Can the Doctrines of Evolution Be Reconciled with Faith in God?
September 12th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
Evolution was introduced as an atheistic alternative to the biblical view of creation. According to evolution, man created God rather than vice versa. And as we have seen, the evolutionists’ ultimate agenda is to eliminate faith in God altogether and thereby do away with moral accountability.
Intuition suggests a series of questions to the human mind when we contemplate our origin: Who is in control of the universe? Is there Someone who is sovereign—a Lawgiver? Is there a universal Judge? Is there a transcendent moral standard to live by? Is there Someone to whom will we be accountable? Will there be a final assessment of how we live our lives? Will there be any final judgment?
Those are the very questions evolution was invented to avoid.
Evolution was devised to explain away the God of the Bible—not because evolutionists really believed a Creator was unnecessary to explain how things began, but because they did not want the God of Scripture as their Judge. Marvin L. Lubenow writes,
The real issue in the creation/evolution debate is not the existence of God. The real issue is the nature of God. To think of evolution as basically atheistic is to misunderstand the uniqueness of evolution. Evolution was not designed as a general attack against theism. It was designed as a specific attack against the God of the Bible, and the God of the Bible is clearly revealed through the doctrine of creation. Obviously, if a person is an atheist, it would be normal for him to also be an evolutionist. But evolution is as comfortable with theism as it is with atheism. An evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the Bible. The gods allowed by evolution are private, subjective, and artificial. They bother no one and make no absolute ethical demands. However, the God of the Bible is the Creator, Sustainer, Savior, and Judge. All are responsible to him. He has an agenda that conflicts with that of sinful humans. For man to be created in the image of God is very awesome. For God to be created in the image of man is very comfortable. [Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 188-89.]
To put it simply, evolution was invented in order to eliminate the God of Genesis and thereby to oust the Lawgiver and obliterate the inviolability of His law. Evolution is simply the latest means our fallen race has devised in order to suppress our innate knowledge and the biblical testimony that there is a God and that we are accountable to Him (cf. Romans 1:28). By embracing evolution, modern society aims to do away with morality, responsibility, and guilt. Society has embraced evolution with such enthusiasm because people imagine that it eliminates the Judge and leaves them free to do whatever they want without guilt and without consequences.The evolutionary lie is so pointedly antithetical to Christian truth that it would seem unthinkable for evangelical Christians to compromise with evolutionary science in any degree. But over the past century and a half of evolutionary propaganda, evolutionists have had remarkable success in getting evangelicals to meet them halfway. Remarkably, many modern evangelicals—perhaps it would even be fair to say most people who call themselves evangelicals today—have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record. Thus they have not only capitulated to evolutionary doctrine at its starting point, but they have also embraced a view that undermines the authority of Scripture at its starting point.
So-called theistic evolutionists who try to marry humanistic theories of modern science with biblical theism may claim they are doing so because they love God, but the truth is that they love God a little and their academic reputations a lot. By undermining the historicity of Genesis they are undermining faith itself. Give evolutionary doctrine the throne and make the Bible its servant, and you have laid the foundation for spiritual disaster.
Scripture, not science, is the ultimate test of all truth. And the further evangelicalism gets from that conviction, the less evangelical and more humanistic it becomes.
Scripture cautions against false “knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20)—particularly so-called “scientific” knowledge that opposes the truth of Scripture. When what is being passed off as “science” turns out to be nothing more than a faith-based world-view that is hostile to the truth of Scripture, our duty to be on guard is magnified. And when naturalistic and atheistic presuppositions are being aggressively peddled as if they were established scientific fact, Christians ought to expose such lies for what they are and oppose them all the more vigorously. The abandonment of a biblical view of creation has already borne abundant evil fruit in modern society. Now is no time for the church to retreat or compromise on these issues. To weaken our commitment to the biblical view of creation would start a chain of disastrous moral, spiritual, and theological ramifications in the church that will greatly exacerbate the terrible moral chaos that already has begun the unravelling of secular society.
How do you explain so many evolutionists having faith?
This whole article is a nonsense. Evolution was not “invented” it was observed by botanists and geologists.
This argument has now reached the level of total absurdity.
Just to add: it’s a very modern phenomenon for religious texts to be taken so literally by the fundementalists who follow the Semitic faiths of Judiasm, Christianity and Islam.
It’s only since the texts have been so readily available in printed form (only the last 400 years or so) that fundementalist Christians have taken to such a rigid literal interpretation. Before then, how a text was interpreted was seen as a great skill and showed the wisdom of the interpreter.
Only recently have I understood what it is all about, and I praise the Lord every day for His wonderful creation.
You are soooo very right, and scince is confirming it, when a scientist lets go of his preconceptions and considers the facts.
God Bless You
Anna
Simon,
I have watched you comment on almost every thread in this series on evolution with anger and at times ad hominum attacks. Why?
Have you ever met or talked to Dr. MacArthur? Are you commenting here to prove your points or are you willing to listen? I once had many of the same views that you do. I have my BA in Anthropology with a heavy emphasis on evolution, but have seen through careful study that it is a “faith based religion”.
I do not plan to continue commenting back in forth to “win” a debate with you. I am commenting just to let you know that I am praying for you. I see so much of my past life in the comments you are making.
Hayden
PS You church history is a bit askew. You might want to read up on the early church fathers who did take a literal view of history. (Although, not all of them, but many did)
When we look at hard evidence, creation makes much mroe sense than macro-evolution.
Hayden, you seem to have your theist blinkers on. These posts are a series attacking atheism/naturalism. So it’s a bit rich to then accuse me of making attacks.
Hmm. Reading these comments is definitely interesting. In no place is the rational dichotomy between the Christian and the non-Christian so pronounced as when talking about the origins debate.
It is an interesting question that Simon raises. If Evolution is some sort of attack against the Christian God (and the Bible he wrote), then how WOULD one explain how so many Evolutionists have faith?
To answer that, one would need to define “faith”. But, in order to do that, we’d have to settle on a common authority for our definition. As a Christian, I would want to derive that definition from God, the source of all truth. The way I would derive that definition from God is to see what he’s said about it in his self revelation: the Bible. I’d want to know if God said anything along the lines of defining “faith”, and if he did, I would seek to align my understandings to God’s position on the issue; which is ultimate, objective and authoritative truth.
It’s at this juncture that the non-Christian (or possibly the person who calls himself “Christian” but doesn’t uphold the authority or relevance of the Bible) would raise his voice in objection and ask, “Why the Bible?” or “Why YOUR Bible?” You can see how the argument inevitably ends up being a debate on the nature of the scripture.
By definition, a Christian loves God and must, if they love God, obey the Bible for that is the very teaching of the Bible itself. 1 John 5:1-5 and John 14:23-24 are two passages that explicitly teach this, among many others (but I’m not here to write a book. If anyone wants to talk about any passage I present, feel free to bring it up).
Beyond obeying it, one must understand that is the only authority on all matters of truth, eclipsing even one’s personal experience. In 2 Peter 1:17-21, Peter presents that that the Bible exceeds his own dynamic personal experience of seeing Jesus in his glorified state (if only for a moment), and this is so because God wrote the Bible; it’s divinely authored.
And because it’s divinely authored, it’s true. True in the sense of Cartesian certainty; 100% correct, not 99.44%. God isn’t just smarter than me, he’s smarter than mankind as a whole. That would be part of being a creator; in the procedure of designing, constructing and maintaining something complex (like an X-Ray machine) I, the creator of said item, would have to understand how I designed and built and maintain it. And, if God is the designer, creator and sustainer of everything that is (including things like language, though, mathematics, etc.), then God has perfect knowledge of those things and the creatures that utilize them. God isn’t just smarter than me, he’s smarter than mankind as a whole, over the entirety of history. The Bible states this explicitly when, in 1 Corinthians 1:25, it says:
“For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.”
Even the stupidest thing God has ever done is smarter than the ultimate wisdom of all humanity, period.
So, if I have an authoritative revelation of God on an issue, I have certainty on the issue.
This brings us back to the question:
“How do you explain so many evolutionists having faith?”
If I’m seeking to stand on firm, objective, revealed truth, I am slapped in the face with only one answer.
Evolutionists cannot, by biblical testimony, have faith.
One might contest, saying, “Uh, what? They sure as heck seem to claim to be Christians! They believe in Jesus, read the Bible, go to church, pray, etc. Who are YOU to say that they DON’T have faith?”
Well, I’m nobody to say anything. Good thing it’s not my idea. That’s the great thing about being a Christian. I don’t have a whole lot of original ideas (or any, for that matter); God told me what faith is and I’d only dare suggest that God is correct.
So one says,”Okay. What did GOD tell you faith is?”
For that, I could type a few thousand pages, but I’ll stick with one pretty good passage (again, if anyone wants, I’ll show this from any of a few dozen other passages in the Bible. I only pick one to stop this from turning into a book!); Romans 4:1-12.
Romans 4 is commenting on how Abraham was made righteous by God, and in the midst of the argument is what I’d suggest to be a great little definition of “faith”.
In verse 3 of Romans 4, Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 when he writes:
“What does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness’.”
Then, in verse 9, Paul rephrases his quotation and says “We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness.”
Now where in here do I get a definition of “faith”?
Well, in the 3rd verse it says “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
So what is the “it” that was credited to him as righteousness?
“Abraham believed God…”
Believed God about WHAT?
If you look back in Genesis, you see that in 15:4-5, God promises Abraham a son (who we learn later to be Isaac).
So God made a promise and Abraham believed him.
Now, jumping back to Romans, Paul restates his quotation and says “…Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness…”
Instead of saying “it” or “believed God”, Paul says “faith”. I would suggest that Paul saw “believing God’s promise” and “faith” as synonymous.
So, IF “faith” is “believing God” (or what God says), then do Evolutionists have a biblical definition of “faith”? Do they believe what God says about the origin of life?
Does not God comment in plain language that he created the Earth in 6, 24 hour periods, a few thousand years ago (not a few billion). Do Evolutionists believe God’s testimony or do they toss out the ONLY account of the event from the ONLY living eye-witness in a search for a more “scientifically reasonable” explanation?
I don’t know about you, but I would suspect that if there was a car accident in Tokyo and I, who saw nothing of the accident, showed up and attempted to argue about what happened with an eye-witness, one may think MY efforts were absurd.
Does it strike you as strange how so many people with PhD’s can do EXACTLY that and wonder how anyone could ever disagree with them?
Do you not find it strange, TAT, that a god would create the universe as described in the Bible, while making it appear it was created in no such way? I don’t understand why a god would go to so much trouble making the earth look 4 billion years old and leaving fossils to make it appear life had evolved.
“Proof,” I said, “is always a relative thing. It’s an overwhelming balance of probabilities.” Philip Marlowe, Farewell My Lovely.
Well, when I look at the data, I don’t see 4 billion years. But then again, that’s just it: DATA only becomes EVIDENCE when it’s interpreted.
Take a map for example. A map is a whole bunch of lines, shapes, colors and symbols. It could be a road map, a star map, a neurosynaptic map, etc. Now I may look at a map and say “hmmm. I don’t have a clue what this is but I’ll try to decipher it.” I could examine the red lines and think “Hmm, well, these look like roads” and suspect that they’re roads. I could look at the purple “x” marks and think “these must be railroad crossings”. I could go through all the symbols and sort through everything and apply my logic, as best I can, to decipher the map.
But how would I KNOW I was correct?
I’d have to check the legend. The legend is the “key” to the map, which tells me what the lines, colors, shapes and symbols mean.
And when I look at the legend, THEN I have a authoritative basis for interpreting the data of the map.
I’d suggest that if the Bible is true, then it’s the “legend” of creation. It’s the “key” to make sense of everything; not just morally too. The Bible gives us a general foundation for the operation of both ‘hard’ and ’soft’ science.
And when the Evolutionist examines the map (creation) without refering to the legend (scripture), they misinterpret the data. They see things as they are, but their understanding is horribly misaligned.
So when an Evolutionist examines a fossil record, he thinks “well, I understand how silt is laid down and I understand how pressure works on soil (etc.)” Then, he takes his observations and attempts to make a working interpretation of the fossil record to understand it.
But without the solid foundation of scripture (they eyewitness account of the only living eyewitness), the understanding of the Evolutionist is misaligned.
When I, the Chrisitan, looks at the same data, I take the SAME observations. I remember how silt is laid down and I think about pressure, but then I also remember that God says something about a worldwide flood in Earth’s past where EVERYTHING died. Then, I factor in the flood and say “Hmm. This flood helps explain other things like polystratic fossils, or how a dead organism survives long enough to even BE fossilized without being eaten or decomposed.”
