FINDING BIBLE TRUTH - EVOLUTION AND CREATION

Note the title: Evolution AND Creation, not as so many would say: Evolution VERSUS Creation.

Some essential definitions:

Evolution - a scientific theory that new species can arise through a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

Creation - a theological theory that life, and at least the basic life forms, were created by God.

Species - A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of fully viable interbreeding. Note that other definitions can be used, but this one is adequate for the purposes of the article.

Microevolution - Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that result in the formation of new variants within a species.

Macroevolution - Large-scale evolution that results in the formation of new species or of taxonomic groups above the level of a species.

THE EVOLUTIONIST CLAIMS:

That microevolution is proven beyond doubt. Even creationists agree with this.

That evolutionary change within a species can progress until deviants can no longer mate with the original population and produce viable offspring. Deviants with the same characteristics may be able to mate with each other, producing a new species. The similarity between a lion and a tiger is obvious; they can mate and occasionally produce an offspring called a tigon. But the tigon is not fully viable - like a mule it cannot reproduce itself. Hence lion and tiger are distinct species. The scientific evidence for some degree of macroevolution, while far from complete, satisfies normal scientific criteria. The creationist position here is difficult to define; in principle they deny macro-evolution, but on the other hand most only claim that God created up to the level of a 'kind'. They can offer no consistent or scientifically or logically acceptable definition of a 'kind'.

That evolution can not only modify existing body parts - an arm into a wing - but can create entirely new body structures. This is absolutely denied by creationists. The scientific evidence is very limited, and most scientists would agree that there is a long way to go before the theory can be considered conclusively established.

That it is possible for life forms to have developed entirely naturally from available chemical sources, and that no external help was needed. This is again absolutely denied by creationists. It should be noted that no scientist will say that this is an established fact, and that many will deny it even as a possibility. No useful scientifically acceptable evidence has so far been offered.

In examining evolutionist claims it is necessary to distinguish between speculation and theory, the one considering what may be possible, the other what is probable. Much of the material in such books as Richard Dawkins' 'Blind Watchmaker' has to be classed as speculation., but highly intelligent speculation. This is a vital part of the scientific process since it points the way to the sort of evidence needed to turn speculation into theory and eventually into accepted fact. A danger arises when media attention confuses the two and becomes serious when educationalists fail to draw a proper distinction.

THE CREATIONIST CLAIMS:

That the earliest life forms were created, from nothing, by God. Atheist evolutionists deny this, agnostics allow it as a possibility, Christian evolutionists as a probability. The proposition is unprovable.

That more complex life forms were designed and created by God, at least to the level of a 'kind' (undefined). Some idea of how the term may be regarded can be found in the story of the Flood where representatives of each 'kind' were saved. The majority of evolutionists believe that science will eventually show this claim to be wrong, while agreeing that any absolute evolutionary alternative has major difficulties to overcome in some areas. The creationist claim is again unprovable.

THE DEBATE:

The debate between the two sides centres on perhaps five major points:

That Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate that the development of life from a chemical soup is even theoretically possible.

That Evolutionists cannot account for the sudden appearance in the Cambrian age of totally new body forms that seem to bear no relationship to the earlier Ediacaran age fauna.

That Evolutionists cannot provide mechanisms to account for the very rapid explosion of new taxonomic groups following major extinctions like that in the late Permian, which destroyed some 95% of the species that then existed.

That the evolutionary theory of gradual change in the genome may be denied by the paucity of intermediate forms.

Creationists say that complex body parts - the eye is usually quoted - seem to spring into existence fully formed, and that a perceived need for all its elements to have developed at the same time contradicts the evolutionary requirement for gradual step by step change. They claim that such parts, or complete creatures, must have been individually designed by an intelligent designer - God. Evolutionists deny that the gradual development of such components is not possible.

The Creationist concept of a 'kind' is challenged, typically by pointing to the existence today of somewhere between five and thirty million land species, only a small proportion of which could have been directly saved from the flood. The possibility of the evolution of all present species from a few 'kinds', in a mere 4000 or so years, is also challenged.

Evolutionists have considerable difficulty in arguing these points, since experimental evidence, normally the mainstay of all scientific theory, is rarely obtainable, while the timescale needed for the observation of genetic change is commonly of the order of millions of years. On the other hand they can point to a fossil record that is supportive of their general position.

But while evolution has difficulty in providing convincing evidence, creationists can offer none whatsoever, and it is axiomatic that errors in evolutionary theory would not necessarily prove Creation doctrine to be right.

RECONCILIATION.

For the young-earth creationist who believes in an entirely literal acceptance of the words of the Bible, or for the so-called Creation Scientist who lives in an alien world of false science, there is no hope of reconciling the two views. There is more hope for ordinary Christians, whether or not they belong to the fundamentalist persuasion, holding to the belief that the Bible cannot be wrong, if they will allow interpretations that take into account those scientific positions that have been adequately established.

Obviously the position that life was initially created by God cannot be abandoned by creationists or fundamentalists, while even atheistic evolutionists have no properly established theory to offer, and must admit that their alternatives are based on optimism and some sort of scientific faith. Agnostics and doubters may be prepared to accept it as a working hypothesis.

If the actual processes of genetic change are examined it seems impossible to claim that there could be some natural law that prevents divergence within a species (micro-evolution) proceeding until two varieties are sexually incompatible and a new species is formed (macro-evolution). This does not contradict the Bible and there seems to be no reason why all sides should not accept it in principle.

On the other hand evolutionists must accept that they are a long way from demonstrating that they can explain, or necessarily will ever be able to explain, all the problems that face them, and should be prepared to accept as possible the intervention of an outside agency - God.

There is an increasing belief that the Bible's six days of creation should be read not as days but as ages, and that the creation of a particular class of life should be read as the initiation of that class. The methods used by God are not specified and there is no reason for Christians not to accept that he could employ the processes of evolution as one of those methods.

THE CREATION/EVOLUTION OF MAN.

The sticking point for many Christians is, and always has been, the source of mankind. This must be due primarily to the perception that man is of an entirely different order of creation to the beasts, and must be a special creation (whether or not the Genesis account is accepted or regarded as factual, parable, or legend). Science is steadily chipping away at this dogma, the story of Adam and Eve is increasingly seen as not being compatible with literal fact, observable differences between man and the higher animals are increasingly seen as a matter of degree rather than nature.

However science cannot comment on matters of spirit and soul, which are infinitely more important than the origin of our physical bodies. If creationists can accept that the Adam and Eve story is not intended to be read literally, they can co-exist happily with evolution here as well.

CONCLUSION.

A realistic assessment of the present state of evolutionary knowledge, rejecting the wilder claims, and a realistic view of the Bible, rejecting unreasoning dogma, will show that evolution and creation can be complementary rather than in opposition, and that the present furious arguments over differences can be replaced by the discussion of how they should be combined.

* Return to HOME