Creation or Evolution?

There has been much controversy over such questions as: "How old is the earth?" "How did life begin? by intelligent design or by chance?" "How did all the different animal and plant species get here?" and "Did humans evolve from apelike ancestors?" Attempted explanations usually fall into the following categories:

I. Creationism

There are various groups of Creationists. The majority are "strict" Creationists, who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis (chapters 1-11) and thus reject evolution. Strict Creationists believe that God created the earth about 6,000 (or a maximum of 10,000) years ago and that the creation "days" of Genesis (chapter 1) were 24 hours long. They are often labeled "fundamentalists" and can be found in various religious denominations.

In 1925, anxieties were stirred when anti evolutionists charged a schoolteacher with breaking the Tennessee law that forbade the teaching of evolution. The resulting Scopes trial was highly publicized. The court decision upheld the state law, and the outcome of this "monkey trial" was that anti evolution laws continued as state laws until the 1960's. Then in 1957 the Russians launched Sputnik. This was a turning point for the creation-versus-evolution battle. Shocked Americans responded by stepping up their science programs in the public schools, which included the teaching of evolution. Court decisions in the 1960's started to favor evolution, and in 1968 the Supreme Court ruled that laws forbidding the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional. Various court cases followed in which some creationists tried a new strategy. They demanded equal time in classrooms for their newly developed "Creation Science." Such legal efforts have generally been overruled, often on the grounds that Creation Science is not really science and/or that the establishment of one religion in favor of others violates the First Amendment.

II. Evolution

1. Theistic and Non theistic Evolution.

Various individuals today accept both Creationism and evolution, some claiming no contradiction in these ideas. They might be called "theistic evolutionists." A "theist" is one who believes that God exists. Theistic evolutionists accept mainstream evolution and its conclusions, believing that the process was influenced or controlled by God. The term "non theistic evolutionist" refers to one who accepts evolution and does not accept any divine involvement in the origins of the universe or life. He believes that only the laws of natural science can explain our origins.

2. Darwinism and Modern Evolution.

Charles Darwin himself can be considered a theistic evolutionist. Early in his career as a naturalist, Darwin believed in a Creator. However, as his scientific knowledge grew and his ideas developed, he saw many contradictions between his scientific ideas and the religious dogma of his day. In 1859, Darwin published The Origin of Species, in which he presented what he thought was evidence for evolution, bringing evolution into the realm of science. Some say that he rejected God later in life, but there is no proof of this. As with some other individuals, his disagreement or dissatisfaction with religious ideas may only indicate that he rejected a false presentation of God. Darwin openly admitted that his theory of evolution had problems, and he died with many controversial questions left unanswered.

Darwinists today may be theistic (believe God exists), atheistic (believe God doesn't exist), or agnostic (don't know if God exists). They are sometimes called "gradualists" because they believe in a gradual evolution from a "chemical soup" of molecules to bacteria to fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds and mammals (including man). Darwin's expectation in 1859 was that the "gaps" or "missing links" in the fossil record would eventually be filled in as new fossils were found. Many gradualists today are unaware of what fossil specialists call "the trade secret of paleontology"; that is, rather than filling in the "gaps," new finds have accentuated them. As a result, some modern evolutionists have abandoned gradualism because the fossil record does not support gradual transitions from one species to another. Thus, one of the modern theories of evolution is the theory of punctuated equilibria. The punctuationalist believes that evolution took place in spurts of rapid change that punctuated long periods of stability (see definition below).

Evolutionists today base their timetables on scientific information that indicates the earth to be 4.6 billion years old and humankind at least 2 million years old. Many modern evolutionists assume evolution to be true, calling it a "fact" instead of a hypothesis or a theory. They study the present world and project backwards in time, drawing the same general conclusion Darwin held concerning the descent of man and other living things.

True or False Religion? True or False Science?

