Among my many interests is the ongoing debate between Evolution and Creation. As a matter
of fact, a few years ago I had the opportunity to participate in a televised discussion on this topic. I represented the Creation point of view, while the Evolution position was represented by a local biology teacher. (Click here to read a copy of the news article.)
The discussion remained polite and civil, and we actually agreed on a number of points. For example, we both acknowledged what is often referred to as micro-evolution, which is a change occurring within a species, as well as the fact that the universe had a beginning. My counterpart also agreed that the evidence for evolution was not overwhelming and that religion and science do not necessarily contradict one another.
This topic can really stir up emotions on both sides. Oftentimes, I’ve seen each protagonist’s arguments reduced to name-calling insults or over-simplifying attacks that do nothing to prove their own case. I suppose this comes from the emotional investment that we somehow sense is lodged into our position. Intelligent, thoughtful discussion can be rare.
The issue, as I understand it, can be divided into two broad categories: 1) the origin of our universe and life, and 2) whether or not all living things came from a single ancestor and how. While evolutionists often see these as separate sciences, the creationist generally holds them together since life is understood as beginning fully formed. Because this difference is not perceived, confusion and friction often develops between those who are trying to discuss their points of view.
I am a theist. In other words, I believe in a God. I am also a Creationist. However, I am not a Creationist because I am a theist. My understanding of theism does not demand that I reject evolution. As a matter of fact, there are a number of theists who hold evolutionary views. Rather, my theism opens my mind to the possibilities of both Creationism and Evolutionism and permits me to make an informed decision.
The reason why I am a Creationist is because there are observations that can be made of our natural world which leads me to believe it is the logical choice. If the evidences for Evolutionism were significant enough, then I would have to find a way to blend my theism with Evolutionism. Blending my understanding of Creation with my theism has never been a challenge.
Throughout my study of this subject, I have never been made aware of any natural phenomenon that is inconsistent with the Creation model. However, there are numerous processes and concepts in our natural world that not only do not fit well into the Evolutionary model, but have for me made it the illogical choice. It is these logical inconsistencies that point me toward Creationism, which my theism allows. Following is just a sampling of those processes:
- The lack of gradual transitional life forms in the fossil record. Conventional Evolution holds that life evolved very, very slowly. This gradual change should therefore be visible in the fossil record. However, many evolutionists recognize that the gradual change of transitional life forms in the fossil record was never found. In 1972, the late Stephen Gould (an evolutionist) published a theory called Punctuated Equilibrium to explain why the “gradualism” in the fossil record was “virtually nonexistent” (source), and to offer a reason why it isn’t there. The gradualism’s non-existence in the fossil record is consistent with creationism since it holds that current life forms did not evolve from earlier, unrelated life forms.
- Sexual reproduction. Creationists believe that sexual reproduction was part of the creation process and was designed to promote existing life. However, Evolutionists are left to explain how two separate life forms could randomly and fully develop sexually compatible systems simultaneously in order to successfully procreate, and why this would even occur since procreation is not necessary for the individual life form to exist and would have been a highly inefficient mutation.
- The law of entropy. In our universe, we observe that the disorder of things increases over time if exposed to random energy. To illustrate this point imagine that you build a shed in your backyard and then move away for 25 years, leaving no one to tend to it. You would expect to find the shed in a much worse state when you return. That is because everything increases in disorder. This is what Creationism expects to observe. Evolution, on the other hand, suggests that random energy causes things to improve, and for information (like DNA) to organize, not disorganize. This is counter-intuitive, and there is no good reason to believe in can occur in our universe.
- The existence of objective morals. Some philosophers acknowledge that moral objectives exist in reality (for example, it is not just wrong to rape a child, but it is objectively wrong to do so). This is consistent with the Creation worldview. Atheistic Evolution, however, cannot offer an explanation for the existence of objective moral values. This is because they exist immaterially and could not evolve into existence. The presence of objective moral values renders atheistic Evolution incompatible with our universe.
- Everything has a cause. Intuitively, we recognize that nothing can be self-caused. Creationism teaches that the universe had a cause – God (Click here for a brief discussion on where God came from.) On the other hand, naturalistic theories of the origin of the universe must counter-intuitively explain how matter, space, and all of our energy, could come into existence uncaused.
- Altruism. It is a well observed fact that many animals, of all ranges of intelligence, will act in an altruistic manner. For example, many animals will put themselves in mortal danger to protect their young, the young of others, and sometimes even other species. Or, some will rob their own bodies of valuable nutrients to feed their young. This fits well into the Creationist’s viewpoint. However, it has a troubling impact with the theory of Evolution’s guiding force, Natural Selection, which leads us to believe that an animal will develop only those tendencies that increases its chances of survival. Darwinism would expect an animal to act in its own interest, not in the interest of its kind. Why would an animal have a vested interest in preserving its line? Would Natural Selection cause a kind of animal to develop a gene which cares about its legacy? If Natural Selection is the only guiding force, one would expect an animal to abandon its offspring to fend for itself rather than stay and fight, since that would decrease its chances of survival. Furthermore, the death of an animal’s offspring would actually increase the parent’s chances of survival by eliminating competition over the same food sources. Altruism is a very strong indicator that there is the presence of an immaterial Mind behind the natural world.
Evolutionists are aware of the above problems and are working to develop theories which may explain how they could occur without the possibility of an intelligent designer. The reason why they do not consider an intelligent designer is because they claim the Intelligent Designer theory cannot be tested. But what if there really is a God behind creation? What if it were really true that God could not be tested but still exists in reality? That would mean science will never find the right answers as long as it refuses to consider all of the possibilities. It would mean that science has predetermined itself to find incorrect answers to our origins. It would also mean science will lead many people to a false conclusion about reality.
I would like to point out that the existence of God is not an illogical concept. In other words, the presence of a Creator would not render our world an illogical place to be. Furthermore, being willing to consider the possibility of a God would make one more open-minded toward reality, and able to be led where the evidence leads.
Approaching the questions of our origins and evolution with an open mind will aid us in drawing closer to the truth. However, if we begin the search with the decision that certain options, however viable, will not be considered, then we must assume that we may never get in touch with reality.
We should all be serious about reality.
As always, thoughtful comments are welcome below.
Peace,
dane
Dane Cramer is a backpacker, Christian blogger, jail chaplain, amateur filmmaker, and author of two books: Romancing the Trail and The Nephilim: A Monster Among Us