While this is not intended to be an exhaustive survey on the "controversy" surrounding evolutionism and creationism, it is my intent to spark a renewed interest in the matter of Science and the Scripture, even if we acknowledge disagreements on our conclusions.
What I commonly observed is that the public at large, including sincere christians, have placed undue authority in the scientific priests and thus causing christians to turn around questioning the authority of God’s word where it should not have been the case. And all these because there is an underlying assumption or trust that evolution has already been well established beyond a doubt by the leading evolutionists.
Not a Soteriological Issue, But…
Before commenting further, it is good to note that the issue in view is not of soteriological importance, meaning that one does not have to subscribe to creationism in order to be a christian or that a christian cannot also subscribe to evolution. But there are definitely implications and consequences to whichever worldviews one may choose to adopt. Please read "Do I have to believe in a literal creation to be a christian?" by Russell Grigg.
If you are a christian reading this, I hope to relieve you of the internal logical inconsistencies you may experience regarding the Scripture and evolution. If you are a seeker, I welcome you to be open-minded and inquire further on this matter, and I pray that you will ultimately know the Creator in the course of your investigation.
Arguments Against Evolution Not Encouraged
Precisely because most assumed that evolution has already been well established beyond a doubt, one of the common charges against creationism is that it is a biased, self-interested effort in vain to protect its own faith for survival in competition with latest scientific discovery - evolution. For those who are already committed a priori to the truthfulness of evolution, there are only the two options left either to (1) reconcile, harmonize and adjust the Scripture to evolution (not the other way round), or (2) give up the faith totally. But how many understand that even evolution has its own biased, even religious, philosophical foundation to build its empire on to begin with?
An exploration on this matter is in order, but let us understands that creationists are not a group of blind or angry religious folks who will strike against evolution for anything. Rather, it is a group of intellectual people including scientists who after close examination found the case wanting, who are also ready to adjust their positions if the evidences point otherwise. Here are some arguments against evolution that are not encouraged, which hints the sincerity of creationists making their case.
Two Categories of Science
What most fails to note is the distinction between normal (operational) science, and origins (historical) science. Operational science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while historical science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past.
As believers, we ought to recognize that operational science has indeed been very successful in understanding the world, and has led to many improvements in the quality of life, such as rocket engineering and bio-medical advancement and treatment. In fact, creationists are in no way hindering real operational science research, either in theory or in practice. In contrast, evolution is a speculation with all its assumptions (see "The Parable of the Candle" by Garth Wiebe) about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus it comes under historical science. Also see "Who's really pushing ‘bad science'?" by Jonathan Sarfati for more information.
The difference between operational and historical science is important, for we can observe the motion of the planets, but no one has ever observed evolution of one type of organism to another. In fact, Richard Dawkins, the author of the best selling book "The God Delusion", said something apparently profoundly contradictory when interviewed in the "Battle over Evolution". He said, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." So has it, or has it not? Is it science, or is it not?
Naturalism & Evolution
Seldom do people know that evolution is based upon dogmatic exclusion of a miraculous Creation/Creator - in effect, a faith commitment to naturalism, the unprovable, religious belief that no supernatural element exists or is relevant. Check out the evolutionists’ statement of faith and it would not be long to realize that the possibility of the existence of God is not an entertaining thought and therefore a priori ruled out of their expertise and field. Would a worldview built upon the "no supernatural" then be really compatible with the Scripture? See the "The religious nature of evolution" by Carl Wieland.
Take the birth certificate for example, it gives us a measured time scale for our age. It is an eye-witnessed statement that you and I were born on a particular date. Likewise, the Scripture gives us a 'birth certificate' for the universe - an eye-witness statement that God created it in six ordinary-length days in the time of Adam. The family histories and patriarchal ages in Genesis continue this record. God then confirmed it to Moses and wrote it down with His own finger in stone in the Sabbath Commandment.
On the other hand, evolutionists must assume and infer for no evolutionist has any alternative or better 'birth certificate' for the earth or the universe. All scientific estimates of earth and universe age require a whole lot of assumptions. The key assumption is uniformitarianism, which is atheism disguised as science, because it assumes no miraculous interventions in history. Christians have simply no reason to accept, and every reason to reject, atheistic assumptions about the universe. See "The universe’s birth certificate" by Alexander Williams.
Macro or Micro Evolution
Another distinction that will help in discerning the issue in the long run is to understand and appreciate the fundamental difference between macro-evolution (evolution of one type of organism to another) and micro-evolution (natural selection or adaptation). The Scripture is explicit in stating that God created different kinds of organisms which reproduced 'after their kinds'. This is totally consistent with natural selection. Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information and there was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.
In contrast, marco-evolution requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing organism. All types of life are also alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this 'simple' life form. So the next time you hear the term 'evolution' do clarify whether macro-evolution or micro-evolution is in view, since it's usually used interchangeably and often taken for granted that establishing micro-evolution is tantamount to proving macro-evolution.
For macro-evolution to have worked, there must also be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today. To convince me of macro-evolution to be scientifically proven, I personally think there must be an overwhelming quantity of evidences showing such cases of an increase in genetic information. Therefore is it so hard for evolutionists to provide just a couple of undisputable and documented cases of such observation of an increase in genetic information? Try asking for such evidences and you will be surprised.
By the way, if mutation is cited as evidence, do note that mutation is more in line with the biblical worldview of sin entering the world and not a case for the increase in genetic information. Also see "Variation and natural selection versus evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati.
Darwin Film: Challenging Darwin in 2009
If you are not aware, the year 2009 will mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of "The Origin of Species" and the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth. As foreshadowed, evolutionists and the media have been busy creating special events around these two anniversaries, featuring Darwin as a hero.
In response, Creation Ministries International's major international documentary film will challenge evolution in a fresh way. Based on an original concept, the film revisits some of the places Darwin visited, and ideas he formulated, during his historic 1830's voyage on HMS Beagle. Together with natural history footage from South America, period re-enactments and interviews with leading authorities from around the world, the documentary will illustrate how the evolutionary viewpoint is far from the tried and tested science fact that many believe it to be. It will investigate the man, the legend and the unfortunate world-changing legacy of Charles Darwin.
Please see here for the trailer of Darwin Film. In fact for those interested, the film would be screened in Singapore somewhere in May. So keep a look out for it.
To reiterate, this is not intended to be an exhaustive survey on the topic. If you are an evolutionist, please do not make use of the comment function for debate, I would suggest that you send your queries directly to Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International. If you are living in Singapore, Gary Bates will be in town to answer your arguments during the conferences from 17 to 26 April.
To the Body of Christ, I hope that your faith will be strengthened in this hour as we wait for our Lord to return triumphantly. To the rest, buy the truth, and sell it not.
Can the World Explain Your Comfort?
3 hours ago