Evolution, Faith and Science
 Why Is the Issue of Evolution So Important?
Well, this is the start of what I consider to be a very important series, as we examine the truth about evolution. Look, as Christians, we need to realize that this issue of evolution is fundamental to what we believe, and while many of you may already have an opinion about the ‘truth claims’ of evolution, we are going to need to approach this with as open a mind as we possibly can. What we may discover is going to be important. If evolution is true, we Christians need to come to grips with a very different reality than the one we presently believe is true. If evolution can truly account for all the biological variety that we see in the world around us; if evolution can account for our initial appearance in the universe and then here on planet earth, we need to abandon some of our thinking about God. After all, if evolution is true, then God becomes unnecessary as the creator who miraculously creates (from nothing) all that we presently know and experience. If evolution is true, God is just a wishful hope, a bit of fiction in the minds of Christians (and other believers). Remember, if evolution is true, then there is no God (God is completely unnecessary!) You are, therefore, not a special creation of God; you’re just another animal form that has ascended up the evolutionary food chain. If evolution is true, there is no Divine standard of right or wrong, no ultimate morality. Every behavior is relative according to the people group engaged in the activity. What you might think is terribly immoral may be completely moral in the eyes of someone else, and since there is no Divine objective standard, no one will have the authority to even claim a particular behavior is wrong. Men and women will therefore have license to do whatever they want, become whatever they want, and believe whatever they want. In essence, men and women will become gods unto themselves. That’s a powerful reality for a lot of people, and it just may be the motive behind the mad rush to claim that evolution is a fact, and not a theory. This series will hopefully help you negotiate the truth about evolution so you can decide for yourself and be able to provide an answer to those who would claim that the ‘truth’ of evolution is without question. After all, as Christians, we are called to be ready to defend what we believe:
 1 Peter 3:15-17
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
What Kind of Science?
Let’s begin our long look at evolution by first examining the nature of science. All of us have taken science in school, so we are familiar with some of the basic ideas, but I’ll bet you’ve never really thought much about how science is applied to the study of our origins. So let’s begin by reviewing how we might use science to search for truth. The first form of science that you may be familiar with is what is known as ‘empirical’ science. The word, “empiric” is derived from a Greek word that means ‘experience’, so for the most part, empirical data is data that comes from things we can SEE and EXPERIENCE. Empirical science, therefore, is that study of the world around us that utilizes data that has been retrieved empirically (we observed it or experienced it first hand)! That’s why scientists will often run experiments to SEE what happens in a given situation. They are simply trying to gather empirical data. Without it, they cannot come to a conclusion about any truth. Now think about that for a minute. Let’s say I’m trying to understand how the sun rises and sets each day. That’s not much of a problem for the empirical scientist because the sun does this everyday! I can make daily observations and even begin to make predictions about what might happen tomorrow. I can then use my daily observations to assess my predictions. See, empirical science is really good at evaluating events, just so long as they are REPEATING and can be SEEN. That makes sense, because empirical science requires an observation in the first place, doesn't it? If something can’t be seen, I cannot begin to collect data!
What If I Can’t See It?
But how can we use science to examine an event that cannot be seen? What if the event happened only once, and now it cannot be repeated with some kind of staged experiment that will allow us to see it again? That’s really not an unusual problem. It happens everyday all across America! Everyday, homicide detectives have to try their best to solve crimes that occurred only once (every homicide is unique) and they cannot commit additional homicides just so they can SEE what happens! These investigators use science to catch the criminal, but it’s not empirical science. They use another kind of science known as “forensic” science! Forensic science is used when you have an event that simply cannot be repeated because they are single unique events that occurred sometime in the past and will not re-occur in that exact form in the future. Now if you’ve ever watched an episode of CSI, you know how forensic scientists work. They look for clues. While they cannot see the event re-occur anymore, they CAN see evidence that was left behind after the event occurred. Criminalists are familiar with this sort of evidence collection. They collect and examine shoe prints, fingerprints, and ballistic evidence, but it doesn’t stop there. Forensic criminalists collect evidence in an effort to begin COMPARISONS! That’s what they do. They make fingerprint comparisons, DNA and blood comparisons, trace evidence (i.e. fiber, soil, paint and hair) comparisons, ballistic comparisons, impression comparisons, document comparisons, and chemical (i.e. toxicological) comparisons! That’s a lot of comparisons! But that is the nature of forensic science. It examines the leftover evidence of any particular event, and compares this evidence to what we know from other events that can be repeated.
What Kind of Science Should I Use?
Since homicides are unique and cannot be repeated in exactly the same way they first occurred, criminalists use ‘forensic’ science to get to the bottom of what happened. They look at the evidence that is left behind and begin their work of comparing this evidence to what they know to be true. Since homicides are single non-repeating events from the past (thankfully), they are perfect candidates for the forensic sciences. But think about it for a minute. If we begin to study how you and I got here on planet Earth, we are, in essence, going to study a single non-repeatable event. We are going to be entering into an examination of something that cannot be repeated in the laboratory, based on the magnitude and complexity of the event itself. There is simply no way we can create a laboratory environment that will allow us to figure out how inanimate non-living materials somehow came to life and then became the diverse ecosystem we now see all around us. It’s not just a matter of going from nothing to SOMETHING, it’s a matter of going from nothing to EVERYTHING! We’re just not going to be able to study that in the laboratory. It is a study that has to be conducted ‘forensically’ since we cannot SEE firsthand what occurred. So, for now, let’s remember that the kind of science we are going to need to study our origins is ‘forensic’ in nature!
What They Claim: Science is Objective, But Faith is Biased!
Are We Too Biased?
OK, let’s begin now by examining the claims of evolutionists one by one. After all, that’s what this series is all about; taking a look at the evidences that evolutionists say ‘prove’ that evolution is a ‘fact’, and seeing if these evidences really get the job done. Before we begin to look at evidences for evolution, though, we are going to need to take a look at a claim that attempts to override any examination that we, as Christians, might try to make. Before we even begin to look at the evidence, many secular scientists will try to tell you that their approach as non-believing investigators utilizing the methods of science is the only objective approach to the search for truth. They will tell you that because you already believe that there IS a God, you are too biased to examine the evidence fairly. Well, let’s be clear about something. As a believing Christian, I certainly have a point of view, no doubt about it. But is it possible for me to examine a particular set of evidences fairly? Of course it is! Don’t be fooled into thinking that you, as a Christian, are the only person with a point of view. Each and every one of us has a point of view from which we look and examine the world. Yet each of us has the capacity to judge the evidence fairly if our point of view does not ELIMINATE certain forms of evidence from consideration before we even begin. After all, juries are formed everyday in our legal system. People who hold a variety of viewpoints are assembled to make life and death decisions in court cases because the attorneys and judges are convinced that in spite of their views, they will be able to judge the evidence fairly. And that is exactly what happens everyday in courtrooms across America. Bias has nothing to do with holding a point of view. Bias occurs when your viewpoint eliminates certain forms of evidence and evidential conclusions before you even begin the investigation. And while atheists may argue that we, as Christians, have this kind of bias, a quick examination of the nature of secular science will reveal that just the opposite is true.
The Scientific Method
In order to see how this is true, and understand the underlying philosophical bias of secular science, let’s begin by looking at the definition of science. It’s important for us to understand that ‘science’ involves both a methodology AND a philosophy. It’s also important to understand that the methodology and philosophy of science are inseparably intertwined! Most of us have spent enough time in science classes to understand the scientific METHOD. This is that familiar process of making observations about the world around us, forming a hypothesis about how something might be working, then creating an experiment that attempts to verify or falsify our hypothesis. As Christians, we certainly have no problem with this aspect of science, and the history of science has been replete with Christian men and women who have examined their worlds with this same methodology!
