The recent court decision in which a judge rejected a
Since the debate has been reignited, some museum directors have felt forced to offer training their staff and docents how to deal with some of their mistaken visitors, according to an article in the
Is evolution “just a theory”? A “theory” in science is a structure of related ideas that explains one or more natural phenomena and is supported by observations from the natural world; it is not something less that “fact.” Theories actually occupy the highest, not the lowest, rank among scientific ideas.
Some 49% of the U.S. population the theory of evolution as true, with 40% holding to a theistic view of it and 9% believing in naturalistic evolution. Only 47% adhere to the creationist view. Among college graduates, about 70% believe the theory of evolution. Among scientists, 55% believe in a naturalistic form of evolution and 40% believe in a theistic form, while only 5% of them believe in creationism. (See poll.)
To many educated people, and especially among scientists, evolution is virtually an established fact. Since the vast majority of the people best qualified to understand this issue, namely scientists, almost universally believe it to be true, shouldn’t that settle the issue? Shouldn’t we just dismiss those who object to the theory of evolution as hopelessly ill-informed fundamentalists?
Since this has become a hot topic again, I want to pose some questions and offer some thoughts.
Why is the question of evolution so important?
Underlying the question of evolution is the question of authority. If the theory of evolution is true, then Genesis 2:7 is false. It says, “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground,” but the theory of evolution directly contradicts this and speculates that man evolved from lower species. If Genesis 2:7 is false, then the veracity and authority of the Bible is undermined. If the veracity of the Bible is called into question, God's authority is undermined.
The moral difference between viewing man as having animal rather than divine origins is profound. "As he thinks in his heart, so is he" (Proverbs 23:7, NKJ).
What is the Theory of Evolution?
The theory of evolution, first proposed in The Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin, is the theory that different species of living things originated as the result of gradual changes over long periods of time through a process of genetic mutation and natural selection. Higher life forms such as man evolved from lower forms such as single cell forms.
What are some of the principle arguments for the Theory of Evolution?
1. Naturalistic Observations
An example of the naturalistic observation is systematically observing the darkening of the color of moths in settings that were darkened by industrial soot. Moths which were darker were less apt to be eaten, and thus tended to survive.
This might explain how one variety of a species might be more viable than another, but it doesn't provide evidence that one species becomes another.
2. Scientific Experiments
An example of using the scientific method to support this theory was Ernst Mayr’s breeding fruit flies to change the number of bristles in 1948. "In the first experiment, the fly was selected for a decrease in bristles and, in the second experiment, for an increase in bristles. Starting with a parent stock averaging 36 bristles, it is possible after thirty generations to lower the average to 25 bristles, "but then the line became sterile and died out." In the second experiment, the average number of bristles were increased from 36 to 56; then sterility set in.
Again, this experiment shows how a species might change slightly, but it doesn't demonstrate how one species becomes another.
3. Imperfections in Nature
The argument here is that imperfections show that living things are not created. Stephen Jay Gould summarizes this argument: “Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of
Am I missing something or is this argument less than compelling?
4. The fossil record
There are in existence fossils that appear to be bridges between two species. Again, Mr. Gould writes, “…what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder [sic] body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby? (See archaelogyinfo.com.)
When I look at the reconstructed image of this creature, it looks much more simian than a chimp! Again, this is not at all convincing. And where are the fossills that are half bird and half reptile?
5. The Age of the Earth
It’s very clear that the Earth is well over 10,000 years old. Calculations of how long it would take for water to carve out the Grand Canyon prove the earth is old, as well as carbon dating of fossils and other objects prove the earth is old. Thus, according to some, the biblical accounts and dating derived from biblical genealogies cannot be true.
It is crucial to note that here in the genre of biblical genealogies, the lists are representative representative, not inclusive. Therefore, accepting the innerancy of scripture doesn't imply a young earth view.
What’s wrong with this picture?
When evaluating the Theory of Evolution, it is helpful to ask some very fundamental questions. Is the Theory of Evolution hard science or “soft science?” Does the question of origins properly belong to natural science or philosophy and religion? How does the question of faith related to the question of Evolution?
1. “Soft science” is not a reliable source of knowledge and The Theory of Evolution is soft science.
There are two very different kinds of science. The first I’ll call “hard science.” In hard science hypotheses are subjected to rigorous scientific experimentation. “Independent variables” are systematically controlled and the changes in “dependent variables” are observed. For example, the distance an object has to fall is varied and the length of time it takes to fall is observed. Natural sciences such as physics and chemistry are generally hard science. For example, consider Sir Isaac Newton’s postulation of the law of universal gravitation:
Every object in the Universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers of mass for the two objects. This force is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the centers of mass of the two objects.
This could be expressed mathematically as F(r)=mg(r). Newton conducted controlled experiments to validate his hypothesis. Others were able to replicate his experiments and increase the level of certainty of his hypothesis, which came to be considered a “law.” See the wikipedia article.
In contrast to hard science is “soft science.” This kind of science is generally based on naturalistic observations rather than on the scientific method. Examples of soft science include psychology. If psychology were able to arrive and the same kinds of clear conclusions as physics or chemistry, there would not be the kind of fundamental disagreements we see the various schools of thought. According to psychologist John M. Grohol, “There are probably hundreds of different types of theoretical orientations and techniques that therapists use nowadays in the field of psychotherapy.” These include contradictory schools of thought such as psychoanalytic, behaviorist, humanistic, cognitive-behavioral and existential psychology. The fact that there are many mutually contradictory schools of thought is evidence that psychology is not scientific in the same way as chemistry. Imagine the confusion among engineers if we had hundreds of different opinions about the chemical composition of say, steel?
Hard science requires that the subject of any hypothesis be only about things that are objective, observable and controllable. Otherwise, controlled experimentation is impossible. The Theory of Evolution is by nature not subject to direct testing by the scientific method. Why? For one thing, the purported variables are not observable. It postulates changes that supposedly occurred over many millions of years. No scientific experiment is possible for such time frames. Secondly, the variables in question are not only not observable, they are not controllable. Arranging conditions to simulate those which are supposed to have existed when life began. What lab has the wherewithal to simulate planet earth 600 million years ago, let alone observe the results?
Soft science is not a reliable source of knowledge, and the Theory of Evolution is soft science, and has no greater credibility than such things as “cognitive ethnology,” which purports to study the “minds” of animals. Soft science is more like speculative philosophy than hard science.
2. The question of the origin of life is a question for theologians and philosophers, not scientists.
Each discipline has its own field of inquiry and thus its own area of competence. If we want to solve a complex mathematical problem, we don’t go to an art teacher and if we have a medical problem, we don’t consult an astronomer. Scientists have the competence to answer questions only about cause and effect relationships between observable, controllable natural phenomena. We have already seen how the Theory of Evolution is not subject to direct scientific experimentation. The broader issue of the question of origins in general is also not subject to direct scientific testing. We are not dealing with recurring, replicable events and cause and effect relationships that can be tested in the lab. We are dealing with events that happened long before the scientific method was developed and far outside the scope of experimental investigation.
In the realm of science, only natural scientists are capable of giving objective, credible answers. But the question “Did God create the universe?” is outside the purview of natural science.
3. According to Almighty God, He created both animals and man from inanimate material.
A great many people, 40% of the
Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. (Origin of the Species, Conclusion)
Darwin is right that authors of the "highest eminence" differ with him. His view contradicts the clear words of the inspired account.
…the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground …Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air (Genesis 2:7, 19).
This is the crux of the matter. It’s not about whether or not species change in small ways over time to better adapt to their environment. That happens and few would question it. The question is did God create each species as Genesis records, or did the various species just differentiate over time in the way
We have already seen that the Theory of Evolution is “soft science.” It is actually a speculative theory which cannot by nature subjected to experimental validation. And even some of those scientific conclusions which seem to be validated by the scientific method later turn out to be untrue. Such was the case with the “law of universal gravitation,” which turned out to untrue, according to the Special Theory of Relativity, which has been verified experimentally. And if hard science is uncertain, how much more uncertain is soft science, and so deserving of a healthy skepticism rather than the uncritical acceptance it has received.
At the heart of this issue is the issue of faith. Whom will you believe ─God, who is perfect in character and who is infinite in knowledge, or Charles Darwin who was neither. Why then do 95% of the scientists in
Science is a wonderful thing, and a gracious gift from God. It is no accident that it originated and has flourished only in countries that have had the transformative benefits of the Gospel. But if any good gift is idolized, it can become detrimental as well. We have a definite tendency, as fallen creatures, to turn the good gifts of God into idols. The essence of idolatry is attributing the things of God, such as creation, to things that are not God. Our default tendency as fallen creatures, is to unbelief and idolaty rather than faith and worship, whether we realize it or not. There is no problem with science per se, and there is no conflict between hard science and the Bible, rightly understood. But there is a conflict between scientism and faith, because every "ism" is an idol.
Could this be why this theory, which is absurd on its face, is so widely accepted? Is it remotely possible that all the wonder of creation, with its very obvious designs, could have just happened by chance? According to Dr. Frank Salisbury of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, the probability of the formation of just a single strand of DNA occuring by chance is on the order of 10 x 415 power. This is far, far above the level of certainty required to rule out chance in scientific experiments in the natural sciences. See The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution.
