Reading: Evaluating Evolution (Dr. Feddes)

Believing that God created all things doesn’t rule out every form of evolution, especially if by evolution we simply mean changes within a group of living things over time. For example, the average size of finch beaks on a particular island varies from year to year as the environment changes. Nobody denies that this kind of adaptive change takes place. Nobody denies that animal breeders can develop different breeds of cattle and dogs by selecting for certain traits. Nobody denies that the different races of humanity trace back to the same ancestry and developed some different characteristics over time, such as different skin color and facial features. If that were all evolution meant, there would be no argument.

But often evolution is used not just as a word for changes within a population but as a word for a grand scheme which explains the origin of every form of life apart from God. Alvin Plantinga points out five main claims of this grand evolutionary scheme: First, the universe is very ancient, perhaps even billions of years old. Second, over time life has progressed from relatively simple forms of life to relatively complex forms of life, and eventually there were fish, then reptiles, then birds, then mammals, and finally, human beings. Third, all of these life forms have common ancestry; life originated at only one place on earth, and all living things today are descended from those original life forms. Fourth, this development over the generations is due to entirely natural processes, such as random genetic mutation and survival of the fittest. Fifth, life itself originally developed from non-living matter just by virtue of the ordinary laws of physics and chemistry, without any creative activity of God. All five claims, taken together, form the grand evolutionary picture.

These are different claims. They don’t necessarily go together. There are people who accept all these claims; there are people who reject all of them; but there are also people who believe some of these claims but not others. For example, some folks think the universe is old and may even think that all living things share common ancestry, but they don’t believe this happened randomly or apart from God’s creative activity. The different claims can be distinguished from one another, so it may be helpful to consider them separately.

Did Chance Produce All Forms of Life?

Let’s do this in reverse order and begin with the last two ideas, that the development of life from one form to another happened by chance, and that the original forms of life emerged from non-living matter by chance, apart from any divine design or action. These are the claims that are most obviously in conflict with biblical teaching about creation—and these are also claims for which there is not a shred of scientific evidence.

The notion that life emerged from non-living chemicals by chance, through purely naturalistic means, is wildly unlikely. Our smartest scientists have tried over and over to produce life from lifeless material and have failed, so it’s extremely improbable that such a thing could happen by accident. Darwin himself thought this claim was iffy, and recent discoveries in molecular biology make it far less plausible than it was in Darwin’s day. Back then scientists thought cells were fairly simple things. But we now know that even the simplest living cells are irreducibly complex and precisely coordinated. Even the simplest cell can’t live unless all the complex interactions are working from the start. There’s no scientific evidence to exclude a higher intelligence as the designer and creator of the first life forms; on the contrary, there’s clear evidence of intelligent design.

Likewise, there’s no evidence for the idea that various forms of plant and animal life evolved by purely natural processes. Even if there were a process of evolution from one life form to another—and that’s not at all certain—there would still be no proof whatsoever that God did not direct the process. It is very hard to see how delicate instruments like the eye and the ear, which involve many complex parts working in coordination with each other, could develop by pure accident. Any claim that such developments could occur by chance is without evidence.

In his book Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, Tim Berra compares the evolution of animals to the evolution of cars. He describes how the splendid Corvette “evolved from more mundane automotive ancestors in 1953.” He tells of the various steps and changes in later models which have led up to the present model of the Corvette. “A similar process,” writes Berra, “shapes the evolution of organisms.” Berra says the “evolution” of the Corvette illustrates the way natural forces randomly produce a changing sequence of organisms. But every Corvette in the sequence was designed by engineers! Those Corvettes didn’t result from one car giving birth to another that was similar in some ways and different in others. The similarities and differences were designed by the cars’ creators, as Phillip Johnson points out. Berra’s example doesn’t support blind evolution at all. It shows that intelligent designers can build something, and then, in later models, they can add variations to their basic plan.

Richard Dawkins makes a similar mistake. He says that a fast computer generating thousands of random letters of the alphabet per second would eventually produce any book you want, as long as the computer knew what text it wanted ahead of time and saved the randomly generated letters whenever they matched the desired result. This supposedly shows that random mutation and natural selection could produce the genetic codes for all the various life forms, apart from divine design. But how does a comparison to computers disprove intelligent design? Every computer and every program is a product of high intelligence, not a chance occurrence.

Atheists, in their effort to show that everything develops by chance and not by intelligent design, keep comparing various forms of life to machines. They describe evolution as a mechanistic process. But every machine or mechanistic process we’re familiar with is the result of intelligent design.

There are no scientific grounds for denying that life was originally created by a great life-giver and that every later life form was designed by a higher intelligence. The claim that God did not design and make the various forms of life is based on a narrow-minded commitment to atheism, not on what seems most probable in light of evidence and logical reasoning. The clearest and most important aspect of the biblical story of creation is that God did it; and when the grand evolutionary scheme denies God’s involvement, it is all bluff and no evidence.

Common Ancestry or Common Design?

What about the second and third claims in the grand scheme of evolution, that simpler life forms appeared before more complex life forms, and that all these forms of life are related through common ancestry? Well, when it comes to the sequence, there’s not much argument. The Bible says plants came first, then fish and birds, then land animals and people. Almost every scientist would pretty much agree with that basic sequence.

But what’s the explanation for that sequence? Darwin and his disciples see it as an indication that all living things trace back to a common ancestor and gradually evolved and became more complex over time. But what if similarities in structure and successive developments point not to the same ancestry but to the same Creator? Things which Darwinists see as proof of common ancestry can just as easily be seen as proof of common design.