Creation or evolution? which is right? Both beliefs have good points, but each also has some significant problems when compared with known truths. Truth is consistent and does not contradict itself. The Bible warns us about doctrines of devils taught by false prophets in religion (1Ti.4:1, 2Pt.2:1); it also warns us about science falsely so called (1Ti.6:20). True science will never contradict true religion, and true religion will not oppose true science.

True or false religion?

Creationism or "Creation Science" is partially true. It teaches (as does the Bible) that God created the universe, including earth and all life forms on it (Gen.1:1-31). However, its interpretation of the creation account is false in many respects. The supposed date of creation, 4004 BC, is a 17th-century calculation based on lineages of the Bible; but the Bible itself puts little stock in "endless genealogies" (1Ti.1:4), so why use them? This date contradicts the dates science has determined concerning the age of the earth, the age of the various rock layers, and the age of mankind. The reason these Creationists so adamantly oppose scientific dating is that they want to hold to a literal interpretation of the creative "days" in Genesis. The scriptures warn us against limiting God (Psa.78:41). To say God took 24 hours (or even 1,000 years) for each work of creation is limiting God to man's preconceived notions. God doesn't live under the sun (man's reference star for measuring earth days); God created the sun! And God didn't create the sun until the fourth "day" (Gen.1:16-19), so what was his timepiece for measuring days when he "called it a day" for the first three days? True religion will not limit God by literal interpretations of his symbolic word.

True or false science?

Science can teach us many wonderful things, but science also limits God. The nature of science is to explain all the observed natural phenomena in terms of physical laws and therefore to refrain from presupposing any supernatural influence on the earth or the various kinds of life upon it. When the fossil record points to the sudden appearance of a new species or class, science, because of its self-imposed limitations, is not allowed within the realm of science to consider that the new species or class could be a creation of God. In this way, science is a perspective that limits God. By the way, what is the origin of the physical laws? Don't they point to an intelligence (Job 38:33)?

What is true science? True science will refrain from overstepping its boundaries and teaching a theory as if it were a fact. Some scientists speak of macro evolution from one class to another (e.g., reptile to bird) and call it a "fact." There is no question concerning the fact of micro evolution as a result of natural selection or adaptation to environmental change, e.g. subspecies or races. When it comes to macro evolution, however, despite considerable speculation concerning one species of organisms giving rise to another species, there has never been an actual observation of such a change in nature, much less a change from one class to another. Science (defined as a process that uses the scientific method) tests and retests its theories and hypotheses to see if they can hold up under the close scrutiny of observation and experiment. Macro evolution has not withstood the test! Observation reveals that in fact there is evidence against macro evolution. Generally, the fossil record portrays sudden appearances of species, long-lived stability, and sudden extinctions. Where are the "missing links"? They are indeed missing! Moreover, there are just as many pieces of the evolution puzzle missing when it comes to the chemical level. Evolutionists have yet to devise a non problematic scenario for evolution of simple molecules to proteins to cells. Also, why can't animal breeders originate new species? They have only come up with new or "improved" traits, and traits can only be "improved" to a limited extent. In reference to macro evolution, evolution should not be called a "fact"; and statements calling it a "fact" are the conclusions of false science. Furthermore, accepting the Bible as the inspired word of God (2Ti.3:16), we find the claim that man and ape evolved from a common ancestor lacks any support. The Bible shows no missing link in the descent of man. Adam was the son of God, not the son of an apelike ancestor (Luk.3:23-38).

Conclusion

The Bible points to an intelligent Creator who designed and created this universe, the physical laws that govern it, and the life that he placed here for a purpose. How long did it take him to do all this? If one takes a creative day to be exactly 24 hours, then it contradicts 2Pt.3:8 "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years." If one makes this into a mathematical equation ("1 day = 1000 years"), it doesn't work either because that equation contradicts Psa.90:4 "a thousand years are... as a watch in the night [3 hours]." To add to these problems, Gen.2:4 calls the whole 7-day process "the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." There is a solution to the dilemma of a literal interpretation. The Hebrew word for "day" could have been translated "process of time" (Gen.4:3). This shows God's "creative days" are elastic, flexible. However long it took God to do a particular work, that's how long a "creative day" was. Science says the earth is 4.6 billion years old and humankind at least 2 million years old. These dates do not contradict the Bible.