Working from the same data, but DIFFERENT foundations, the Evolutionist and the Creationist see different interpretations of the data.
So I don’t see the earth as appearing 4 billion years old. I don’t see fossils giving the “illusion” of evolution. I see the earth looking several thousand years old and I see the fossils screaming at me that God judges sin.
WAY different conclusions!
So you’re saying that man lived with dinosaurs TAT? What about neanderthals? How do they fit in with all this?
Saint_Rukus,
Did dinosaurs coexist with man? The evidence is compelling that they did.
What about neanderthals? Again, the evidence suggests that they were 100% human, not a missing link.
Hope that helps.
NB
Nate B. “Did dinosaurs coexist with man? The evidence is compelling that they did.”
That article contains no evidence that man and dinos coexisted. What it does it try to explain why there is no evidence, by twisting the evidence to fit the picture you guys want to see.
Nate B. “What about neanderthals? Again, the evidence suggests that they were 100% human, not a missing link.”
This article is just plain comical. This is beautiful:
“Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments.”
You do know that the evidence that neanderthals played musical instruments was a well-known web-hoax.
TAT: “Well, when I look at the data, I don’t see 4 billion years.”
Are you an expert geologist?
“Based on extensive and detailed scientific evidence, geologists have determined the age of the Earth to be around 4.567 billion years (4.567×109 years). This age represents a compromise between the oldest-known terrestrial minerals – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – and astronomers’ and planetologists’ determinations of the age of the solar system based in part on radiometric age dating of meteorite material and lunar samples.”
1. The radiometric age dating evidence from the zircons further confirms that the Earth is at least 4.404 billion years old.
2. Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to the multitudes of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks.
3. Ca-Al-rich inclusions (inclusions rich in calcium and aluminium) – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites which are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old, giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of the Earth.
“In the centuries preceding the scientific revolution, the age of the Earth was determined from the accounts of creation by religious authority. Today some religious groups continue to accept only theological accounts regarding the age of the earth, rejecting scientific evidence which contradicts their beliefs.”
Simon,
The two articles I linked to were only two of many.
I find it amusing that you dismiss the articles so quickly. Both articles were written by experts in their field (Bert Thompson has a Ph.D. in microbiology, and Dave Philips is currently working on his Ph.D. in paleontology). Both articles gave numerous examples and cited numerous academically credible sources to back their claims. So for you to immediately dismiss them as “plain comical,” without any evidence of your own to the contrary, only betrays that your evolutionary presuppositions have overshadowed your desire to objectively consider all the data.
You should know also that there are university-trained, Ph.D.-level scientists who are “experts” in their fields who do not agree with the evolutionary conclusions regarding:
1. Radiometric age dating
2. The luminosity of the sun or
3. The ages derived from the Ca-Al-rich inclusions found in meteorites.
The fact of the matter is, there are essentially two ways to view the origins of the universe. Either it is a creation (making the existence of a Creator necessary) or it is not. If it is not, then where did the matter and energy that makes up our universe come from? The naturalistic evolutionist is unable to answer that question without making a faith-based reply.
Simon,
One more thing. I couldn’t help but notice at your website that the byline of your website reads:
I am here to tell you the Truth. We have been created as slaves to be used as batteries for an alien race. You must give up everything you hold dear in this illusionary world so that you may save yourself in the real world.
Is that a joke? Or is that what you honestly believe?
Just curious,
NB
DANG IT NATE! You beat me to it! I can only reply so fast! So yeah…What Nate said…though I’d add this:
If you produce “experts” (like geologists) that suggest one thing or another, I can ALSO produce my own “experts” that agree with my position, and that’s NOT just with creation/evolution. I can do that with ANY field of debate, in ANY realm. One thing I’ve learned from being in the accademic world for almost a decade is that I can find any number of people with PhD’s to support ANY idea, including the completely nonsensical.
The problem isn’t with an appeal to MY experts versus YOUR experts. I also won’t get into a debate over the peculiarities of radiometric dating…that only betrays a misunderstanding of the root issue.
The issue is NOT the “facts”.
The issue IS how one interprets the “facts”.
The issue is one of authority:
The authority of thousands of men with PhD’s in whatever field(s) saying “hmmm. Let’s observe the data, formulate a hypothesis, test that hypothesis and then see how close we can get to making a comprehensively explanatory framework for what we observe while still remaining open to the possibility of new paradigm challenging data…”
VERSUS
The authority of God who says “listen up baby!”.
Again, like brudder Nate has stated, it’s a question of biblical authority versus human authority.
Mass consensus doesn’t dictate truth, and education doesn’t give a person (or “people”) an objective and bias-free position from which to view reality…let alone remove the effects of sin on the mind and reasoning process.
God is smarter than everyone, everywhere, from every time. That includes scientists, philosophers, artists, comedians, models and even Bill Nye the Science Guy (who fits into all FIVE of those categories!).
“For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.” - 1 Corinthians 1:25
Nate B
Yes, our real bodies are being used by an alien race as batteries. I can help you find the Truth, which I have seen. I have seen the real world. If you are prepared to let go your alien-created world, you can step through into the real world.
Nate B + TAT
You’ll notice that all creation “science” articles are merely denials of evidence. Creationism concerns itself only with undermining science which contradicts its own worldview.
Nate in your radiometric age dating article, it’s very telling that the headline reads: “More great news on radiocarbon”. This doesn’t sound very scientific.
I’ve never read a science journal on evolution with a “great news we’ve found another fossil which proves evolution”. They would be laughed at.
Proper scientific articles tend to go along the lines of “we’ve discovered a new species fossil, what does it mean? We think it might mean…”
Where is the evidence for godly creation?
Simon, I’m thinking that we’re having a serious communication problem, so I’ll try to clarify things. FOr the record, I want to say in advance that I’m going take this a single question at a time…not because of any mental inability of ANYONE, but only to attempt to have the maximum amount of clarity.
Every single fact is evidence for “godly creation”.
Any questions? (I understand you’ll object to that. It’s only the first part of a more complex explanation.) Fire away!
TAT, can you give me just one bit of evidence that specifically demonstrates the probability of creation by your particular god?
Simon,
Isn’t that the basis of the “Matrix” movies? (Us being used as alien batteries) Just wondering?
Simon,
You misunderstand me. When I say “Every single fact is evidence for “godly creation”.”, I mean just that. Pick any piece of data:
1. The Grand Canyon.
2. The fossil record (in it’s entirety).
3. Various adaptations in all kingdoms of life, in every phylum, sub phylum, genus and species.
4. The existence of DNA or the complexity of any cell.
5. Distant star light from far off galaxies.
6. Radiometric dating from any rock from any place on the planet.
The list goes on and on and on to infinity. Every fact, from every discipline, proves the truth of biblical creation.
Does that help clarify things?
Nope.
How does it?
Data is data, and facts are NOT evidence.
Facts BECOME evidence only when they are interpreted.
So when one person looks at ANY fact, he can see it one of two ways:
1. Through the interpretive lens of the authoritative scriptures.
2. Through the interpretive lens of the authoritative self.
I’ll give you an example:
Question: If I find a fossil in the ground, what do I have?
Evidence for creation or evidence for evolution?
Answer: Neither. I have a fossil. (Trick question)
How one interprets the data from the fossil makes it “evidence” for one or the other.
What?
Well, when the Evolutionist looks at that fossil, he already has an interpretive filter, or “colored glasses”, through which he sees it. He’ll examine how far down in the earth’s crust it is and attempt to calculate the time that it was laid down. He’ll attempt to determine what kind of creature it is. He’ll attempt to see where it fits in to the evolutionary model; from what time period and stage of evolution it comes from.
The Evolutionist does NOT go to the Bible and say “Hmmm. There’s a dead animal, preserved in a layer of rock. What does the Bible say about animals and death and whatnot? What is the BIBLICAL framework in which I should examine this piece of DATA?”
The Evolutionist does NOT start with the presupposition that God created the earth in 6, 24 hour, literal days…and some 6-10,000 years ago at that.
So when the Evolutionist sees the fossil, certain understandings of the data are, a priori, ruled out. It cannot EVER be seen as evidence for Biblical Creation because the Evolutionist presupposes that Biblical Creation DID NOT HAPPEN.
