It is often said that debating an issue doesn’t really open minds to new possibilities as much as it creates more staunch believers on both sides. This seems to be the case (though I hope not for the wrong reasons) in my own study of evolution. As a Christian with a firm understanding of the gospel I have my own convictions about what could or could not have happened at the beginning of life if I am to be consistent. I will briefly summarize these with the understanding that they are based on theology rather than science.
A “normal” reading of the first chapter of Genesis seems to indicate that the Earth was created in six consecutive literal days. There have indeed been many attempts to explain how this account of creation and evolution can coexist but I don’t find them adequate. The only possible interpretation that I can imagine holding which does not teach a young Earth is the “framework” view. This is the view that the Bible does not attempt to give an account of creation that is precise at any level. Rather, the first two chapters of Genesis are attempts to teach that God is the Creator in ways that man would have understood. I do not accept this view for reasons that will become clear in succeeding points but I do find it to be a more honest interpretation than other “old Earth” attempts.
Throughout Scripture Genesis is treated as a historical narrative writing which was inspired by God, therefore its account of creation should be taken literally. Probably the best example of this is when Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24 and attributes the narration not to Moses but to the Creator.
The central Biblical themes (creation, fall, redemption, and restoration) all find root in the idea that God created life before death entered the world. The framework of biblical theology seems to be that God created a world that was good, Adam’s fall brought the curse (including death) into the world, Christ died to save his people from the eternal curse of the wrath of God, and in the end all of creation will be restored to being good. If death was actually in the world before the fall it turns many biblical arguments on their head.
Because of these convictions I was already predisposed to disbelief in evolution and belief in creationism before I began a scientific study of evolution. However, I believe that this predisposition to disbelief in evolution has mostly had a freeing effect which allows me to examine the “evidence” without already adhering to the system. After reading the most rigid of proponents for both sides of the argument I do not see compelling evidence that can be examined and give us a history of life. Instead it seems that much of the evidence finds meaning only when it is combined with presuppositions about its origin and purpose. For evolutionists all living things have descended from a common cell, for creationists all things were created with a specific purpose to glorify the Creator. If I may make one more theological point, I do not think this is a problem. From a biblical perspective the evidence from creation can be interpreted but not so much in the way we would like to think. Creation is meant to declare the glory of God, show us something of His attributes, and ultimately it will be full of those who know and love Him. We do not find any biblical evidence that the Earth is able to point us to a perfect account of its own beginning.
From a scientific perspective I don’t find evolution as compelling as the secular world because I don’t find their arguments to be as solid as the world seems to. Vestigial organs are far too convenient an argument for evolution as they are a claim from non-knowledge. DNA similarities between species should be expected in the same way that an analysis of the blueprints for several different types of home should have varying levels of similarity. Two-level houses will be more similar to each other than a trailer and an apartment complex. This doesn’t prove that the homes have any more of a relationship to each other than the same school of thought behind the design. Finally, the fossil record, which is admittedly incomplete, seems to be used to fit every theory in existence. What it has not shown, however, is compelling evidence that species have evolved across the boundaries of species or the biblical “kinds”.
What makes creationism vastly more appealing than evolution is that it holds to things which can be proven scientifically (such as microevolution) without the need for experiments that contradict any naturalistic presuppositions. Because they believe in a Creator they do not fret over the gaps in their knowledge, rather, they assume that those gaps are filled in by scientifically explainable systems that have been put into place by a grand Creator. Finally, they are able to hold firmly to their beliefs despite being treated as the outcasts of science by virtually the entire field. It is surely an important thing to study evolution and come to personal conclusions, however, I do not find that the evidence leads to such a sad, impossible faith.
Grace and Peace,
Stephen