How does evolution fit into the picture? Evolution is a process of change. Isn't that what the creation in Genesis (chapters 1 & 2) is all about? The earth certainly went through some changes from "creative day 1" to "creative day 7": from an earth that was without form and void to an earth that supported plant and animal life and a paradise with intelligent creatures capable of making moral decisions.

Even the process of some dust (molecules) becoming man can be called an evolution (Gen.2:7). Just as a builder changes a pile of lumber and other materials into a house by using a blueprint and a deliberate process, so God formed man from the dust of the ground using his blueprint and a step-by-step process. That process can also be called a creation because the Creator designed the blueprint and supplied the necessary ingredients for the creation. However, it cannot be called macro evolution (as defined in this article). Just as a builder does not change a doghouse into a garage and then into a mansion, God did not first make a bacterium and then change it through intermediate animal stages (fish, amphibian, etc.) to produce mankind.

In designing male and female creatures of every kind, God placed within them a capacity for variety (the genetic code) and for that variety to express itself within certain limits. Once seed and egg were created by God's creation/evolution process, then life procreated by his blueprint: every seed produces after its kind (Gen.1:11,21,24). Biology tells us that to produce a genetically unique individual, plant and animal species generally require the joining of sperm and egg. The billions of creatures alive on this planet today testify to the fact that God's blueprint has repeated itself again and again and is still working!

These visible things are pictures to us of God's invisible blueprint (Rom.1:20). His invisible spiritual seed (word-Luk.8:11) and substance (faith-Heb.11:1) can unite in our minds to produce a living offspring (Joh.6:63, Heb.4:2, Gal.4:19). The old man in our minds can become extinct (Rom.6:6) as the new man evolves into a new creature (Eph.4:22-24, 2Co.5:17, Rom.12:2). That process requires a spiritual work week of seven "creative days" as an individual builds lines of thought and phases of spirit (e.g. wisdom, love) until he reaches his spiritual rest (Isa.11:2; Isa.28:9-12; Heb.4:10,11).

For more thorough coverage, click here for a longer version of "Creation or Evolution?"

Definitions of Terms Used in this Article

species: a group of organisms whose members resemble one another and interbreed naturally to produce fertile offspring that resemble the parents. A species is the most specialized grouping in the biological classification system of organisms:

kingdom -> phylum -> class -> order -> family -> genus -> species

evolution: a process of change in a certain direction, either from a simple state to a more complex one, or toward survivability. This article deals with the evolution of organic (living) things. Organic evolution can be split into two categories:

1) micro evolution (Darwin's special theory): the idea that small changes arise in populations of organisms by means of natural selection. Micro evolution can explain minor variations within a species, e.g. subspecies or races.

2) macro evolution (Darwin's general theory): the idea that small steps of micro evolution have culminated in large changes; that is, evolution above the species level (e.g. one class giving rise to another class); hence, that all species on earth evolved from a simple life form. Thus, macro evolution claims that man and apes descended from a common ancestor, birds descended from dinosaurs, etc. Macro evolution is what most people think of when they hear the term "evolution."

natural selection: process by which organisms with "favorable" variations tend to survive their natural environment and reproduce at a higher rate than others; i.e. "survival of the fittest."

punctuated equilibria: a modified Darwinism; theory that the formation of new species can occur near a geographical boundary of a population of organisms in spurts of rapid genetic change that punctuate long periods of equilibria (stasis). It was devised to explain macro evolution in a way that supposedly accommodates the fossil record, which shows that new species arise suddenly and persist unchanged for ages while other species become suddenly extinct. However, this theory does not explain the origin of phyla, which appear suddenly (about 600 million years ago) and cannot be traced back to a common ancestor.