July 15, 2004, Vol.4, No.14.
Two new articles every two weeks.
Bible Question? E-mail
us.
THIS ISSUE: "Evolution
and the Bible" (see below)
and "More on Evolution"
Series: Evidence for Faith
Evolution and the
Bible
guest article by Wayne S. Walker
We have now finished a group of articles in this series in
which we have looked at some of the evidences for God's existence
as the Creator. Of course, our primary source for such evidence
is the record that God Himself has left us.
"Then God said, 'Let us make man in Our image, according
to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the
sea, over the birds of the air, and over cattle, over all the
earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth'
...Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was
very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
(Genesis 1:26-31).
One way that unbelievers have attempted to explain away God
as Creator is by the theory of evolution. So we turn our attention
to a short discussion of this important topic.
Evolution as an explanation for the origin and development
of life on earth is very pervasive in our society. Not only is
it promoted in college and university scientific studies, but
it is found in high school and even elementary school science
texts, as well as children's nature videos, television shows,
books, and magazines. Even though some of the latter may not
overtly teach it, they contain evidences of the evolutionary
bias of the authors and editors. But in spite of the fact that
an admittedly overwhelming majority of the "intelligentsia"
today seem to accept evolution, it is not as dead a controversy
as some evolutionists would like to have us believe.
First, we must define our subject, which is not necessarily
the easiest thing to do. The Encyclopedia Brittanica lists
some twenty-two different theories of evolution. Basically, the
concept of evolution can be defined in two ways. First, there
is the special theory of evolution which states simply that change
occurs within specifically defined limits. This is observable
and not subject to reasonable argument. Second, there is the
general theory of evolution. Batsell Barrett Baxter defined it
in this way:
"The word evolution is generally understood
to refer to the hypothesis or theory that all life on earth originated
from non-living matter and that all forms of life on the earth
today came from some original form of life by a connected series
of changes, which at every point were only natural, and are therefore
explainable by science." (I Believe Because...
p.119).
As you can see, there is great room for equivocation and confusion
here. When we talk about "evolution" in common conversation,
we usually mean the general theory. However, what the proponents
of the general theory do is take the evidence that plainly exists
for the special theory (microevolution), extrapolate it, and
then present it claiming that it corroborates their general theory
(macroevolution). They often claim also that all "good"
scientists accept the general theory of evolution. However, the
fact is that there are many scientists who are believers in creation,
and many of them are working hard to see that the theory of "scientific
creationism" or "intelligent design" is given
a fair hearing. This results in public conflicts arising from
time to time between creationists and evolutionists.
Therefore, even though it may not always be as "hyped
up" now as a few years ago, evolution as a subject which
is being taught in our schools is a topic that is still controversial
and worthy of discussion. The atheists, evolutionists, and humanists
evidently recognize this. In A Secular Humanist Declaration,
they state,
"Today the theory of evolution is again under heavy
attack by religious fundamentalism. Although the theory of evolution
cannot be said to have reached its final formulation, or to be
an infallible principle of science, it is nonetheless supported
impressively by the findings of many sciences... Accordingly,
we deplore the efforts by fundamentalists (especially in the
United States) to invade the science classrooms, requiring that
creationist theory be taught to students and requiring that it
be included in biology textbooks. This is a serious threat both
to academic freedom and to the integrity of the educational process."
(p. 21).
Why should we not, rather, deplore the efforts of humanists
to invade the science classrooms, requiring that only evolutionist
theory, which they cannot prove under any circumstances, be taught
and included in biology textbooks, without any reasonable alternative
explanations? This would seem to be a more serious threat to
both academic freedom and the integrity of the educational process.
In any event, the evolutionists have, in effect, declared war
on Bible believers, so we need to be ready for it! We plan to
do that in the next few articles of this series.
~ ~ ~
|
|
