The basic definition of evolution is “the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.” In society today we naturally assume that evolution and atheism are inherently woven into the fabric of one another, that if the theory of evolution could be scientifically ascertained, then ultimately the idea of a divine creator comes tumbling down. Sure it would do wonders in debunking the Judeo-Christian God of the bible, but what if I don’t believe in the Judeo-Christian God of the bible? What if I believe in evolutionary creationism? Whose to say there’s not some divine agent that set in motion this evolutionary cycle?
As a believer I often find my self in the time-honored debate of Christianity vs. evolution, the all to familiar interchange seeking to debunk my adversaries beliefs. Likewise my challengers insist the bible is nonsensical rubbish, and therefore vehemently opposes the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, but what does debunking the God of the bible really prove for the evolutionist? Does evolution really do anything in attesting to atheism or debunking the idea of intelligent design? The reasoning of evolutionist commonly stops somewhere around the argument of descent with modification. Well sure we all could have come from a common ancestor billions of years ago, but whose to say a “god” or “gods” didn’t create it!?
In order to even begin to enter the realm of atheism one would need to formulate a hypothesis on how living organisms formed by natural processes, say perhaps, oh I don’t know, maybe chemical evolution? Ahh and therein lies the proverbial black sheep of the scientific community, the bane of reason for all evolutionist. Origins of life is a rather dark and sticky corridor that most would rather not go down if needn’t be. Dean Kenyon, author of the best seller biochemical predestination, and one of the leading chemical evolutionary theorist in the 60’s and early 70’s, famously converted to creationism and is now a devout Christian after coming to what he described as:
“An intellectual road block”
He described how self-organization through chemical evolution is impossible, that amino acids can’t organize themselves in a meaningful biological sequence (proteins) without a PRE-EXISTING set of genetic instructions. He says:
“We have not the slightest chance of chemical evolutionary origins for the simplest cell”
Kenyon explains how the enormous problem that is neglected is the origins of genetic information itself. The point that I’m trying to make in all this is that speciation and the descent with modification are not intellectual alternatives to the childish notions of a supreme being in the sky. These evolutionary tenets have nothing to do with the origins of life. Why then do we hear them brought up so much in disputing the existence of a supreme agent? I think it’s not a coincidence that such arguments are almost always followed (or preceded) by bible thumping, In a recent post I stated how evolution is merely an alternative response to Christianity. If evolution is true, then the bible is false and that’s all that really matters folks! Evolution only takes aim at disproving the God of the bible, and while I believe it falls miserably short in doing so, likewise it really does absolutely nothing in disproving intelligent design or the existence of an agent in general.
Is the idea of a creator superfluous in explaining how the world began like Richard Dawkins asserts? If so, I’ve yet to hear any compelling alternative which would lead me to believe such. Technically speaking, life beginning from non-living matter (Abiogenesis) is mathematically impossible, thus intelligent design is in inference to the best explanation – never mind your incredulity.
Why don’t we hear more discussion on the actual origins of life? perhaps its a topic which doesn’t quite lend itself to the “lofty” explanations which the evolutionist take pride in publishing.
Under The Fig Tree 
I am curious about both camps. As an evolution denying creationist, what is your alternative scientific methodology? I see no explenation of the biological processes in creation in neither Genesis 1 or Genesis 2. It seems more like evolution denial is an anti doctrine like the Christology of the Oneness Pentacostals, occupied with asserting what Jesus is not, rather than what Jesus is. On the other side of the fence, I am curious why exactly it is some important, almost like a salvation issue, to a Richard Dawkins type that everybody should know to parrot the age of the earth or universe according to modern science. I am also a bit curious why dinos are so darn important, when they lived so long ago. My main motivation for having no beef with evolution is that it explains sickness, death and evil far better than the globe is pested because Eve and Adam ate a magical fruit ill advised by a clever snake. It is of cause allegorical.
LikeLike
There are many Christians who accept that evolution happened. It is mainly Christians who assert the Bible as 100% literal truth rather than allegory who are also likely to claim that evolution is false, and often also that the world is only 6,000 years old.
