≡ Menu

Angles on Evolution – #3

When debating evolutionists, the average Christian must concede a lot — mainly, reams of scientific info and terms. I can navigate my way through the Bible, but when it comes to Horizontal Gene Transfer, Epigenetic Inheritance or the Cambrian Explosion, I am copernicus.jpgclueless.

Thank goodness for believing scientists. Wikipedia has a fascinating List of Christian Thinkers in Science, which includes chemists, geneticists, mathematicians and Pentecostal preachers. ChristiansAnwers.Net and Answers in Genesis both have detailed lists of Creation Scientists. There are even groups like Christians in Science. This should be enough to dispel the notion that the rift between science and religion is as wide as some would imply.

Still, I am dependent on somebody else to bolster my argument. Thus, the Christian must rely on the Bible and common sense — and someone with a degree in the biological sciences — to wage war against the barbarians.

I lean toward evidential apologetics, a brand of apologetics that assumes there is significant, verifiable evidence for God, Christ and Scripture. As such, I’ve come to believe in the reliability of the Bible. But while Scripture outlines redemptive history, it is not a science book. So a kind of balance must exist here. While the primary objective of God’s Word is not to articulate science, it should nevertheless corroborate scientific fact. (A book that claimed to be Divine and taught that the world was square would lose its oomph.)

Which leads to the obvious question: WHEN SCRIPTURE AND SCIENCE DISAGREE, WHICH ONE DO YOU TRUST?

Despite what many “experts” say, Scripture and science don’t. Early scientific method was often propelled by a biblical worldview. Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon and Galileo, all had Faith in common. Einstein initially hesitated to unveil his Theory of General Relativity because he believed it validated what Creationists had been saying all along — that matter and time had a beginning. Of course, some would suggest that miracles contradict scientific BLACK-HOLE.GIFmethod. But in an age where men fly, light is swallowed by Black Holes, the Miami Heat can win a championship — and quantum physics is tweaking nearly all “established” theories — who’s to say.

But doesn’t evolutionary theory violently contradict the core of the biblical message? Well, once again, it depends upon how it’s spun.

A “commitment to science” does not ensure the purity of one’s motives. In a terrific article in Answers in Genesis, entitled Evolution & Creation, Science & Religion, Facts and Bias, the author notes this admission from anti-creationist science writer Boyce Rensberger:

At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.

Facts are always interpreted according to one’s worldview and presuppositions. The truth is, MANY SCIENTISTS APPROACH THE EVIDENCE PREDISPOSED TO REJECT GOD. Rather than follow the evidence to a conclusion, they begin with a conclusion and force the evidence to gel. The result is an assumption, which at its heart, is highly unscientific, i.e., that Something came from Nothing. Or as the fellas at Answers in Genesis put it:

Evolution is a deduction from this assumption, and it is essentially the idea that things made themselves. It includes these unproven ideas: nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang,’ non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, man’s yearnings gave rise to religions, etc.

In essence, the Theory of Evolution requires me to believe that creatures who are byproducts of one huge cosmic accident, ancestors to swamp sludge and mollusks, have uncovered The Very Nature of Things. My goodness, this demands faith!

Evolving. . .

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on Reddit
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment