including the book of Genesis. May God bless you.
Ben and Jennifer Rast
Our page on the flaws of carbon 14 dating:
The Center for Scientific Creation:
The Institute for Creation Research:
Creation Worldview Ministries:
Also, check out these Books:
Darwin’s God, by Cornelius G. Hunter
Darwin on Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson
Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe