Analyzing Whether Evolution is a Vehicle
for Creation

By Billy C. Sichone

Introduction

Over the years, especially soon after the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's book The Origin of species, many people have progressively been swept into believing that the world evolved rather than was instantaneously created. This thinking currently is virtually all pervasive in about every public learning institution across the world (Geisler 2008; Craig 1984; Dockery & Thornbury 2002). To question the evolution Dogma spells professional doom1 for an individual (Craig, 1984; Burge, 2005; Swamidass 2020; Wright, 1994). Interestingly, and sadly so, many Christians, some of high renown have begun to submit to the idea of evolution in their thinking and writing (Thompson 1986; Wright 1994; Dembski, n.d.; Behe, 2007; Burge, 2005). Some wholeheartedly embrace evolution (claiming to rest on empirical evidence) treating the Biblical account as mere Hebrew fairy or poetic tale (Thompson, 1986; Craig 2021). They, in effect, reject the inspiration and veracity of the Genesis account. Others have chosen a middle line which seeks to fit (i.e. accommodate) in evolution into the verses of Genesis2 so that the conflict between Evolution and the Bible appears only apparent and not actual3. What is the Christian to make out of all this maze? What is the Christian to believe as the truth? This paper briefly touches on some key aspects of this important debate. Definitely, this is a highly emotive subject even with evangelical circles but it shouldn't be.

Tenets of Science, Evolution, Theistic Evolution and Creation

Evolution is the belief that the world evolved from lower organisms into complex beings (Dembski, n.d). Evolution is basically an alternative view respecting origins and how things got to where they are. Darwinism states what happened while Evolution, which is broader, states how this came about4. It may further be argued that evolution is premised on assumptions excluding the presence or influence of a higher intelligent5 being (i.e. supernatural being). This view is the foremost held and supported view right across life today, with various models progressively being developed to authenticate its relevance (Dawkins 2006; Plantinga n.d.). Within this bracket, though varied inclination, we have theistic, process and a large cohort of contemporary Scientists. They, in unison, apparently sing from the same chorus book on the fundamental basics. It is however worth mentioning in passing that the question of origins and evolutionary progress is largely agreed as emanating from the Big Bang, though a recent theory proffered by Bento & Zalel (in express.co.uk 2021) argues that the Universe has no beginning and thus eternal. This claim has huge implications either way but beyond the scope of this paper. That said, theories like evolution itself, keep popping up. This is the way of proper authentic Science as advanced by theoretical Scientist like Khun & Popper.

Creationism, on the other hand, starts with God and asserts that God created all things ex-nihilo and now sustains them by His power in providence (Genesis 1:1). Creationism further states that the world was created in complete mature form (i.e. with age etc. embedded in it), over a literal 24 hour six day period rather than over billions of years. However, there is a school of thought within the creationist bracket that claims that God actually created the world using evolution to bring about His purposes over a vast periods of time, billions of years for that matter (Behe, 2007; Dembski, n.d.). Equally, Biblical creationism starts from a theistic premise or assumption.

Basic assumptions of Science, Creation, Theistic Evolution and Evolution

Every area of human endeavor rests on some basic assumptions, including Science itself. That is the assumed premise. These assumptions should be universal and self-evident in some sense. Dr Werner, (2001) has listed several useful assumptions (used by different people whether they know it or not) in his book Did God use Evolution? in which he carefully examines Science, Evolution and Creation. We draw some (not all) useful points from this great work for our purposes in this paper. The reader is ,however, encouraged to consult the said book for further and more detailed Scientific insights. We need to once again re-echo that both perspectives (i.e. Evolution or Creation) have basic assumptions amounting to statements of faith as we shall demonstrate. We demonstrate this in relation to authentic Science:

Evolution (quick facts/claims)

1. Evolution is random without any specific purpose or direction.

2. It has its roots in the 'Big Bang' that led to galaxies, planets and living organisms spontaneously evolving over billions of years. These coalesced over time forming what we have while the said Universe (s) is still expanding. The idea of multiple universes is derived from Hindu thought.

3. Organisms evolved through micro and macro evolution from simple to complex celled animals.

4. All animals have a common ancestor.

5. No deity or intelligent being is involved in evolution, everything is purposeless and random.

6. Evolution is taken for granted (i.e. assumed) as true and has taken place. It is an alternative to creation without a divine being included. Many evolutionists do not want God in the equation and thus deliberately embrace evolution. Sir Arthur Keith is an example who stated thus: "Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it however, because the only alternative is an act of creation by a God, and that is unthinkable" 6

7. Evolution is assumed to be a universal principle in nature.

8. According to firm Evolutionists and Naturalists, matter is all there is; it is taken for granted in sync with the law of conservation of matter as well as Einstein's E=mc2

9. Mutation and selection are believed to be the driving force behind evolution.

Theistic Evolution (quick facts/claims)

Strictly speaking, Theistic Evolution includes all the above highlighted points but with some additions. Dr Werner Gitt (2001) has synthesized these additional tenets as follows:

1. God used Evolution as a means of Creation.

2. The Bible's narrative is not authentic but must be re-interpreted in line with what science has found. Inspiration of scripture is rejected in preference of human writings in a given cultural context. Dr Hugh Ross and now to some extent, the venerable Dr. William Lane Craig (2021) hold this view or a mixture of evolution and inspiration.

3. Evolutionary claims are more credible and authoritative than the Bible in its original form. Exclusive empirical evidence (from a rationalist/naturalistic perspective) takes precedence over Biblical revelation.

As already hinted at, people like Hugh Ross among others in reality subscribe to this view, though may claim some modifications. They have bought into the teachings of the day, in the process rejecting the inspired word of God.

Science (Authentic scientific method)

Objective science rests on empirical evidence as demonstrated by Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. True science is based on the ensuing points. The principles of Scientific theory are highlighted in this section:

1. To arrive at a conclusion, the scientific method must be used. This implies using a clear standard traceable procedure and structured way of arriving at truth.

2. Theories are used, attempted explanations of a given Phenomenon. Models are part of the equation too.

3. Theories do change or are discarded when more credible theory comes of age.

4. Anything not observable is not accepted as true or real.

5. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. It is eternal, and only changes form.

6. Repeated experimentation of existing phenomenon to arrive at truth is the required standard.

7. The law of entropy holds true suggesting that matter tends to degenerate from complex to simple not the reverse.

8. Every theory requires some basic assumptions (apriori postulations).

9. The assumptions must be consistent and free from inherent contradictions to be acceptable as valid.

10. Theories must be subject to falsification and testing. Once a theory stands the test over and over, it then becomes a law such as the Law of Gravity. If at all they fail at some point, theory is rejected.

11. Sciences are either structural and exact (say the normative or physical sciences) on the one hand and historical interpretive on the other. Examples of structural science include mathematics, informatics among others. These do not require theorems or experimentation as in others but are proved and thus firmly established as such. (Gitt, 2001).

12. The Universe is said to be expanding and using the Hubble constant, the age of the Universe could be postulated, given that it is expanding at a constant steady rate or state. This in itself points to a beginning of all things at one point in the distant past.

Creation (quick facts/claims of Biblical creationism)

1. Creation is taken for granted and having been done by God-Elohim.

2. God created all things ex-nihilo.

3. God exists and guides/sustains all things in his providence.

4. All things were created complete within six literal 24 hour days by a supreme being called 'God'.

5. All things have a purpose and were thus designed by the Intelligent God.

6. Everything God created was complete with all the information already encoded. No new information is created but combinations may change. The gene pool remains constant by that token.

7. The order and structure in the Universe points to a creator, who, in the Christian view is God.

8. After creating the world, God now sustains all things. No new creation going on.

9. Everything in the universe has a beginning rather than being eternal, including matter.

10. Death, disease and all other vices result from sin.

11. The geological structure can only be explained fully and well in reference to Noah's global flood.

From the foregoing, it is evident that Creation and Evolution are radically different both from their assumptions and end. Dr Gitt even contends that Evolution does not qualify to be called a Scientific Theory because it does not fit into the definition of what a Scientific theory is. Instead, he asserts that it is a philosophy of origins, a world view that someone choses to adopt to avoid the God Factor. He claims that Creation makes a better case and thus more consistent with Science.

History and Development of Evolution

As highlighted in many books such as 'Darwin's enigma' by Dr Sunderland and others, Evolution had its proponents and 'insinuators' long before Charles Darwin came along. In fact, Aristotle made some intimations towards evolution that was passed on over the years until Erasmus Darwin and others caught aspects of it. By the time Charles Darwin was suggesting the theory in the mid/late 1800s, the idea was already within people's minds but not yet formally tied together to develop one cohesive theory. Charles was the man who put things together after his five year epic voyage7 around the world collecting fossil record and evidence. Thus, in 1859, Darwin opened the flood gates for the theory that soon caught on, dislodged theism and literary invaded all aspects of life, especially the academia. Though it has had varying fortunes, interpretations and explanations, Darwinian evolution has survived scrutiny and attacks, though it has repeatedly been amended as new information came along. This implies that in its original form, it would probably not have survived because it rested on several assumptions, steps of faith really, such as the eventual completion of the fossil record, proof from genetics, proof from observation etc. some of which are yet to be proved, over 150 years after the theory was first proposed (Sunderland, 1992).

Essentially, Evolution purports to explain the origins and development of life, away from God. As earlier hinted at, it is the default theory on origins accepted within academia because it is believed to be falsifiable, amendable and can be tested, though through historical records. It may not fit exactly into the prescriptions of Popper and Kuhn of what constitutes Science but it certainly has some aspects of pointing to the Scientific Method.

Evolution, Religion and Science

Is evolution a scientific theory rather than the religious perspective of creationism? If so, how does evolution relate to science or is it science itself? Views vary but the bottom line is that evolution is a theory that has never been conclusively proved despite some aspects appearing real, when methods such as carbon dating are used to determine the age of something. But when carefully examined against what actual science is (i.e. experimentation, empirical evidence and testing etc.), the theory is found wanting. One of these would include its basic assumption that matter always existed and the Big Bang just occurred from nowhere. Furthermore, evolution fails the test of being scientific because of its many defects and contradiction to some established laws of science. One of these is that of entropy. Thus, we may assert with Karl Popper that true science deals with evidence, physical and actual that can be repeatedly tested coming up with the same conclusion regardless of what part of this terrestrial ball the test was done, following the laid down method and procedures (Kuhn, 1996; Popper, 2002).

What Processes did God use to Create?

According to the Biblical account, God just spoke a word and things were. His spoken word caused things become visible that we see and touch. God is said to have created 'ex-nihilo', without any preexisting material or matter. God created over a literal six day period, no longer or less. Neither did God create the world through process evolution over a long period of time. Fiat creation implies instant creation after the spoken word from the Ancient of Days. Thus, any suggestion that God used evolution to create the world is false and is to be rejected firth with (Gitt, 2001; Thompson, 1986).

What others have said/written about Evolution as a means of Creation

Dr Werner Gitt, George M Price, Donald Pattern, Andrew Snelling and Sunderland have written on the subject of evolution with compelling proofs, arguments and evidence. They assert that God created the world in six days, from the invisible to the visible. Another authority, Dr Daniel Briggs has asserted similar sentiments.

Others have tried to introduce theistic evolution. Names such as Dr. Hugh Ross, Craig W Lane, Ted Burge, John Wright and others come to mind. They are rationalists that insist on empirical evidence rather than taking the word of God for what it simply claims (DeYoung 2014).

Then there is a group of people that assert that Evolution is independent and self-determining, away from any influences outside itself. Their foremost high priests are Stephen Hawkins and Richard Dawkins (Dawkins, 2006; Thompson, 1986). These men faithfully serve at the evolution alter, not sparing any efforts to promote this religion.

The reader therefore has a lot of places and areas to read from and make an informed decision contingent on their world view, inclination and preference. There is no neutrality what so ever.

That said, many worthy authorities have written and commented on the subject of Evolution with varying slants and focus. Many have written on Darwinian Evolution speaking for or against it. Others have touched on aspects related to the Biblical account such as creation, age of the earth and many such perspectives. As earlier hinted at, among the Christians that have pointed out the weaknesses of Evolution and thus establishing Creationism include Dr. Luther Sunderland, Girt Werner and George Price. These have been strict creationists holding on to what the Bible asserts from a presuppositional stand point. Others, although claiming to be Christians, have sought to integrate some theistic evolutionary views. Others have stuck to the Biblical account of creation but asserting that the world was created billions of years ago, since the Bible does not give a strict time frame when creation took place. In this category, we have listed some of the current prominent ones and thus not need repeat their names.

There is equally a fair share, if not the majority of writers today who not only assume the fact of evolution but actually contend for it as a dogma. Any one that dares refute or challenge Evolution instantly or indirectly pays the price in due course. While some scientists openly acknowledge the limitations of evolution (such as Dr. Gourd), even at times calling it all sorts of names, others are die hard advocates of it. They will not accept theistic evolution in any form because they believe that evolution inherently has a random mechanism to "order" its path without any external help, interference or presence of a supreme intelligent being. As stated before, Stephen Hawkins, Richard Dawkins among others tow this fundamentalist hard line.

Critical Lessons learnt from the consideration

This subject of evolution and creation is emotive in many circles. However, a thorough consideration of this subject leaves lasting lessons on one's mind. The points that follow highlight some of the salient points worth noting:

* Evolution fails on the cosmological perspective as on other fronts.

* Biology better speaks for creation rather than for Evolution.

* God is the ultimate source of all information and thus life unlike what mechanistic evolution tries to assert.

* Theistic evolution is as groundless and unbiblical as rank evolution.

* The Creation doctrine is more consistent to science (i.e. experimentation etc.).

* Basic principles and premise of science (as advanced by Popper) are to be used as a bench mark to assess evolution, theistic evolution and creation. Then an objective conclusion may be arrived at.

* Using the above premise, Creation emerges as the clear winner, as it is closer to and more consistent with science.

* Theology has not been spared by evolution invasion since it is presently all pervasive and greatly influential. Evolutionary ideas have been engrafted and integrated into exegesis.

* At the end of the day, no objectivity or neutrality can be arrived at since the interpretation of data and reasoning is affected or shaped by one's outlook to life, their world view. What may be best is to have a standard by which all claims may be tested. Kuhn and Popper's description of Science is a good and valid point.

* Evolution remains a mere theory (not a scientific one, as Gitt asserts) rather than fact as some scientists would like us to believe.

* Theistic evolution is equally dangerous and must be snubbed.

* There are some basic assumptions needed for every theory including evolution itself. These may be said to be some presuppositions.

* Karl R Popper is one of the respected authorities in Scientific circles. He has done an important work, especially in defining what science is.

* Science is supposed to be empirical and objective. Experimentation is the bedrock of science. Thus, in an ideal sense, science is supposed to be objective, neutral and factual.

* Science however has its limitations and cannot be used to judge/measure or investigate things or phenomena outside its scope.

* If a theory is successful, it does not follow that it is therefore correct, as Popper has rightly observed.

* A theory may survive as long as no contradiction shows up.

* Experimentation can prove a theory wrong or right.

* A theory only becomes a Law after many experimentations arriving at the same conclusion.

* Anything that cannot be verified by experimentation is philosophical.

* Sure knowledge is elusive even after much experimentation, because it is based on hypothesis, which hypothesis may be wrong.

* A theory must be testable by repeatable experimentation.

* It is impossible to reconcile Evolution and Creation. These are two different views on origins.

* Even evolution has some basic assumptions such as it being taken for granted, organisms having a common ancestor, evolution is all over and ongoing, the first cell just suddenly appeared and there is no supernatural.

