Creation and Evolution -- 3/2/08

Sunday, February 17, 2008

CREATION AND EVOLUTION

People have been asking me all morning about this tower (pointing to tower sitting on the platform). What’s the big deal? People want to know how it got there. I keep saying that it was there when I came over this morning. Maybe you are wondering about it too. It was there when I came over, but you want to know how it got there. I think I know the answer. There were these 64 blocks lying here, and during the long hours of the night they assembled themselves into this tower. It seems obvious that this is what happened. Of course, you can see the logic of my thinking.

What do you think? I can see great skepticism written all over you. Is there a single person here who believes my story, who can accept the idea that these blocks organized themselves into a tower over night? Not one. Surely the fallacy of my thinking is that the hours of the night provide too short a time period for the forming of this tower. What if we were to leave the blocks here for a year? Or, let’s do better than that – let’s give them a hundred years. What do you think are the chances of coming in here after a hundred years and finding these blocks in the form of a tower?

Most of you can see where this is headed. Let’s move from the concept of these blocks forming a tower to the presence of the universe. We accept the concept that we are living on the planet called earth, which is part of an immense universe. We can see thousands of stars and with a telescope we can see millions. When a person takes time to think, sooner or later this question has to present itself: “Where did it all come from? How did it get here?” If these blocks couldn’t form themselves into a tower, then could the universe have organized itself? I have a friend who thinks so. When I presented him with the analogy of the blocks and the tower, he told me in no uncertain terms that I didn’t have a clue about what can happen if given enough time and chance. He firmly believes that given billions of years, anything can happen by chance, even the formation of the universe and everything in it.

element of chance + billions of years = universe and everything in it

Let’s come again to Genesis 1. Let’s read it together… Gen. 1:1-31…
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13. And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

I. The Strong Influence of Evolution

Most of us grew up with some knowledge of Genesis 1. For quite a few people of my
generation, it was pretty common knowledge that God made the universe and everything in it. For most of us, those concepts were not difficult to accept. We certainly didn’t have perfect understanding, but we simply believed what the Bible said.

However, when we went to school, we were exposed to some other concepts. We had science classes. As I progressed from grade to grade, I received more than a little bit of evolutionary indoctrination. When I was a freshman in high school, I took my first biology class. I respected my teacher and he respected me. I remember on one occasion asking him if he knew the Lord. He responded like this: “Ron, you remind me of myself when I was your age. But then I went to college. Because of the things I learned there, I could no longer believe in God.” I believe my teacher thought the same would happen to me when I went to college. He is the friend who insists that anything can happen, given chance and enough time.

Though I was a trusting person, I wasn’t buying evolution. I could not accept what I believed to contradict the Word of God. In that biology class, I had opportunity to write a research paper concerning why I believed the Bible’s account of creation. My teacher gave me an A, along with the comment: “Keep an open mind.”

When Darwin introduced his theory of evolution in his book The Origin of Species (1859), one might have wondered if anyone would believe it. It seemed rather farfetched. A century later great inroads had been made. Today most people in this country accept it as fact. Darwin’s philosophy has become deeply ingrained in our educational system. At the heart of his teaching is the conclusion that there is no need for a Creator. As Lee Strobel puts it, acceptance of Darwin’s evolutionary theory puts God out of a job (in The Case for a Creator, p. 19).

Now it is true that there are those who maintain that Darwin’s theory is not in conflict with the Bible. A Cornell professor and evolutionist and atheist, wrote this: “A widespread theological view now exists saying that God started off the world, props it up and works through laws of nature, very subtly, so subtly that its action is undetectable. But that kind of God is effectively no different to my mind than atheism” (quoted in The Case for a Creator, p. 22). Phillip Johnson says that “the whole point of Darwinism is to show that there is no need for a supernatural creator, because nature can do the creating by itself” (The Case for a Creator, p. 23).

One well-known evangelical pastor says… (John MacArthur, “The How, When of Creation – Part 2”)

And I think it's safe to say that the lie that the universe as we know it today evolved is the most sophisticated, complex and highly educated lie in existence. It has, for all intents and purposes, captivated the entire world. It is believed by the greatest mass of humanity, at least in the western world. And even though it is impossible and irrational, it is nonetheless perpetuated with great force and with great academic effort. Modern evolutionary theory has demanded and received almost universal acceptance in the world. The theory that no one created the universe as it is, but that it came into being by chance and it progresses through constant changes, mutations and transitions upwardly from simplicity to complexity completely through a random process basically rules human thought.

Because we live in La Luz, New Mexico, we might be inclined to question such a conclusion. It seems that a number of people around us would argue with the conclusions of evolution. But go to New York City or London and I suspect you will find it that way. And there are many more people in New York City than in La Luz, or in all of New Mexico. Evolution has taken the western world by storm. And that is why we are taking a bit of time this morning to deal with this issue. Every Christian will be confronted by the philosophy of evolution. And though we don’t have time to explore it this morning, understand that evolution is more than a biological theory; it is a philosophy that permeates all of western society.

II. Major Problems with Evolution

So what is the problem with the theory of evolution? We’re not talking about microevolution, the concept that small-scale changes take place in a population over a few generations. For example, through much care a new breed of cow can appear. But that is much different than macroevolution, which is the concept that through mutations and natural selection an entire new species or kind can evolve. In other words, macroevolution leaves room for a reptile to evolve into a fish and an ape into a man. Darwin’s theory clearly teaches macroevolution, confidently asserting that all living creatures evolved from the same ancestor. So what is the problem with that concept?

There are two immediate problems. We can’t find anything like that in the Bible, not even in the creation story of Genesis 1 and 2. We will talk more about this in a minute. Secondly, it is being recognized by more and more scientists that macroevolution is a theory that is not supported by true science. Let me mention just a few of the problems with evolution from a scientific viewpoint.

First of all, evolution theorizes that all forms of life come from one common ancestor. Life began as a one-celled organism and from that one organism has come plants, animals, and even human beings. This theory relies heavily on mutations and natural selection. The random genetic changes occur, and those that benefit the species are preserved through survival of the fittest. Through this process, life has evolved over time, even into the sophisticated human body of today.

This concept clearly teaches that life mutates upward. In other words, everything moves from the simple to the complex – from disorganized matter, to a living cell, to living organisms, to far more complex organisms, even the human body. But is that what we find? In fact, do we not find exactly the opposite? John Cross makes this observation: “Everything runs down, breaks down or wears out” (The Stranger on the Road to Emmaus, p. 47). Though some might consider Cross’ little statement an oversimplication, we find our own experience and the record of history confirming that contention. We are told that from the time of birth, the human body is wearing out.

Let’s go back to our tower. If we lay these blocks randomly on the stage, leave them for a week, what will we find when we come back? Provided no human or animal has come in, I predict that we will find them just as we left them. But what if we leave them for a year? I predict the exact same result. But what about a thousand years? By then, this building will be gone. And what about these blocks? What do you predict? Does anyone think they will be in the shape of this tower or any other organized structure? Everything we know tells us that the longer you leave them, the more disorganized they will become. Evolution stands on its insistence that time can account for about anything. The famous Harvard professor George Wald wrote these words…

The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event. . . given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. . . . Time is in fact the hero of the plot. . . . Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs miracles. (Wald, George. "The Origin of Life." The Physics and Chemistry of Life, by the editors of Scientific American [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955]: 3-26).
But as our little illustration demonstrates, time does not favor the evolutionary concepts.

Here is another problem with evolution. Today many scientists are coming to believe that life is too complex to arise by chance. Many emphasize the fact that information plays a key part in cell formation, etc. Even if all the physical elements required for life are present, that isn’t enough. And that information is found in DNA. But how is the DNA formed? Where does the required information come from before the formation of DNA? Many scientists are coming to the belief that intelligence was a basic requirement for the creation of life.

Add to those problems this perplexing question: Where did the raw materials for life come from? Even if we were to concede that given chance and enough time, these blocks would form a tower, where do we get the blocks? Where did we get the raw materials for life? Life requires oxygen. But where did the oxygen come from? This is a very tough question for evolutionists to answer.

Another problem with evolution is the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. In other words, if it is true that dinosaurs evolved into birds, then where are the fossilized remains of the forms between dinosaurs and birds? A few years ago some were convinced that such a fossil had been found in Arizona. Referred to as “Archaeopteryx,” it was believed to be a dinosaur with feathers. However, a few weeks later National Geographic printed a retraction, saying that Archaeopteryx had been proven to be a hoax. In other words, fossils from more than one creature had been put together. Later, other authorities proved it was not a fake. It seems that the final conclusion was this: Archaeoperyx was a bird, not a dinosaur with feathers. It was a large perching bird, the oldest fossilized bird known.

Of course, evolutionists contend that other transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds have been found. The problem is that their own dating methods show Archaopteryx to be millions of years older than these transitional forms. That does pose a problem.

Finally, there is the problem with lack of integrity. Of course, this has been a problem with both evolutionists and creationists. Let me mention one example. The name of this German biologist is Ernst Haeckel. He was once proclaimed to be “Darwin’s Bulldog on the Continent.” Darwin and others reasoned that similarities in embryonic development would point to a common ancestry. Haeckal produced a series of drawings which demonstrated this. For example, he compared the earliest embryonic stages of a dog and a human, showing the similarities. The problem lies in the fact that the photographs he used for his drawings bear almost no resemblance to the drawings he made. Add to that the fact that Haeckal did not use the early stages of embryo development, as he said he did. Rather, he carefully selected the stages where the similarities were greatest.

We might excuse this incident as an example of a man who believed so strongly in evolution that he became overzealous in his cause. However, that is not the end of the story. The pictures of Haeckel’s embryos can still be found in biology textbooks, even graduate level textbooks. Though these drawings were proven to be fraudulent and misleading in 1874, shortly after they were published, they are still being used almost a century and a half later.

III. Does It Really Matter? Relevance and Accommodating Theories

It is easy to see that the debate between evolutionists and creationists is a very intense one. Perhaps we should ask the question: “Does it really matter?” If part of Darwin’s goal was to show that there is no need for a Creator, then certainly it does matter. However, this is where we must ask another question: “Is it possible that God used evolution as His tool for creating the universe and everything in it?” This idea is basically referred to as “theistic evolution,” which simply means “God-directed evolution.” Many evangelical Christians down through the years have held to this view.

Behind that question is another question: “Why have many evangelical Christians accepted the idea that God used evolution as His means of creation?” The answer is fairly simple. On the one hand, the Bible says clearly that God created the heavens and the earth. Surely a Christian will not side with Darwin and say that there is no need for a Creator. No, the Christian will contend that it was God who created the universe and everything in it. On the other hand, that same Christian has studied science all his life, because it is a part of the educational process. Beginning with Darwin and others in the mid 1800’s, science began to teach the theory of evolution. It began slowly, but by the time of the Scopes Trials in 1925, its influence had spread dramatically. During the last 75 years the dissemination of this theory through the public school system has made it widely acceptable.

Many Christians grew up trusting their teachers and other authorities. If science says that the earth is millions (now billions) of years old and that man evolved from lower forms of life, then it must be true. So how do we harmonize the truth of the Bible with the teachings of science? Of course, the assumption is that the assertions of evolution are true.

While I would not accept these claims from an atheist biology teacher, I received them from the professors at a Christian college. They emphasized the fact that the Bible will never contradict science. Therefore, we must not be afraid to look for biblical interpretations that will be in harmony with science. What I failed to recognize was the assumption that everything that claims to be science is true science. While it is true that science (a word which means “knowledge”) will not contradict the Bible, it is also true that not everything that claims to be science is science.

The rise of evolution found Christians revising their interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis, because they assumed that evolutionary theory must be correct. Because they were certain that the Bible is God’s Word, they had to find a way to harmonize these two “truths.” Theistic evolutionists teach that God is indeed the Creator, but He uses evolution as His means of creation. In other words, God was the superintendent of evolution, so that things turned out exactly as He had intended. The theistic evolutionist tries to maintain belief in an all-powerful God and belief in evolution. Most theistic evolutionists would say that God intervened in the process at some crucial points (as in the creation of matter, the formation of the first life, and the creation of man).

So is there any problem with theistic evolution? The biggest problem I have with theistic evolution concerns the purposes of God. According to the testimony of scripture, God always acts with purpose. That was the case in creation. I cannot harmonize such purpose with the theory of evolution, because evolution makes much of things happening randomly, or by chance. In other words, the first life came about by chance. Certain elements just happened to get together and organize themselves into a life form. Higher forms of life developed through random mutations.

Again, theistic evolutionists may say, “But we believe God intervened at certain times.” But if that is the case, why appeal to evolution in the first place? True evolution does not allow for the intervention of a Creator. Rather than having God guide evolution and intervene at critical points, why not just believe that God created everything directly, as a simple reading of Genesis 1 and 2 would dictate?

Theistic evolution tries to harmonize two systems that are basically incompatible. While those who believe in God the Creator want to befriend evolution to explain origins, rest assured that true evolutionists do not want to include God in their explanation of origins. Theologian Louis Berkhof once said: “Theistic evolution is really a child of embarrassment, which calls God in at periodic intervals to help nature over the chasms that yawn at her feet. It is neither the biblical doctrine of creation, nor a consistent theory of evolution” (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 139-40; as quoted from Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 279). As I see it, that is the bottom line.

Another phenomenon that muddies the water is the claims of geology. When man studies origins, I suppose it is very natural for him to want to find out how old everything is. When we think about origins and age, certain questions arise? How long ago was it that the universe was formed? Depending upon a person’s beliefs, he may then ask when man first appeared on the scene? Does the Bible have any answers to these questions? Do the answers of the Bible need to be consistent with the answers of geologists?

For the most part, until a couple of hundred years ago, Christians believed that mankind was a few thousands of years old. Most believed about 6,000 years, based on the genealogies in the Bible. Most Christians also believed that the universe was the same age, concluding that God created everything in six days. Ex. 20:11, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

But close to 300 years ago geologists began to report that the earth was millions of years old. The age has grown, until now most estimates are around 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth. There is a great difference between about 6,000 years and about 4.5 billion years. Surely either the Bible or geology is wrong. Facing such a radical difference, Bible believers found a theory that they believed could accommodate both. The primary founder of this concept was Thomas Chalmers in 1814, although some contend that it was much older. At any rate, it was Chalmers and a man named William Pember about 50 years later who popularized it. It is the “Ruin Reconstruction” model and is commonly referred to as the Gap theory. It received its greatest popularity through its inclusion in the Schofield Reference Bible in 1917.

The Gap theory teaches that there is a great gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It’s defenders note that it is possible to translate Gen. 1:2, “And the earth became without form and void…” (This is true, although this translation must be demanded by the context). According to this view, God’s creation is seen in verse 1 and His destructive judgment in verse 2. In between are billions of years, during which the bulk of the fossils were laid down. Then beginning with the end of verse 2, “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters,” we read of the 6-day creation. While there are other reasons some Christians hold to the gap theory (such as finding a time for the creation and fall of Satan), the primary reason is to accommodate the biblical record to fit the geologic timetable. Christians who hold this view generally believe in a young man but an old earth.

Others have found other ways to deal with the billions of years. This has stirred decades of debate over the meaning of the word “day” in the Genesis account. While it is true that the Hebrew word “yom” can have a variety of meanings, it is equally true that it can mean a literal 24-hour day. The driving force behind the reinterpretation of “day” in Genesis 1 is the geologists’ belief that the earth is billions of years old. For that reason some have attempted to make each day of Genesis 1 represent very long periods of time.

So what about it? Ken Ham, a strong advocate of a literal 6-day creation, tells the story of a young college student who confronted one of his professors (I believe it was in a Christian college). The professor was expounding on the fact that the Hebrew word “yom” (day) can have a variety of meanings. The student began to question him like this: “Could it mean a thousand years?” “Oh yes.” “Could it mean a million years?” “Certainly.” “Even a billion years?” “Definitely.” “Could it mean a 24-hour period?” “Absolutely not!”

I don’t claim to be an expert in these matters, but it appears to me that a person has to stretch and twist the meaning of the scriptures to accommodate it to the scientific theory that the earth is billions of years old. Again, Exodus 20:11 says, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." We know that the Sabbath day refers to a 24-hour period. To take the “six days” as something different will call for a very compelling reason. I don’t believe the theories of geology are compelling. Dating methods and conclusions are constantly changing. Authors give examples of geologic dating methods concluding that living mollusks are up to 2,300 years old (Keith, M.S. and Anderson, G.M. 1963. Science, August 16) and that rocks formed less than 200 years ago are somewhere between 160 million and 3 billion years old (Funkhouser, John G. and Naughton, John J. 1968. Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15). While there are scientists who contend that undeniable evidence indicates the earth is billions of years old, other scientists (some who are not Christian) deny that “undeniable evidence.

Now listen to me carefully. The point I want to make is this: We must be very careful about interpreting the Bible in light of man’s science, whether it be biological science, sociological science, or psychological science. Let me give you an example. In response to a question about what is the greatest commandment, Jesus said: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 22:37-39). Perhaps you have heard of the story of the student who wrote himself a reminder: J-O-Y. When asked what it meant, he explained it: Jesus first, others second, yourself last. That kind of thinking was pretty well accepted among Christians, until it was challenged by the psychology of the last couple centuries. I was a senior in college when a senior psychology major came in as a substitute for our speech teacher. I don’t remember how it came up, but we all became involved in a discussion about that second greatest commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” With absolute confidence, she informed all of us young preacher boys that we could never love our neighbor until we love ourselves. Therefore, our first need is to learn how to love ourselves. Understand that she learned that interpretation of scripture from those who are steeped in the psychological concepts of unbelievers like Freud. Man’s so-called science has shaped (misshaped) the clear meaning of scripture for many.

Do we not find the same thing with regard to Genesis 1-2? But if evolution is indeed true, then we must rethink what the Bible says in these early chapters. Here’s the problem: During the past 150 years, Christians have been quick to rethink the Bible rather than to demand that theorists rethink their theories. Who says that evolution is true? Who says that the earth is billions of years old? When I was younger, the scientific rage was carbon dating. We could say with authority that the earth was millions or billions of years old because the carbon dating method said so. But one method of dating is quickly replaced with another, and rarely do they agree.

Conclusion

I realize that we have spent a great deal of time discussing evolution this morning. In general, I do not feel comfortable spending so much time on the theories of man, but in this case it seems necessary because of the tremendous influence of evolutionary thought on western culture. I also am very aware that we haven’t even scratched the surface.

The one point I want to emphasize this morning is simply this: Don’t interpret the Bible in light of what science says. Scientific theories come and go, but the Word of God shall stand forever (Is. 40:8). Of course, we must acknowledge that there are areas where science has been right and man’s interpretation of the Bible has been wrong. The Bible wasn’t wrong, but man’s interpretation was. That is why we need to study the Word diligently and rely upon the Spirit to guide us.

So might the same be true in the area of creation? While that is a possibility, we must remember the presuppositions of evolution. Evolutionary theory did not come about as a simple search for truth. It was saturated with an anti-God bias. Let me read you a quote from an evolutionist named Richard Lewontin, a geneticist from Harvard…

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism… It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
(“Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, p. 31.)

The language is rather lofty, but he is saying that we must accept scientific claims even when they don’t make sense. Why is that? Because we are absolutely committed to a no-God materialism. The one thing we can never admit is that there might be a God. It kind of sounds like the kind of attitude that Christians are accused of having.

Always remember the simplicity of the Christian position. We don’t have all the answers, but we do have an advantage over all others when it comes to the subject of origins. While it is true that none of us where there when the universe was created, we have the only record which claims to be the report of an eyewitness, even God the Creator. He has given us His testimony, and we can trust that testimony.

Read Psalm 8