Some people believe both common design and common ancestry. They believe that God created all things and that he designed the process of evolution from one life form to another as his way of accomplishing this. No doubt God could have done it that way if he chose, but the scientific evidence for this is spotty.

Charles Darwin predicted that if his theory of common ancestry was true, fossil hunters would eventually find huge numbers of transitional forms of life between the major groups. That hasn’t happened. Harvard scientist Stephen Jay Gould complained about “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record.” Darwin also predicted that animal breeders would use the power of selection to produce radically new kinds of animals. That hasn’t happened either. Selective breeding can produce variety within a life form, but it hasn’t produced new forms.

Genesis says that God created each living thing after its kind. God could have done this through an evolutionary process if he wished, but the most straightforward reading of Scripture seems to indicate that God created each of the main families of life as separate and special (with room for development and adaptation within each family). There’s little scientific data to contradict this or to support a theory of gradual development of all life from the same ancestor. Common ancestry appeals to some people not because the evidence demands it but because they are uneasy with anything sudden or miraculous and prefer something gradual and natural.

Young Earth or Old Earth?

There’s one more claim of Darwinism that we haven’t evaluated yet: the claim that the world is billions of years old. The evidence and arguments for this may be stronger than for some of the other claims. Notice, though, that this claim can be separated from the other claims. Even if the earth is very old, it doesn’t prove common ancestry, and it certainly doesn’t disprove the Creator.

Different Christians have different opinions about the earth’s age. Some Christians think the Bible teaches a relatively young earth and aren’t convinced by theories that the universe is extremely old. Perhaps there are flaws in the methods which scientists use to estimate the earth’s age. After all, when people take the results of a few hundred years of study and try to project it over millions and even billions of years, it’s possible their estimates will turn out to be badly mistaken. Rocks don’t come with a date written on them. Light doesn’t arrive from distant stars with a clock showing how long it took. Dating methods involve many assumptions and long chains of inference. At present, a particular dating method may seem to support an ancient earth, but in the future, science may change its mind in response to new data or revised assumptions.

Other Christians, though, are persuaded that astronomy, geology, and paleontology all point to a very old earth. They take the scientific evidence for an old earth to be very strong, and that’s just fine with them, because it’s consistent with the way they understand Genesis. They take the early chapters of Genesis as God’s easy-to-understand way of saying he created and rules all things. God put this in the form of a story that used non-technical, simple, sometimes figurative language so that anyone hearing the story could get the main point.

Suppose you had a little child who asked you, “Where do babies come from?” You might not give the child the kind of answer you would give a biology professor testing you on the processes of conception and fetal development. You might tell the child that babies come from the love of Mommy and Daddy, and you might give simplified descriptions of body parts and use a few figures of speech. The explanation you give a child might leave out some details and technical terms that you would include on the biology test. You’re not trying to give the child an exact scientific explanation. Does that mean it’s a poorer explanation? Not necessarily. In fact, it might be richer in some ways. When telling a child of the love between Daddy and Mommy, you would be saying something deeper than any technical details on a biology exam. Of course, in giving a child a simplified description with some figures of speech, you should still tell the basic truth, even if you’re not trying to impress a biology professor. Mommy and Daddy are real, not just figurative. If you give the child basic information about body parts, the information should be true, not false, even if you use everyday language and maybe a few figures of speech. You would not help a curious child at all if you said, “The stork brings babies.” That’s just a tall tale.

When we ask, “Where did the world and living things and people come from,” the early chapters of Genesis do not offer detailed scientific descriptions, but neither do they offer a stork-like tall tale. They offer simplified history for people of all ages. When we dig into details, we might not always know for sure whether this or that detail of the story is literal or figurative, but the main facts are clear: God created the universe; the first humans fell into sin after being tempted by an evil power; and this has affected all of humanity and everything on earth. Genesis does not offer all the answers that a scientist seeks to learn, but it’s not just a tall tale. It is a true story that has communicated the greatest, deepest truths about creation to countless cultures throughout the ages.

Some Christians are convinced the earth is billions of years old and don’t think creation occurred in six 24-hour days. They don’t think science supports this view, and they don’t think the Bible teaches it. Other Christians believe the Bible teaches creation in six ordinary days and are not persuaded by scientific claims about billions of years. All Christians agree that God is the Creator, but they differ on the best way to unite a sound understanding of the Bible with sound science. For myself, if I must err in studying the creation account in Genesis, I prefer to err on the side of taking it too literally. But if I must err in dealing with Christians who don’t agree with my view, I want to err on the side of treating them too kindly. Old-earth creationists should not regard young-earth creationists as scientifically illiterate, and young-earth creationists should not regard old-earth creationists as spiritually bankrupt.

First Things First

The central truth of the creation story is that God did it. That’s not the only thing Genesis says, but it’s the most important thing. It’s also the most obvious thing when we look at the world around us and at the capacities within us: there must be a Creator! If you’re not sure how to square science with the Bible, don’t get hung up on secondary questions. If you wonder whether God created all things, don’t start by asking about the earth’s age, and don’t start by asking about common ancestry. First things first: start by asking whether a random process could produce the amazing design and the wondrous splendor that are evident in the world around you, as well as the special capacities of the human spirit within you. Don’t let your uncertainty about lesser things keep you from believing the first and most obvious thing: the Creator is real.