Where as the person who holds to the Biblical account of Creation DOES say “Hmmm. There’s a dead animal, preserved in a layer of rock. What does the Bible say about animals and death and whatnot? What is the BIBLICAL framework in which I should examine this piece of DATA?”
The person who holds to the Biblical account of Creation knows that the earth has undergone a global catastrophe known as the flood of Noah. The person who holds to the Biblical account of Creation knows that this will ‘throw a monkey wrench’ into calculations based on geophysical data in an effort to determine the age of the earth…what WOULD a global flood do to the earth? What did the earth look like BEFORE? The person who holds to the Biblical account of Creation knows that accurate reverse calculations (examining current levels or whatever isotope and ‘calculating backwards’ to determine the age of the sample), based on completely uncertain geophysical data, are sketchy at best, if not impossible to do with any useful measure of certainty.
The person who holds to the Biblical account of Creation knows that physical processes have NOT always been occurring at the same rate, and that due to the fall of man (which effected all of creation, not just men). This injection of the ’sin factor’ into the physical sciences also has unknown and possibly innumerable effects that would confound certain questions based on physical science.
The Creationist DOES start with the presupposition that God created the earth in 6, 24 hour, literal days…and some 6-10,000 years ago at that.
So when the Creationist sees the fossil, certain understandings of the data are, a priori, ruled out. It cannot EVER be seen as evidence for Evolution because the Creationist presupposes that Evolution DID NOT HAPPEN.
Or to put it more simply, the Evolutionist looks at the fossil, sees it in the rock layer and says “Look, a fossil! That little critter got drowned and bound around 70 million years ago when he must have wandered into a tar pit! See how preserved it is? Must have happened mighty quick…there’s still food in its belly! Evidence for Evolution!”
The Christian looks at the fossil, sees it in the rock layer and says “Look, a fossil! That little critter got smacked and packed when God flooded the earth in Noah’s day! See how preserved it is? The flood happened mighty quick…there’s still food in its belly! Evidence for Creation!”
Now, which interpretation of the data is right?
TAT, lets put aside our presuppositions then. I won’t look through the lens of the evolutionist and you won’t look through the lens of the Bible.
So, please explain to me how the fossil record, for example, is evidence for godly-creation.
Well, that’s just it. We cannot lay aside our lenses.
For me to not ‘look through the lens of the Bible’ is hypothetically possible, but I cannot honestly argue from that position because it’s the basis for my understanding of anything (my epistemological and metaphysical foundation, if you want a more ‘philosophical’ explanation). I approach ANY piece of data with an attempt to understand it against the light of the scriptures (the legend in the map analogy).
BUT, for the sake of attempting to reason together, let’s imagine what would happen if we both tried to lay aside our lenses: What do we learn from the fossilized remains of a fish, appearing somewhere in the Rockie Mountains?
Well, we learn;
1. It’s dead.
2. It probably was some sort of fish.
3. It’s not in the ocean.
4. Somehow, it’s become fossilized.
5. Maybe what kind of material it’s fossilized in (what sort of rock)
There’s maybe a few other general pieces of information we could learn, but that’s just the DATA. We’d end up sitting around with a bunch of general statements that don’t do much for us except point out the obvious.
In order for us to turn that DATA into EVIDENCE for a position on HOW that fossil got there or WHAT it means, we’d have to put our lenses ‘back on’.
Without those lenses, we cannot even BEGIN to address the issues of how old it is, how it died, how it got to where it is, or what in the world it means.
For the sake of illustration, let’s examine ONE tiny facet of the question of “How long did it take that fish get into the mountains”? (Part of the larger question of how it got there)
Both the evolutionist and the creationist would see that the fish was in a layer of rock, but both would have different approaches to explain exactly how long that portion of rock took to get to its current location (How long did it take that 4 square foot piece of ancient seafloor get into the Rockies?)
If I held to an evolutionary model, I would know that fish live in the sea and the seafloor is moving. I would understand, from my observations of tectonic drift, the idea that ground isn’t static and the crust of the earth floats around on its molten core. I would then apply my understanding of “uniformitarianism” in natural processes (everything that IS happening has BEEN happening at essentially the same rate since the beginning).