The Scientific Philosophy
But secular science has also embraced a philosophy. This philosophy has come to be known as “naturalistic materialism” or “philosophical naturalism”. This view claims, in advance of any study of the evidence, that that everything, including origins, can be explained in terms of natural processes. This is a philosophy that PRECLUDES any examination of the evidence. It is the idea that the supernatural CANNOT exist, therefore, we cannot allow evidence to point us to supernatural factors or causes. Secular scientists would argue that in all our studies we must remember that some naturally explainable cause is at work in the process, and we simply cannot allow ourselves to explain any phenomena by means of a supernatural cause. Now, objectivism requires that we keep an open, unbiased mind as we examine any form of evidence, and as Christians, we must retain our open mindedness when examining physical evidence related to our origins. When natural forces can account for something, we must simply conclude that natural forces have caused it. But what about when the evidence points to a natural impossibility? What does objectivism require? It requires that we allow ourselves to consider ALL the possibilities and not limit ourselves to a single particular set of conclusions before we even begin. To do that is to truly be biased. As Christians, we allow ourselves to consider both the natural and the supernatural. We are open to either possibility. We have not eliminated one set of possible conclusions in advance of the examination of the evidence, because to do that would be biased. Can secular scientists make the same claim of objectivism?
Uncomfortable Partners
The scientific METHOD and the scientific PHILOSOPHY are not always best of friends, and the secular bias can sometimes create a problem for scientists who claim they are trying to find the truth. Let me try to illustrate this for you! Imagine a pair of detective partners who are assigned to the homicide detail of your local police agency. Let me introduce you to Phil and Ted, your local homicide investigators. Ted is a young officer, newly assigned to the detail. He’s just come out of a four week investigator’s course and he’s chomping at the bit, ready to investigate his first homicide! He’s excited and he can’t wait to implement all the crime scene investigation methodology that he has just learned! But Phil is no rookie, he’s been in this detail for years and years. He’s a veteran and boy is he well respected. He’s investigated many homicides and he’s already got a set of opinions about people and evidence. While Ted may be eager to utilize his newly learned methodology, Phil is very comfortable relying on his intuitive senses and a PHILOSOPHY that he has developed over the years!
Now follow Phil and Ted as they are dispatched to their first homicide scene together! They are cruising down the road when they get the call of a homicide that has been discovered in a local suburb of their town. A woman has been killed in her home. They quickly drive to the location and discover that CSI officers have already cordoned off the area. In fact, as they approach the residence, they can see that the front door is ajar and that the coroner investigators are already at the scene as well. The victim’s body has already been taken to the coroner's office. Ted is ready to get to work! He quickly examines the crime scene for evidence, and observes that there are obvious signs of a struggle. Tables and chairs have been turned over and there is a murder weapon lying on the floor next to blood evidence. While Ted is examining all of this, Phil is looking intently at a picture of the victim and her family that is sitting on the fireplace mantel.
Methodology and Philosophy At Odds With Each Other
Well, Ted’s ready to start. He’s ready to start collecting evidence and utilizing forensic sciences to try to figure out who did this. After all, there is blood and weapon evidence (a knife) near the body, and there is also evidence in the kitchen near other knives located on the counter. Perhaps there will be some fingerprint evidence. Ted tells Phil that he will start to employ some of the methodology that he learned in his investigator’s course! Phil speaks up at this point. “Listen young man, I’ve been around for many years and I was investigating homicides when you were still in grade school. I’ve investigated dozens of homicides just like this one, and they always turn out the same. In the end, it’s always a family member or someone who is living in the same house who ends up being the murderer. So you follow that evidence trail all you want, but remember: a family member did this!” Phil definitely has a philosophy about the murderer and he is flat out unwilling to bend on this issue.
Ted offers his humble objection! “But Phil, what if the evidence leads us outside the home altogether? What if there are fingerprints or some other forensic evidences that reveal a suspect who isn’t a family member or someone who lives with the victim?” Ted is doing his best to remain objective and true to the methodology. He simply wants to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, and not start off with limits!
Phil will hear none of it! “Look Ted, I’ve already told you, I’ve worked dozens of these kinds of murders. I’m not some rookie, and I’m not a fool. You, my friend, are the inexperienced rookie. If you discover evidence that someone other than a family member or person living here with the victim did this crime, you can just disregard that evidence. You simply must be interpreting it wrong! I know what I’m talking about here. You can trust my philosophy on this!” Phil will not be moved. He has already made a decision in advance of the evidence and he is confident that he is right. Sounds kind of crazy doesn’t it? How can you say you are trying to uncover the true suspect here when you are already excluding and dismissing so many potential suspects before you even begin? It certainly sounds like Phil is simply trying to prove something he already believes and has allowed his beliefs to influence his investigation! But that is exactly what he is about to do, and poor Ted doesn’t stand a chance. Phil’s philosophy is always going to trump Ted’s methodology.
You simply cannot go into an investigation with a philosophy that dictates the outcome. It’s crazy to call such an investigation ‘objective’. Yet that’s what happens everyday in secular science circles. There is a pre-existing philosophy of “naturalistic materialism’ that does not allow for even the POSSIBILITY of anything supernatural. Science like this begins with a bias, and this bias restricts the outcome entirely. And then, to add insult to injury, the secular world actually has the audacity to tell us that we, as Christians, are the ones who are biased! Just the opposite is true. We are committed to following the evidence. If it leads to a naturalistic conclusion, great; but we are not philosophically biased against supernatural explanations should the evidence lead us there.
The Journey Toward Truth
The search for truth involves a journey. You and I are on a path that will hopefully lead us to the truth about our origins and the truth about the world around us. But sometimes as Christians we think that our lives of faith require us to simply trust blindly. It’s as though we think we are called by God to walk down this path with our head down, ignoring the evidence altogether. It’s as if we think that relying on evidence somehow minimizes the power of our FAITH. As a matter of fact, I’ve heard many Christians claim that this is the only TRUE form of faith, a faith that needs no evidential support; a faith that walks blindly, trusting without any examination of the world around us. But I want to encourage you to embrace the journey of faith completely by taking the time to stop and look at the evidences without bias. The journey of faith is not a walk that does it’s best to IGNORE the evidence, but it is a walk that does it’s best to FOLLOW the evidence. Take the time to stop and look at the world around you, it just may point you to the creator of the universe.
It’s Going to Require a Little Work
Now, it would sure be nice if the path toward truth was an easy one, filled with simple road signs that would point us directly to the truth, wouldn’t it? But no investigation of truth is really all that easy, just ask Phil and Ted! It’s going to require a little work on your part to determine what the evidences are, where they may be found and what they really mean. Remember that few journeys have real meaning when they require nothing of us. It’s the journeys that required us to work and sacrifice that have true meaning in our lives, even years later. This journey will be no different. And there are evidences all around us that will give us forensic clues to our origins. We simply need to look for them. Just like any path traveler, we can follow the evidence and find our way. If nothing else, we may certainly be able to see if anyone has been here before us.
In the end, the evidence will lead us just so far, and may not bring us all the way to our destination. I’m not here to tell you that we can prove God’s existence to the satisfaction of everyone we may talk to. If that were the case there would be no atheists in our world! The evidence around us will lead us on the path to our conclusion, but in the end, whether you believe in God or you believe that evolution can account for how we got here, you are going to have to recognize that the evidence WILL NOT BRING YOU ALL THE WAY HOME. As Christians we need to understand that the evidence WILL point us somewhere. It will point us in a very powerful way; but there will still be a faith component that will be required to believe in God, and that’s exactly the way that God wants it. But the very same thing can be said for the evolutionist. Atheists would like us to believe that there is no faith involved in their journey. They would like us to believe that the evidence is conclusive in support of evolution. Well, over the next six weeks, you’ll get the chance to decide. I think you’ll come to realize that those who believe that evolution can account for all the biological diversity in our world have to make a far greater leap of faith than we do as Christians. Don’t be fooled into thinking that there are two camps: scientists and people of faith. In the end, ALL of us are people of faith. The only question is: who has the better evidence to support the object of their faith? That’s what we are here to find out.
Now ask yourself a simple question: What is the definition of ‘Evolution’?
Generalizing a Definition
Now that we’ve had a chance to talk a little bit about the definition and nature of science, we need to take some time to talk about the definitions that are commonly used to describe this thing we call ‘evolution’. This is important, because you might be surprised to find that much of what people think of when they describe the evolutionary process is actually stuff that we, as Christians, would agree with! That’s right, there is a lot about the notion of evolution that is confirmed Biblically! Let’s take a look at some common ideas and definitions that are embodied in the term, ‘evolution’.
The Basic Idea of Change Over Time
Let’s start with a foundational premise of evolution, the simplest of definitions: evolution is simply “change over time”. That’s really the base from which all other more complicated theories and definitions of evolution must emerge. And on it’s face, it does account for something that all of us see in the world around us. Think about it for a moment; all of us have come to realize that stuff changes over time. Your car wears out, the house eventually needs painting. You and I get older and grow up, then we pass away. People and things do change over time; it’s a simple observation that is hard to hide. And as Christians, we can look at this evidence in the world around us and say that TO THIS LEVEL of the definition, we agree with those who call themselves evolutionists. If this were all they meant by the term, we would agree with them completely! In fact, the Bible would also agree with evolutionists if this were the limit of their definition! Over and over again, God tells us in scripture that the world around us is changing and running down (wearing out):
Psalm 102:25-26
In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment.
Here is Psalm 102, God clearly states the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) with the simple statement that the world around us is wearing out, slowing down and changing before our very eyes. The fact that things change over time is uncontested by the scriptures. It is a simple truth, and a truth that we, as Christians are happy to affirm!
The Special Theory of Evolution (Microevolution)
But beyond the simple observation that things change over time, there is a more complex observation that can be made of the world around us. We can observe that small changes can also occur within an organism as it adapts to its environment. This is yet another definition of ‘evolution’ and it is commonly known as the ‘special theory of evolution’ or ‘microevolution’. Darwin certainly observed microevolution in progress in the variety of finches he studied on the Galapagos Islands. He observed that finches possessed a variety of beak shapes and sizes depending on what part of the island the happened to live on. Different environments required different beak formations in order to survive, and these finches adapted to the environmental pressures with small incremental changes of shape. While thier beaks all became somewhat different in shape, the birds remained finches, and this simple observation is a clear example of what we have come to call ‘microevolution’; the notion that small changes can occur within an organism as it adapts to its environment. Even this more complex definition of evolution is in agreement with the scriptures! Remember that Genesis tells us that all of us as humans are descendants first of Adam and Eve; one man and one woman (not to much diversity there!)
Genesis 2:18, 21
The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”… Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Clearly, it is from this one couple that all the diversity of human life must come. That is the claim of scripture. Generations later, when God sends the flood, He saves but one family, the family of Noah, and once again, whatever human diversity had grown over generations is reduced to Noah’s three sons! It is from these three sons that scripture claims that all human diversity must spring! All the variety that we see in humans today, every nationality and race, must come from the three sons of Noah. It is true that species adapt and change to their environment. We see it all the time and in many forms. But this has never been contested in the scriptures. In fact, the scriptures actually PRESUPPOSE this reality. It is part of our God given shape and genetic ability to be able to adapt to our environment with small incremental changes in our shape and ability. This is yet another truth that is uncontested by the Bible.
The General Theory of Evolution (Macroevolution)
While change over time and small incremental change within a species may be something we can observe and accept as a reality, there is yet another definition of evolution that requires a bit more investigation. There is another definition of evolution that maintains that all forms of life on our planet arose from a single source of life, which in turn evolved from an inorganic (non-living) source. In essence, this is a ‘molecule to man’ definition of evolution that says that change is really pretty much unlimited. Given enough time base elements can eventually come to life and then morph as they respond to environmental conditions until every creature you see on planet earth comes into being! This definition of evolution is known as “Macroevolution”, or the “General Theory of Evolution”, and it obviously makes a much broader claim related to the nature of change in our world.
Truly a Molecule to Man Proposal
By now I’m sure you are familiar with this concept of Macroevolution. It is this definition that everyone recognizes from the textbooks. It proposes that relatively simple forms of life emerged at the cellular level, then continued to evolve and adapt (through natural selection) from sea creatures to amphibious animals then through lines of reptilian and mammalian creatures that eventually produced every animal you see in our world, including humans. This process of general evolution requires a tremendous amount of time, because it is UNDIRECTED. Chance events and natural forces come to bear on the evolutionary process and a combination of MATERIAL, CHANCE and TIME (lots of time) are all that are required to produce a vivid array of living organisms. Now this definition of Macroevolution, (that all life on our planet is the result of UNDIRECTED progressive change of material effected only by chance and time), is in direct opposition to the truth claims of scripture. The Bible maintains that chance and time had little to do with the way life started here on Earth. Most of us are familiar with the Genesis creation story by now:
Genesis 1:21, 25
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems… God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds
God’s description of our beginnings is quite different than the theory that it all came about by accident. In fact, God maintains that you are a creation, the product of careful design and anything but an accident. Macroevolution argues that all biological diversity on earth arose and evolved naturally from inorganic stuff. That’s the claim, and it is a claim that is NOT supported by the Bible. But hey, maybe you’re not a Christian and the Bible doesn’t mean a whole lot to you. That’s OK, why should you take the Bible’s word for it? Perhaps the better question to ask here is this: is the concept of evolution even supported by the objective physical evidence? What does the evidence tell us? Does the evidence point to evolution as the source of all this diversity, or is there some other explanation that is better supported by the evidence? Have evolutionists gone too far with their observations? Have they taken simple observations about change over time and change within an organism and made some rather broad and unwarranted application in trying to describe the SOURCE of all life and diversity in our world?
Specialized Observations and Generalized Beliefs
It’s easy to generalize and take a good idea just a little bit too far, and it may be that evolutionists have done just that in the way they have taken the evidence they see in support of the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and used this evidence to try to argue for the truth of the “General Theory of Evolution”. You and I both know that we have to be careful not to make broad generalizations from specific or specialized observations. It’s always dangerous to start with a specialized observation and make a jump to a generalized belief. Now, you know from practical life experience that it is dangerous to do this! Imagine for a second that you actually take the time to stop and think about your sister Kate. Boy, Kate is sure a good athlete. For as long as you’ve known her, she’s just about the best athlete around. Kate also happens to be a redhead. For as long as you’ve known her, she's had the reddest hair of anyone in town. Your observations about Kate’s athletic ability and her hair color are specific and specialized observations. Imagine now that you take these special observations and apply them across the board in order to develop a generalized belief. You now come to the conclusion that all redheads are incredible athletes! Now that’s quite a generalization! You’ve been careless in your assessment of you initial observation, and while there was certainly enough evidence to conclude that your redheaded sister is a good athlete, you cannot generalize this across the board unless you have additional evidence to support your new belief!
In a similar way, we simply cannot look at evidence that limited change does occur within organisms as they respond to environmental pressures (a special and specific observation) and then generalize this into the belief that unlimited change can occur, transforming one organism into an entirely different creature. To do this would be to over generalize a special observation. As we begin to look at the ‘proofs’ for macroevolution in this series, pay careful attention to exactly what the evidence truly proves. You will find that again and again, evidence of microevolution is being used in an attempt to prove the truth of macroevolution, and this simply doesn’t pass the test of reason. It is an overgeneralization. Microevolution is something we can see and agree on, but evidence for this form of adaptive change doesn’t prove macroevolution at all.
 
The Way We Typically See It What the Theory Truly Proposes
The Ascent of Man?
It all comes down to the fact that we have to be careful not to exaggerate the degree to which things can change over time. We cannot continue to look at examples of limited change to make a case for unlimited change. We can’t look at the flat playgrounds at our schools and extrapolate that the Earth is flat! You are all probably familiar with drawings of the “ascent of man”; you know, the series of evolutionary primates that grow increasingly more human across the drawing from left to right? Illustrations like these are intended to help us see the evolutionary possibilities for change. In essence, these kinds of drawings attempt to convince us that this type of change is possible, given enough time. But the drawing does not communicate the true breadth of the evolutionist position. Clearly the ending organism in these illustrations is the upright modern man, but I think it is interesting that the starting point is usually a monkey-like primate. The ‘monkey to man’ evolutionary process is difficult enough to argue, but it is really not the total claim of evolution. If only it were this simple!
The true proposal of evolution is that change is so unlimited, and can happen so quickly (relatively speaking) that inorganic material can come to life and form single cell organisms, then evolve to (and through) the entire complexity and variety of biological life we see on earth! It is not a “monkey to man” proposal, but a “molecule to man” proposal! That is the level and depth of transformation that is required to accept the notion of macroevolution. Think about the difference between the single cell and the fish. That level of transformation alone is unthinkable; yet we are to believe far more than this if we embrace macroevolution. We’ve got to imagine the single cell can become ALL the biological diversity we see around us. Is change really this unlimited? Let find out in this series. Let’s examine the truth claims and ‘proofs’ of evolution and see if change can be as unlimited as macroevolution suggests. Let’s take a look at the hard evidence and the world around us.
How do you think God feels about our efforts to study the world around us? Is He happy?
Is He frustrated with us?
How God Feels About the Search
Now that we have taken the time to examine the nature of science and some simple definitions of evolution, we are about ready to examine the truth claims and ‘proofs’ of evolutionists one by one. Some of you who have been Christians for a while may be wondering if this search offends God in some way, and I think that is a fair question to ask. Does our search for truth mean that we really have doubts, and does the presence of doubt offend God? Did God tell us anything in advance about the presence of evidence in the world around us? Before we conclude this first part of our series, let’s take a minute to see what God has to say in the scriptures. Let’s begin by taking a look at what God says through Paul in his letter to Roman believers:
Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
God wants us to know that there is no contradiction between what we see in nature (or what we discover in science) and what is revealed about him in the scriptures. God is not afraid or intimidated by our search. He’s not trying to keep us from seeing what’s out there in the world around us. In fact, He wants you to take a look because He knows that His invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - are clearly seen in everything He has made. God is not upset with you, just because you have doubts that you want to reconcile. He encourages you to discover who he is through the world He has created.
And God understands our inherent nature as doubters and skeptics. He has consistently provided us with proof that will at least point us to Him and to the truth of our origins. Our God is a God of reason and evidence. Jesus himself provided evidence to support his claims of deity. Let’s read and listen to Jesus’ words from the Gospel of John:
John 14:11
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
God wants us to examine the evidence because he knows that all the evidence will eventually lead us to the supernatural. The God of scripture tells us that the world around us is evidence of his existence, and that He is willing to provide us with evidence of the miraculous as well. He knows that this evidence will eventually lead us through all the sciences to the source of all creation. God wants us to ask the tough questions and go looking for the best answers. If all of life’s diversity can be attributed to the undirected random process of evolution, then we Christians are going to have to rethink our faith entirely. But if the ‘evidence’ for evolution is lacking or non-existent, then it just may be time for ALL of us to get serious about our search for God and our relationship with our creator. Let’s begin the journey together… |
