Genesis 1:21-27 – The Biblical account does not allow for evolution, guided or otherwise.
If God really created the universe, why does the persuasive evidence of science compel so many to conclude that the unguided process of evolution accounts for life?
This is something of a loaded question. It assumes both that people do, in fact, believe in evolution based on the evidence, and also that the evidence is compelling.
The truth is that evolution is accepted by the general public largely because it is presented as incontrovertible fact by schools and universities. Most people who have not been trained in the sciences accept it with very little understanding of the evidence or science, simply because people more intelligent or educated than they have done the research and supposedly come to the proper conclusions. The actual science and data are well beyond the ability of most who have not devoted years to the understanding of it.
In many cases, this process is a good thing. It allows for people to have access to a greater range of knowledge than they could have if forced to pursue and verify that knowledge on their own. However, in cases where the conclusions of the academics may be incorrect, this creates a problem. That problem becomes more serious when the apparent consensus of the scientific community does not also present the doubts or possible problems with a theory, but presents a weak theory as if it is proven fact. In the case of the theory of evolution, the problem is even worse still, because the theory carries with it a significant philosophical perspective, namely, that life was not created by God.
It is necessary at this point to differentiate between what are often called microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is a term usually found in the writing of those promoting the idea of creationism or intelligent design. It refers mainly to the adaptation of life over generations. No rational person can deny the reality of this adaptation. Centuries of studies and experiments have shown the ability of life to adapt and adjust to changing circumstances. Macroevolution is primarily the assumption that given enough time, these minor changes within established species can and will result in major changes between species and the progression of simple life forms to more complex ones. Ultimately, it is the belief that all life on Earth is descended from simple, single-celled organisms.
Interestingly, the real theory of evolution, as understood by scientists, operates almost exclusively from the starting point of a living, single-celled organism. It says almost nothing about how that organism came to be. A great deal of speculation has been done on this issue of the origin of life, primarily having to do with the formation and assembly of basic organic molecules. No definite or even useful conclusions have been reached. At the end of the day there is simply no known mechanism by which these molecules could have formed or assembled themselves into the complex molecular machinery needed for even the simplest form of life. Here we have one of the greatest weaknesses of the theory of evolution, as well as one of the greatest common misconceptions about the theory.
There is another reason so many believe in the theory of evolution, and the evolutionary origin of life. It is simply that the alternative is unacceptable. Almost by definition, the theory of evolution is an unguided process. It rules out the possibility of God or any kind of intelligent designer of life, and begins with the assumption that everything can and must be explained by the laws of nature. If one suggests that God created life, the scientists cry foul and say this is not a scientific claim. In this they are correct. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” is most certainly not a scientific claim, but no one really explains why that is a problem.
Here we have what may be called the deification of science. The basic assumption is that the natural world is all that there is. There can be no god because the physical world is the ultimate foundation of reality. It necessarily excludes all other reality and the laws of nature reign supreme. Miracles are impossible by definition.
There are two things that hold people to this view. The first would be more of a problem for scientists, and it is simply that one cannot investigate with natural science an event that is fundamentally unnatural. This seems to be aesthetically distasteful, and it offends our pride to admit that there may be things that are true but cannot be investigated.
The second reason is more visceral. If God really did create life, then He might just take an interest in that life.
It is no wonder the Book of Proverbs has so much to say about pride.
There are several holes in the theory of evolution. That microevolution, or adaptation, occurs is obvious but the mechanisms by which adaptation occurs leaves problems for the assumption that adaptation will eventually result in the development of complex organisms from simpler ones.
The driving forces of evolution are supposedly genetic mutation and natural selection. Genes mutate over the generations, and the organisms most suitable for their current circumstances are the ones that survive. Unfortunately for the theory, genetic mutations are almost always harmful or at least useless, and natural selection results in the loss of genetic information as unsuccessful organisms die off.
There are several examples commonly given to support evolution. The first famous example was from Charles Darwin’s work, and related to variations in the sizes of the beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands. While the variations over time were easily observed, none resulted in the development of a new species.
Other examples are the rise of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and development of pesticide resistance in insects. In both cases this can be easily explained by the destruction of non-resistant portions of the populations, and the subsequent success of the resistant portions as they reproduce to fill the void.
Another example of this sort of change in the proportion of a population is the light-colored vs. dark-colored peppered moth supposedly adapting to changing conditions in England at the time of the industrial revolution. However, the foundation for this example is now known to be a hoax.
In any case, every example of evolution in action cited today is an example of microevolution. Finches are still finches, and bacteria are still bacteria. A case can be made that these changes can result in speciation, but that is largely a matter of definitions. Variations at the level of species and genus are possible, if not common, but the idea that these changes can eventually let a protozoa give rise to a rabbit remains an unprovable assertion.
Many also claim that evolution can be seen from the evidence in the fossil record, but even here there are problems. The most noteworthy is what is called the Cambrian explosion, which is the rapid appearance of most forms of animal life on earth. There is little, if any, evidence of the precursors of this life, or what may have caused the explosion.
Another issue with the fossil record concerns radiometric dating, of which carbon dating is the most well known type, though carbon dating itself is useless for anything older than about 60,000 years. Radiometric dating relies heavily on knowledge of past conditions, which is in turn based on theoretical models about the formation of the earth, all of which are based on the assumption of naturalism.
A final issue is the incompleteness of the fossil record. It is well known that fossilization occurs only in rare circumstances, when an organism is quickly buried before it begins to decay. The rarity of fossilization is accepted as the explanation for the gaps we have in the fossil record, but we are still left without an unbroken chain of evidence for the supposed evolution of life.
Countless books and articles have been written on both sides of the debate. Many are written by laymen who have little or no understanding of either their assumptions or the issues at hand. The tactic of “Everybody Knows” is heavily used on both sides and authors write secure in their knowledge of the facts and their unassailable logic.
However, there are some in the scientific community who do not hold to the evolutionary view. Molecular biologist Michael Behe clearly has the credentials and intelligence to discuss the subject. He has written several books in favor of intelligent design, pointing out serious problems with the concepts of evolution and he is not alone. A brief search on the internet will turn up the names of numerous scientists with impressive credentials who all believe in the biblical account of creation.
I suppose the answer to the original question is really just that most of these people just haven’t done their homework.