The reason people promote science literacy is that it’s important to our survival. The world can support 8 billion people as opposed to only 1-2 billion due to the scientific discovery of ammonia production for fertilizer. Science took us to the moon and cures or prevents disease. The history of the Earth (as depicted by science) can be used to predict its future. What killed the dinosaurs could also kill us. Dinosaurs couldn’t see it coming or react to it, but perhaps we could with enough warning.
It isn’t all that critical that you know the age of the world or universe, but an understanding of science can help you evaluate claims based on evidence. Plus it can be interesting to learn that there are plants 40,000 years old, and aboriginal tribes with tribal histories that go back just as far. And if that is true, then the world can’t be just 6,000 years old.
LikeLike
Thanks for the input Stan!
I’m interested when you say “There are many Christians who accept that evolution happened. It is mainly Christians who assert the Bible as 100% literal truth rather than allegory who are also likely to claim that evolution is false” So do you believe that all species descending from a common ancestor is reconcilable with what the bible teaches? when it says in the beginning God created man, and all the beast of the field and fish of the sea! How can one truly be a Christian and believe in evolution?
I realize there actually are Christians who believe this, I was shocked to find that theistic evolution is actually the official position of the Catholic church, but I would have to say this idea is far from being founded on the what the bible actually teaches.
LikeLike
Yes you make good points, but only scientists need this knowledge to function. The rest of us can live happily with a limited scientific understanding and we dont need to be science enemies just because we dont keep up with the latest news in this field. I agree the aboriginals and their Megalania encounters are fascinating but it is far from vital for my existence. Nor is my interest in Roman history. I guess it mostly have to do with the battle for that handful of kids that grow up to be actual scientists of merit.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment!
The world we live in is either eternal or created, either explanation has some rather unique implications, after all we are rather unique creatures.I simply believe that the world was created as we see and understand it in its current form with all its different kinds of species and with man at the forefront of it all, just as the fossil record clearly depicts and as the bible describes it. I believe that science as we know it is a mechanism, and God is the divine agent behind that mechanism. I believe that the earth is simply to perfectly fine tuned, with photosynthesis, the circulation of oxygen and carbon monoxide, night and day, food and water for our bodies, along with the complexity of the brain and human body its all just a little to perfect for me to logically believe it was random. For these reasons I deny evolution.
As far as the like of Dawkins I couldn’t really explain what drives them and their agenda, it hardly seems in respect to enlightening their fellow man, as you described “like a salvation issue”. As a Christian I simply express the feeling that they are deceived, I believe Satan (the serpent) is at work in the world to get all people to reject the knowledge of God’s existence.
With regards to dinos and where they are so significant in the whole mix of things. Evolutionist believe in a progressive evolution of species, in this progression dinosaurs apparently existed 60 million years before man, yet today we have found fossilized human prints along fossilized dinosaur prints. This again reaffirming the idea that all species were created at the same time just like the bible says.
Here’s a link to a really interesting video about the evidence of Dinosaurs and Human coexistence, check it out if your interested, starts off a little slow but offers some very compelling evidence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWe3cteDuBc
LikeLike
Hi howdoyouknowme, thank you for your answer. Personally I dont recall ever having an issue with evolution as a Christian. Just some random simpleminded points;
chimps, orangutangs, gorillas always appeared quite close to humans to me. I remember a Christian friend being so uncomfortable with visiting the apes in zoo that he did sweat heavily and felt dizzy. My creationist father spoke a lot about God, the Bible and animals, but I dont recall him ever talking about apes, just mumbling when mother noticed the human similarities.