* The driving forces of evolution are: mutation, selection, isolation and mixing. Evolution assumes that new genetic information is consistently being formed from nothing.

* Evolution assumes that there is no purpose to nature as everything is random.

* Evolution holds that there is no definite beginning of nature nor an end. Further, it asserts that the age of an entity can be determined or estimated from the past, e.g. the speed of light which is assumed to be constant through space.

* Evolution rejects the Bible as merely a human piece of writing. Evolution itself has never been proved to be true either.

* Creation has its own assumptions as well such as creation ex-nihilo, a creator exists (first cause of all things), creation being a universal principle, the creator being incomprehensible and yet powerful to create all things, natural laws being established at creation , some things not being explained scientifically and yet exist, there is a purpose for which creation took place, there is design and order in creation, creation has both a beginning and end point, sin has changed a lot of things in creation order and that a catastrophic global flood destroyed the world, hence the extinction of some species. Creation also assumes that the work of creation is complete but providence sustains and orders all things such as life begetting life or genetic information being complete, none created afresh. What happens are different combinations that all (i.e. micro-evolution).

* Theories can and are consistently improved upon.

* Theistic evolution also has its own basic assumptions which float in between those of creation or evolution. For instance, theistic evolution treats the Bible as a secondary source of information, thus not important.

Conclusion

Creation and evolution are incompatible. Both are not scientific theories in the strictest sense of the word but one makes more sense and thus more compelling. Although some religious people have attempted to rationalize and accommodate Evolution in the creation story, this is clearly not tenable. The Biblical passages talk about a clear six day creation order which is nowhere graduated into millions of billions of years let alone a continuous gradual process over time as some allege. Time is the major ingredient that would support process evolution but is clearly in short supply in the Biblical Genesis account. The Christian, whilst being objective and scholarly, can safely rest on the inspired text for their facts and assurance.

References

Behe M.(2007). The Edge of Evolution,

Bento B. & Zalel S. In "Einstein was wrong! New Theory claims that Big Bang was NOT start of life: 'Always Something,'" express.co.uk (15th October, 2021). Available at: http://opr.news/56fe3ac6211015en_zm?link=1&client=news accessed on 15/10/2021.

Burge T.(2005). Science and the Bible: evidence Based Christian Belief, Templeton Foundation Press.

Craig L.W.(1984). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway Books.

Craig L.W.(2021). In Quest for the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration, Eerdmanns.

Dawkins R.(2006). The God delusion, Bantam Publishers.

Dembski W.A.(n.d.). Why Natural Selection can't design anything, Discovery Institute (Baylor university) .

DeYou g K.(2014). Taking God at His Word, Illinois: Crossway Books.

Dockery D & Thornbury D. (2002). Shaping a Christian World view, Broadman & Holman.

Gitt W.(2001). Did God use Evolution? Ebner Ulm.

Kuhn T.S.(1996). The structure of scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press.

Plantinga A.(n.d.). Darwin, Mind and Meaning, University of Notre dame.

Popper K.(2002). The Logic of scientific discovery, Routledge Classics.

Sunderland L.(1992). Darwins' Enigma, Master Book Publishers.

Swamidass J.S. Why I went Public Peaceful Science (2020). available at: https://peacefulscience.org/articles/why-i-went-public-evolution/?gclid=CjwKCAjw8KmLBhB8EiwAQbqNoBRGeXdg-aODHJteM5YuEPAV3AzjRelHKXXxgNJ0bHKOIVibE6HrghoCMM8QAvD_BwE, accessed on 16/11/2021.

Thompson B.(1986). The Flood of Noah, Baker Book house.

Wright J.(1994). Designer Universe, Monarch.

Notes:

1. Some call it 'intellectual suicide'
2. This includes the Gap theory espoused by Dr Chalmers and others
3. Incidentally, more and more people veering towards this route
4. i.e. the process itself
5. Or 'supreme being'
6. As quoted by Gitt in 'Did God use Evolution? '
7. On the Beagle