Recently I've been looking at the scientific evidence for evolution, and I must say it is rather convincing. However, I don't think I can reconcile evolution with the account in Genesis. It is easy to say well then it's settled evolution is wrong, but that seems dishonest. If God created the world why would he create the world the way it would appear if evolution is correct? On top of that, many of the Christian sources I've come across seem to lack the critical thinking they utilize when dealing with theology when it comes to evolution. I simply don't know what to do, or where to go from here. Some help would be appreciated.
Hi Robert,
I’m very interested in your post because you are clearly thinking seriously about this issue, and I think that’s really commendable. I am a young-age creationist, in fact I am employed as a researcher and lecturer with Biblical Creation Ministries here in the UK. Like you I am convinced on biblical and theological grounds that evolution is incorrect. It seems to me that evolutionary theory is incompatible with the biblical teaching of an historical Adam who was the ancestor of the entire human race, of death and bloodshed entering the world as the result of Adam’s sin, and of the flood as a global, epoch-making event that anticipates the new creation. But I also agree with you that the scientific evidence supporting evolution cannot be lightly dismissed. Evolution is a powerful and persuasive idea and what is
really impressive is the way that many lines of data from fields of enquiry as diverse as comparative anatomy, molecular biology, genetics, biogeography and palaeontology seem to converge on evolution. Too often, creationists make the mistake of downplaying this evidence or lapsing into knee-jerk responses, and I think that’s a great mistake. We must learn to listen carefully to what evolutionary scientists are saying with the goal of trying to understand not simply to refute. So I think you are on the right track in the way you are approaching the scientific evidence.
Having said all that, it is also important to recognise that powerful and persuasive ideas like evolution can be wrong. Acknowledging the strength of evolution as an idea – even as an explanatory concept – does not mean accepting that it is true. The history of science is littered with simple, elegant theories that were supported by evidence – but which turned out to be incorrect. One example is preformism, the idea that the embryo was a ‘mini adult’ that simply unfolded during pregnancy. Preformism was supported by the best science of the day and the highly speculative alternative – that the embryo was the result of some mystical ‘organising force’ – was rejected by most people. But preformism was wrong and its opponents were right. Or consider geosynclinal theory, which sought to explain how sedimentary rocks accumulated in subsiding basins and were uplifted and deformed to produce mountain ranges. In 1960, Clark and Stearn’s textbook ‘Geological Evolution of North America’ proclaimed: “The geosynclinal theory is one of the great unifying principles in geology ... Just as the doctrine of evolution is universally accepted among biologists, so also the geosynclinal origin of the major mountain systems is an established principle in geology.” But by the early 1970s, geosynclinal theory was on its way out and being replaced by the new theory of plate tectonics.
On the subject of evolutionary evidences, two excellent resources that I recommend are Kurt Wise’s ‘Faith, Form, and Time’ (Broadman and Holman, 2002) and Leonard Brand’s ‘Faith, Reason, and Earth History’ (Second Edition, Andrews University Press, 2009). Both authors are young-age creationists with impeccable credentials. Wise has a PhD in invertebrate palaeontology from Harvard where he studied under Stephen Jay Gould. Brand has had a long academic career in biological and palaeontological research. Wise’s book includes a number of ‘breakout boxes’ that examine major evidences for biological evolution and suggest ways in which the data actually favours a creationist interpretation. Brand’s chapter 11 does a magnificent job of setting out the case for evolution (in my opinion better than many evolutionists) but then in chapter 12 he reviews the same data from a creationist perspective. I think both books would really help you think things through. It is also important that we do more than poke holes in evolutionary arguments. One of the greatest challenges for creationists is to develop robust theories that explain the data of biology and geology better than the conventional alternatives. In the long run that will be an even more powerful apologetic. Both Wise and Brand are good on this, and I also cover this ground at the layman’s level in my own book, ‘The New Creationism’ (Evangelical Press, 2009).
One final thought: You asked why God would create the world in such a way that to many thinking people evolution appears to be correct, even though it is not. Kurt Wise has some things to say on this. He introduces the concept of “intentional ambiguity”, the idea that God has provided just enough evidence to encourage people to come to him, yet not enough for them to get there without faith. After all, it is faith that ultimately pleases God and is itself the gift of God. Something to ponder, perhaps?
I’m sorry this is such a long post, but I hope you find these thoughts helpful.