The Genesis record. My interest in Genesis is of newer date. I did never read Genesis 1 as a literal explenation. I did read too much Bible symbolism and never understood the beef with Darwin – and today I don’t understand those that claim they see a Scientific methodology here – or simply – “God spoke” – and then what? It happened, no explenation of the biological process. It appeals more to me now when I see it as Israel’s primordial origin. Cain’s wife, never satisfied with the explenation that he married his sister. I also when reading see no alternative to two creation accounts, one of the known World, one for Israel’s primordial origin. Paul on Adam is made to be the big problem, and this is the only thing I spend some time struggling in this but I see an easy solution in that Adam is called the first man like Israel is called the firstborn son and the death in Romans 5 is the significant one in theology, the spiritual one.
Our bodily weaknesses, like our teeths. Never understood why they are so vulnerable. Designs that appear cruel like that vasp aralyzes a tarantula and put its larvae in it, the in light of Christian morality, extremely lavish World of the bonobo monkey.
The conspiracy theory, I just dont believe it. I dont believe that the Scientific World would be so unified in talking evolution, if not it was their best model and that is all science is. Finally, it is a better theodice and matches that God uses agents to reach his ends; men, angels, conflicts etc. Billions of years does nothing pro or against the mindblowing issue that abiogenesis tries to solve. If man and t-rex co-existed, I see no reason for mainstream media and science to rejoice, kids would. Why do YEC embarass the Christian World by promoting Nessie real existence as a plesiosaur?
I don’t say this to offend, but I can not help seeing Richard Dawkins and the Young Earth creationists as both engaged in missing the Picture and teaching others to miss the Picture. Both confirming eachothers claim that their two types of understanding have vital impact on the Bible. I
LikeLike
“If man and t-rex co-existed, I see no reason for mainstream media and science NOT to rejoice, kids would.”
LikeLike
Hey Joen, I personally love chimps and think their rather adorable (project nim still is one of my favorite documentaries today) I certainly don’t interpret their similar traits as threatening to my personal belief in God at all. Not to disrespect your Christian friend or father, but it would take a lot more to shake my faith than a staring competition with a chimp 🙂
you say that you “don’t understand those that claim they see a Scientific methodology here – or simply – “God spoke” ” I see that your getting tripped up with needing to explain God purely through a scientific point of view, as a true Christian we are not called to simply believe in God because he laid down his scientific methodology on how he created the earth, this is hardly the idea.scripture says “By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God’s command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen.” There is a serious error when we try to find God purely through our ability to intellectualize, we find the greatest evidence of God comes from our spiritual walk, when you walk with God by faith he will begin to manifest himself to you in ways that speak straight to your heart, you will find these are often the most persuasive ways in which God could ever reveal himself to you. This is not to say that God can’t be understood through science and intellect as well, through the things that are seen “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” but if we neglect the reality that he is spiritual, then we will never truly come to see him in the physical.
Ultimately God isn’t found in the intellect, he has hidden himself from the wisdom of man.
LikeLike
Hi howdoyouknowme, well then you are saying the YEC promoters are making serious error, when they argue and use their interlect preaching claims of the errors of the scientific community. There is no version of Christianity on earth that doesnt argue. But it will often tell its followers to not argue what is taught. I have heard this line before, and I am a Little allergic to it :). You are then also saying the famous Berean Jews in Acts who dilligently studied the Word and claims of the Christians were in serious error. Also I am sure you know the biblical verse saying “Let us reason together”. I believe the YEC movement adds to the Word by claiming the creation record is literal, when both reason and biblical knowledge, especially Old Testament symbolism, should teach them otherwise and also adding claims of a scientific methodology, when the Bible is silent about God’s scientific methodology. Additionally is of cause that the YEC movement continues gentile Christianity’s robbery of old covenant Israel’s origin’s account. Contrary to the claims of Richard Dawkins and the YEC movement, evolution doesnt exclude the Creator God, nor should it impact your Christian belief.
LikeLike
joen perhaps I didn’t make my position clear enough, I suppose that’s what I get for trying to combine the material with the immaterial, it gets lost in the rhetoric of reason. I have nothing against using the intellect and reason, especially when studying scripture and science, if you noticed I qualified my argument by saying “This is not to say that God can’t be understood through science and intellect as well”. I was only saying that those who try to fit God in their minds finite ability of reason will ultimately only frustrate the the spiritual growth that’s required to understand God the way he intends us to.
LikeLike
Hi howdoyouknowme,
I forgot saying in previous sense that I find monkey babies quiet adorable like you do. The adult chimp is a dangerous and unpredictable animal. About my friend or actually old friend of my parents, my guess is not that it was his YEC or OEC faith (not sure which one in his case) that was shaken, but rather that the monkeys’ humanoid appearence and acting made him uncomfortable. I realize it could be understood differently.
Well it is no surprise we must agree to disagree. I think the YECs is doing what you believe the TEs are doing. I believe evolution has done a great favor to Bible interpretation, because it necessitates the correction of some old mistakes, primarily Church Father interpretations hostile to the Jews and lacking in understanding of Old Testament symbolism. The universe apart from the stricly visible with the eye and the angels are added to Genesis 1, the cursing of the ground in Genesis 3 is changed into the cursing of all creation, T-rex, this grotesque predator, ate plants before the fall, Cain married his sister. Now if only the YECs said “let God be true and every man a liar”, but they can’t fullfill the literacy claim and they argue reason and science. Thank you for letting me have my say here. I encourage you further investigate this issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t speak for all Christians, but in general those who view Genesis 1 as an allegory and morality tale seem to have no problem following both science and religion.
Dr. Patton in your video raises some interesting questions, but it’s troubling that he includes several blatantly fraudulent evidences in his talk. For instance, we have two people, Basilio Uchuya and his wife, Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana, who admitted to carving the Inca death stones because they found they could get money for them. They based their carvings on comic books. That’s been known since 2002, so it’s rather unforgivable that Patton would include them in a presentation more than five years later. There are other similar problems with much of Dr. Patton’s research so it’s hard to know which parts to take seriously.
He goes to great lengths to justify evidence for Noah’s flood, something even the Jews do not believe literally happened. The idea that animals are buried where they lived might work in a small local flood, but in a deluge large enough to cover the world, that’s unlikely. Bodies float, and are often swept together to the same point. We really should find jumbles of humans, mammals and dinosaurs together in piles, but we don’t.
LikeLike
Hey Stan, you say how some Christians don’t have a problem “following both science and religion.” I to have nothing against science, I think science is a wonderful study and actually find it rather encouraging in my personal walk with God. I simply reject the theory of descent with modification and evolution in general.
I can see how many Christians and logical people would tend to interpret the story of Adam and Eve as allegorical, make sense why they would when it mentions talking snakes and eating magical fruit. But it seems a bit of stretch to assume that its allegorical when it says “Let Us make man in Our image.. let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth..God created man in His own image.. male and female He created them” This doesn’t seem to be an allegorical type of statement.
In regards to Don Patton I can see why you would be hesitant to believe everything he has to say, A christian talking about creationism isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement for an evolutionist, just like if I am watching a video about full fledged atheist talking about evolution, I completely get your drift. As far as him offering fraudulent evidence I trust that what your saying is true, in which case it is rather disturbing that he would put it in his presentation. Though I like many of the things he says and think he offers some very compelling arguments (I do believe he offers some credible sources in attesting to a global flood, particularly Nicholas Steno’s comments), his character has never stood out to me as gracious and overly sincere to his opposition, so perhaps there is some dishonesty going on there. I’ll have to look further into the evidence, I must admit I haven’t gone much further than Don Pattons youtube videos in researching this subject.
LikeLike
Oh, and apparently Dr. Patton does not actually have a Ph.D in geology as he claims. Here are some of the scientific community’s responses to the various anomalous fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html
LikeLike
@joenbjerregaard
One example that does impact you directly is the anti-vaccine movement. It has allowed deadly diseases to make a comeback, which might not have happened if the general populace were more scientifically literate.
LikeLike
Hi Stan, I think that is an example of science hostility grounded in the American conspiracy theory tradition and the distrust in government a part of the American people have?
LikeLike