A Discussion of Creation for Christian Learners of Science

I did not want to write this article.  Rather, I wish the need for me to write this article did not exist.  As far as I am concerned, my life was going on just fine, albeit extremely busy.  Having said that, let me admit that I believe that I needed to write this article, to help lift a growing burden off my heart.  Hopefully, there is at least one other person out there who benefits besides me, and I pray ultimately that God receives greater glory for it.

Though the target audience is explicitly Christian learners of science, the desired audience is all who may be curious about how the Christian faith intersects with science.  Ever since Christ died, and rose again, there have been many who have tried to force God’s truths into a faulty worldview.  This is especially true in this modern age of science.  So, let this essay be at least a small step toward bringing the dialogue to its proper place, under the authority of God.

What this Article Isn’t / What It Is

My approach in this article may be different than expected.  Some of the arguments may be familiar due to the nature of the topics addressed.  However, much is likely to seem out of place, perhaps odd and maybe even unscientific.  That, in part, is due to my background.  I am a chemist and educator by trade and by calling; I am not a licensed theologian, apologist, or biologist.

In an effort to “make a difference in this world for Jesus Christ” (Corban University’s mission), this undertaking is intended to be bold.  It has challenged me because it opens me up to criticism.  However, it is God I am to serve, not man (Eph. 6:7).  I wish to hear Him say, “Well done, good and faithful servant” (Matt. 25:23).  So, while I do not wish to experience negative backlash typically experienced by those who venture into this realm, I am called to be courageous.  I will endeavor to speak “the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) as best as this imperfect creation can.

This article could be considered a brief treatise.  As such, some groundwork needs to be laid. First I will address my own premises, assumptions, and approach.  Next I will explore the foundational context in which the arguments regarding creation and evolution are either encouraged or dismissed.  The context includes worldviews, faith, and social pressures.  After that I will present some of the arguments regarding evolution vs. creation, including arguments from both sides, looking at some strengths and weaknesses of each.  The discussion is then extended to consider the conflict of these two worldviews and the ramifications of each side’s stance. In addition,  Appendix A includes information about the origin of the universe, and Appendix B contains information about radiometric dating.Premise, Assumptions, and Approach

The following premises, assumptions and approach are fairly fundamental and conservative. This is intentional.  Reminder: This is not so much a debate as it is a treatise.  It is not my job to persuade you.  It is the work of the Holy Spirit on your heart that does the persuading.  I am simply presenting the truth as best I understand it, sowing seeds if you will.  This is my act of obedience to a Divine Creator.

Some points of discussion and debate on the topic of evolution versus creation are more fundamental than others.  Instead of beginning with what I think are common stances and arguments, I would like to enter the discussion with the thought process I share with my students. I start with a broad brush statement under which everything else I say exists.  I start with Paul. “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2 ESV).  I believe the context behind this statement is that prior to this Paul had been debating and stating his case to the Athenians with minimal effectiveness.  After that, he decided not to try to debate his way to converting people to Christ.  In similar form, then, I say the same.  I state this truth and the reader can accept it or not.  I may sow the seed, but I trust the Holy Spirit to work the field of the heart of the reader, to soften it, make it receptive to the truth.

I have a relatively short set of “truth statements” against which every piece of evidence is tested.  If it goes against the statement, then either the evidence is in error, or the interpretation of what the evidence means is in error.  The statements go something like this:  As Christians, we believe that Christ rose from death for the purpose of restoring people to proper relationship to God.  The relationship was broken when Adam sinned against God by disobeying Him.  God created mankind through Adam and Eve, to live in perfect harmony with Him in Paradise.  So, as it relates to the evolution/creation discussion, if there is no creation, there is no fall and thus no need for restoration through the death and resurrection of Jesus; ergo, there is no basis for Christianity.   To expand on these truth statements a bit, I offer the following list of assumptions from which I am working.

1)      Truth exists and it is knowable
2)      The mentioning of God refers to the God of the Bible
3)      The Bible is God’s divine word to mankind, His creation
4)      The Bible is true and inerrant.  It speaks directly to many issues, and to many issues what it says and means is clear (e.g. murder).  There are many issues to which the Bible does not speak as directly or clearly (e.g., computer technology).  On these issues, people are left to try to interpret the meaning.  Since people make mistakes, it is important to acknowledge this and provide interpretations with appropriate humility.
5)      God has provided evidence that He is the Creator throughout His creation, explicitly through His word and implicitly through His creation, (e.g., plants, animals, mountains).
6)      God created all that exists for His good pleasure, His glory, and called it good.
7)      Man, whom he created to share life with, to walk with, disobeyed God and mankind thereafter suffered pain and death.  However, even before man’s betrayal, God made a plan to restore this relationship.  That plan was through Jesus Christ.
8)      There exists an enemy to God.  His name is Satan.  He desires to destroy man and man’s relationship with God.  He is waging a war against God; this battle is a spiritual battle, but it affects every life in the physical world.
9)      Jesus a real person, the person referred to in the Bible as God’s only Son, who lived a blameless life, who died a sinner’s death on a cross, who rose from the dead, who now sits at the right hand of God, who came to restore all people into proper relationship with God the Father.

1. Without Jesus being who the Bible says He is, this whole treatise falls apart.  Actually, according to Scripture, the whole of the universe falls apart (Col. 1:17).
2. Jesus did speak on matters related to creation.  However, they might be considered indirect, and have led to differences in interpretation which make it challenging to argue definitively.

None of us have perfect knowledge.  Only God knows it all.  However, I have chosen to assume that God is correct and that any errors must be on the side of man.  Someday we may understand these mysteries.

I have tried to set out the premises and assumptions that influence my approach to the topic of evolution and creation.  I understand that to non-believers, pretty much everything presented so far would be considered “foolishness” (1 Cor. 2:14).  I understand that, and if I were them, I would have the same logic and come to the same conclusion.  I get that.  I do not fault them for that.  I am simply sharing the good news of creation to open eyes and hearts to the Creator… to show that without God (which is the premise of evolution), there is no purpose in life and that with God, a loving God, every person is loved, yea even cherished and for whom He has a specific purpose.

Before we look at specific creation versus evolution questions, I want to explore the importance of a person’s worldview and how worldview impacts our interpretation of data.

Foundation and Context – Worldviews

Worldview drives the interpretation of the information and data below.  One’s worldview (or Weltanschauungen),[1] the way one sees and understands the world, is the filter through which all new information is interpreted and brought into alignment.  Worldview as a concept speaks to the values, beliefs and faith upon which people make sense of their lives and their role in the world.  As a result, at one level, one can say every person has his or her own belief system.  Though each person may have a unique set of beliefs, it is also true that people tend to group together with those of similar worldviews.  The worldviews of two groups can be diametrically opposite each other, explaining how two people can see the same set of data, yet interpret it differently.

It is vital to understand that at the core of each person’s worldview, no matter what worldview they may hold, is faith–a trust based on something beyond the senses.  In this regard atheism and agnosticism are belief systems just as Christianity.  They, too, have assumptions and a faith-dependent nature at their core.  It is also helpful to understand that an individual’s worldview is constantly being tested and possibly refined, especially in matters regarding self-identity.

People are curious creations.  It is normal for people to be curious about their world and their role in it.  “Who am I?  Where did I come from?  What is my purpose in life?”  These are questions that one’s worldview helps to answer.  People’s faith therein serves to provide understanding, stability, and hopefully peace in their lives.  It is no wonder that heated and emotional discussions and debates occur between people of significantly different worldviews, as these may challenge the foundation of their understanding of their world and existence, thus unsettling their sense of identity.  More often than not, when people’s worldviews are threatened, they will do what they need to do to protect themselves.  They may attack the opposing view or they may retreat from further discourse.  Sometimes, they may carefully listen and consider changing or adjusting their own worldview.  However, this is more easily accomplished if they are not feeling threatened.

Many worldviews can coexist with each other quite well.  Some like to think they can, but cannot.  So, keeping the importance of worldview in mind, let’s look at some of the specific issues involved in the evolution versus creation debate.

Origins: Evolution vs. Creation

The fundamental premise behind the theory of evolution is that ultimately the origin of life arose from random events and is therefore devoid of a Creator and subsequently purposeless, except perhaps to simply pass on genetic information.  It is perfectly logical for those who hold to an evolutionary belief to think that those who are Christian (or have faith in any religion) are basically just trying to make themselves feel better.  Well, I admit, I do feel better having Christ as my Savior, but that does not mean it is not true.

Some non-Creator evolutionists might say, “Prove to me that God exists!”  While that may seem to be an attack–in fact it might actually be an attack–it is, on another level, a perfectly reasonable and logical challenge.  People are curious and desire to understand who they are, where they come from and why they exist.  Ironically, if the question is turned around, they would not be able to provide the answer.  For example, “Prove to me that life spontaneously generated randomly.”  Though scientists have tried, it has never been done.  The standard response is, “All you need is time.”  Their premise is that the universe is billions of years old.  To which I would say, there simply is not and never will be enough time for life to randomly and spontaneously generate.  It is statistically a non-self-starter.  The odds are simply stacked too much against it, even under the most ideal set of conditions of temperature, pressure, and ingredients.  It would be even more difficult for life to spontaneously generate under the high energy, radiation, and chaotic environment of most of the universe.

The laws of the universe are against it too.  The trend in the universe is toward entropy.  Even the odds of a very simple hypothetical case of the molecules of sugar dissolved in a cup of tea coalescing into a sugar cube are essentially zero. The odds quickly become less likely the more complicated the system.   Even if there is a local decrease in entropy, it cannot last long.  Life is a constant struggle against entropy.  When life is over, entropy quickly takes over.  So, if entropy dominates, how could life start itself?  The answer is simple: it cannot.

In some sense, if life cannot get started randomly, then the argument is already over.  However, let’s say that some self-replicating molecules got started.  Some use self-replicating RNA as a foundation from which the rest of evolution progressed.  Even at this point, however, the arguments provided before–odds and entropy–make it impossible.  There are too many steps and the environment is too hazardous.

Let’s look at this from another vantage—the concept of irreducible complexity.   There are some organisms that have components that even in their simplest state are quite complex and could not have come about randomly.  The human eye has been used as an example of an irreducibly complex structure.[2]  In order to see, there must be a lens, a retina, a cornea, etc. These must all come into being at the same time to function properly.  The eye will not work if any single component is missing.  The odds against the random assembly of the critical components are once again nigh impossible.  The implication is that eyes must have been “designed,” which necessarily points to a creator.  Of course, I am not using this particular example as an argument for a Creator.  I have already stated that my premise is that there is a Creator.  I am, however, using this as example against random generation of life, aka evolution.

There are many other subtopics and points argued and debated.  Again, the reader is encouraged to research those as compelled to do so.  For more irreducible complexity, investigate rotary motors in the bacterium flagellum,[3] or a brief article on the probability of life.[4]  I, however, would like to bring worldview philosophy back into this discussion to demonstrate how worldview is so foundational.

One who believes in evolution might bring in data and statistics to support evolutionary relationships.  For example, humans are genetically more similar to monkeys than to dolphins; therefore humans are more closely related to monkeys evolutionarily.  Based on this, it could be said, humans come from apes.  This is the logical conclusion derived from the evolutionary worldview lens.  However, the same data, viewed through a creation worldview lens might be explained in a radically different way.  Of course the genetic makeup is very close between apes and humans; it is logical and consistent with creation.  First of all, all organisms are built from the same building blocks, DNA.  Since the physical structure of an ape is quite similar to that of a human, then naturally its DNA (building blocks) will closely match.

The evolutionist might respond as follows: “But the DNA is not just similar; it’s almost identical at a 98.5% match.”  Some creationist might counter with, “The latest data puts it at about 95% match.”  I do not have a problem with either of these numbers.  According to the creation worldview lens I mentioned, a high percent match is perfectly reasonable, even expected.  I would say that there is a lot of critical/fundamental difference in that 1.5-5%.  Let me use an example that may or may not be oversimplified.  If I could make a model of a chimpanzee from 9,500 lego pieces, I could probably make a model of a human with 10,000 of the same pieces.  I just need the right 500 more pieces.

It is the worldview that drives the interpretation of the information and data.  If you know the worldview of a person in this discussion, then you can generally predict where he or she is going to land on any of the topics.  So, it is important to know and understand your own worldview first, and then it is helpful to understand the worldview of the other person in the discussion.

Christian Worldview

On that note, I would like to look at the Christian worldview lens and say a few things that I do not think most Christians say or even think about when they approach this discussion.  If the God of the Bible is true, then He is omnipotent.  He created the universe and everything in it.  His Son, Jesus, rose from the grave, conquering even death!  Then nothing, absolutely nothing is impossible for Him.  Then anything is possible for Him.  This means, in regard to this topic, that if there is something that seems strange, not likely, or impossible to us, that is simply our own limited understanding or beliefs getting in the way.

Perhaps, my mentioning this is more to address fellow Christians than non-believers.   For example, there is a prevailing trend for Christians to accommodate creation models that parallel evolution.  This may include significant concessions, such as viewing Adam and Eve as archetypal representations of man rather than as literal people.  As I admitted up front, I am not smart enough to know the answers to everything.  I was not there at creation.  I was not even around at the birth of my own country, which is a very young country.  I also have not spent countless hours researching and trying to determine whether Adam and Eve were literal people or figurative.  However, I stand by my premises and truth statements.  I also challenge my fellow Christians to open their minds to the possibilities that exist with an omnipotent God.  Even if the evidence appears to support an old age earth or universe, is it not possible that appearances not line up with our interpretation?  Who am I to put constraints on God?

You may notice that I did not measure the success of this discussion using the devices used by evolutionists, for example Occam’s razor.[5]  That in some sense would be playing by their rules.  In so doing, one might be giving too much merit to their strategy.  I do not need to do that.  Actually, I do not have a problem with the tool.  I believe the same tool could be used in support of creation.  As with tools, however, their power comes not from the tools themselves but from the hands that wield them.  Remember, I am not arguing so much as presenting the Good News through this topic both to non-believers and to believers who may have forgotten how big their God is.

Lastly, I would like to address another area that I do not see discussed much–the ramifications of these two worldview positions.  Though on the individual and personal level we may coexist and get along peacefully at this moment, there are distinctly different logical trajectories and termini both individually and societally.  Though this topic is by itself larger than this article, I will attempt to at least introduce it for the reader’s consideration.

A society based on the creation worldview believes that God is good, man has fallen, Jesus has come to restore, God loves all people, all people are valuable, and we are to show love to all people.  Just using these premises, one can predict the nature of this kind of society.  It is the kind of society that can build a country without a king, with citizens that have freedoms never before shared, that prospers to become the envy of the word, where nations are blessed through its generosity and strength.

A society based on an evolutionary worldview believes there is no god, except perhaps that man is God, where man can design society in his image, where laws are used to shape and dictate society, where power is king and God is a threat to that power, where increasing one’s self comes at the expense of others, but that does not matter because other peoples’ lives do not matter (since life is random and purposeless).  Life is controlled cradle to grave.  Abortions and euthanasia are the norm.  Technology keeps up with the pace of greed and power… leading to wars, genocide, and self-inflicted extinction.  One has but to pay attention to recent years and decades to see the trend of this country to see how it correlates to the shift in worldview.

Going Forward

The topic of origins is obviously important for individuals to wrestle with, and come to terms with, in their own faith journey, but we are wise to remember along the way that this is a volatile area of inquiry.  The Enemy is strong in this area.  A quick search for online information and dialogue on this topic may surprise, confuse, and overwhelm the unprepared.  Remember, there is a real and serious spiritual war being waged, and this topic is on the front lines of the battle.  It is best to come ready, and we should remember that we are to speak the truth in love, but sometimes the truth is the hardest thing to say or hear, such as the following: regarding the knowledge of God’s existence, all are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)

As with all discussions and debates, it takes time and effort to sort through and discard the   irrelevant and distracting information and emerge with the critical material. The field is too broad for me to be an expert in all areas and for me to provide an exhaustive list of where to start, but there is no shortage of material available.  I would suggest starting with a topic that is most compelling for you.  There are many resources whose stance is explicitly and intentionally against the creationist worldview.  So those resources are readily available, and worthy of the time you take to understand their stances, rationale, arguments, etc.  The resources supporting a creationist worldview are also available.  A decent place to start on virtually any creation related topic is answersingenesis.org.[6]

More importantly it is vital to keep immersed in the Bible, strengthening your knowledge and wisdom with its content.  Everything is tested against it.  Some answers may be easy and straight forward, while others may not be directly discernible.  However, nothing should stand that stands in clear conflict with it.

Stand strong.  These times are challenging. “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved” (Matt. 10:22 NIV). The conservative worldview is under constant and increasing attack in all areas of life.  Take heart.

Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds,  because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. (James 1:2-4 NIV)

Be aware that society is drifting away from the moorings of God and His truths.  Be wary of yourself, too, so as not to drift away.  The enemy is cunning, but we are called to be more so.  “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16 NIV).  Remember that you are not alone.  Though the current battles may be difficult and painful, the victory is already won.  God created the world and called it good.  Let us help Him keep it that way.

Hopefully, readers have been both challenged and blessed by my struggling efforts.  There are certainly many related areas not covered, like micro and macroevolution, natural selection, etc.  I wish I were better versed to offer more.  However, at this moment, I must allow the work to stand on its own merits.  I hope and pray that each reader gets at least one good thing out of reading my arguments and testimony.

 

Appendix A:  Origin of the Universe

1. Theory: Big Bang: The universe is ~13.8 billion years old.  It was created in a single large explosive event that is the source of all matter and energy.
2. Creation Stances:
   1. Old Earth/Universe Creation: Accepts scientific premise that universe is old, but states that God was the source of the Big Bang.  Many versions of theory exist, generally varying on the degree to which God has been involved since then.
   2. Young Earth/Universe Creation: Contends that he universe was created much more recently, on the scale of thousands of years.  Though there is variance here, many versions rely on a literal interpretation of the Biblical accounts in the beginning of Genesis.
   3. My thoughts on this topic are consistent with those presented earlier.  I was not there.  My God is big and powerful enough to make the universe however He sees fit.  Any observation that does not fit within the “truth statements” offered before are either erroneous in and of themselves, or the error is in our understanding and/or interpretation.  Having said that, there are origin questions that the Big Bang Theory does not answer that have importance.  A few are, “How did the Big Bang start?  What was before that?  Is time constant?”
   4. Resources: Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything, by Gerald Rau,[7] is a nice resource to get an overview of many of the evolution vs. creation topics, including the stances of six positions along the evolution/creation spectrum.

 

Appendix B:  Radiometric Dating

1. Theory: Radioactive elements can be used to determine the age of an object.  The half-life of an element is unique to that element, ranging from fractions of a second to billions of years. Here are some examples: The half-life of uranium-238 is 4.47 billion years, radium-226 is 1,600 years, bismuth-210 is 5.01 days, polonium-218 is 3.05 minutes, polonium-214 is 0.000164 seconds.[8]
2. Creation Stances:
   1. Old Earth/Universe Creation: Accepts scientific premise that half-lives are a reliable technique for dating objects.
   2. Young Earth/Universe Creation: Questions the reliability, due to underlying assumptions, for example, that time is constant, that the rates of decay observed today are the same as they have always been.  There is growing evidence in the frontiers of physics that question these assumptions.  For example, researchers from Stanford and Purdue University have noticed cyclical fluctuations in radioactive decay rates and have theorized that they may be related to neutrino emissions from the core of the sun.[9]
   3. My Thoughts: Though humans are smart, and try diligently to understand the universe, our time and physical context of the universe is extremely limited.  Though I believe it is good and correct to pursue and theorize regarding the physical evidence as it relates to origins, I also believe it is wise to acknowledge that the current understanding and theories have underlying assumptions that constantly need to be checked and perhaps modified.  I am not saying that the current decay rates are not what they are.  I am saying that the nature of the universe, no matter which worldview one holds, was likely dramatically different during the formative stages and that it is possible that concepts considered constant today, were far different then.