I would understand that the tectonic plate in question drifts at “x” centimeters per year, and with the application of my uniformitarian understandings, I would calculate the amount of centimeters the fossil was from the ocean by dividing the distance by the yearly tectonic drift. With that calculation (and please understand I’m simplifying tremendously), I’d have a VERY general number of how many years it took that fossil to get where it was.
Where as on the other side of the debate,
If I held to a biblical creation model, I would also know that fish live in the sea and the seafloor is moving. I would also understand, from my observations of tectonic drift, the idea that ground isn’t static and the crust of the earth floats around on its molten core. BUT, I would then apply my understanding of the Bible to toss out my understanding of “uniformitarianism” in natural processes because the Bible tells me that everything that IS happening has NOT been happening at essentially the same rate since the beginning. Instead, somewhere around 4-5,000 years ago, there was a global catastrophe that resulted in the death of all people and land animals. Also fish die in the sea, but at one point in time, all the earth was potentially “seafloor”. With a global flood model, the fish needn’t die hundreds or thousands of miles from the mountain. If the water was near where the mountains would emerge, the fish may have swam to the base of the mountain and then been fossilized there!
That SIGNIFICANTLY changes how we approach the data. If tectonic drift possibly happened QUICKLY during the flood, then we have a problem in knowing how long it took that fish fossil to get into the Rockies. It may have taken a few hundred days, if the sea floor was moving fast enough (And Dr. John Baumgartner, a doctor of geophysicist and staff scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, is one person among several that have done significant technical work on examining this possibility. Check it out at http://www.globalflood.org. He’s got quite a lot of serious writing done regarding the actual mechanics of rapid tectonic drift during the global flood), or even a few days if the fish swam to where it would be fossilized (little cheater!), and that fossil may very well be several thousand years old.
So then, we’re back at the question of our presuppositions; the question of ‘whose lenses are right’? One has to decide to trust the authority of the questioning man versus the authority of the declaring scripture. At this point you only have two options: Do you believe or reject the Bible’s testimony regarding events in history? (including the global flood) Or I’ll phrase the question even more bluntly: Who knows more about history: The one who was there in the midst of it as a participant and eyewitness, or the ones who examine the data that’s left, thousands of years after the events, and take educated guesses?
If I’m being honest, I would be forced to admit that most people do NOT believe the Bible’s testimony regarding the global flood on the grounds that “approaching science through the lens of the Bible is not doing GOOD science” (or some variation of that).
And if the Bible were not true, that statement would have merit. I would be forced to agree.
But if the Bible IS true, then approaching science through the lens of the Bible is the ONLY way of doing “good” science. This hopefully leads us to the next logical question…
What you’re describing isn’t much to do with evolution, TAT. More geology. Evolution is merely a process where life has changed from single cell to the species we have now. Evolution is actually a fact like gravity. How it works is the theory.
The people with science glasses on have managed to use them to discover medicines which keep us alive much longer than before, but you would say the glasses were useful in that situation.
It seems to me you are saying the science glasses are useful unless they contradict the Bible. At whcih point you have to take them off and use your Bible glasses.
Sounds inconsistent to me. At least I only wear one set of glasses. You seem to be wearing two sets - what you see must be very blurred.
Simon, the words “evolution” and “science” are not necessarily synonyms, and I’m arguing that they definitely are not. I am not putting science against the Bible.
“Science”, as I understand it, is basically the process of observing something, attempting to make an explanatory hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis.
“Evolution”, on the other hand, is an unverifiable interpretive presuposition through which data is filtered, hence the “glasses” analogy. (which you so eloquently said yourself when you said “Evolution is actually a fact like gravity. How it works is the theory”. It would appear that you presuppose the factuality of Evolution and then attempt to discover it’s mechanics.)
SO in the end, I’m saying that when I approach ANY scientific task, I either wear my “biblical” glasses OR my “NON-biblical” glasses.
Do you presume the factuality of gravity?
Yup.
Why?
It’s a name given to the attration of bodies to one another that I can observe, replicate and verify in a labratory. When I see a ball falling off a table towards the ground, I can say “Hey. That attraction of the ball to the floor is called ‘gravity’”.
Forgive my presumption, but I’ll anticipate where you’re heading with this…
Gravity isn’t a religious system that establishes itself against scripture with competing ideas regarding the origin, nature and purpose of the universe.
Gravity doesn’t challenge anything in a straightforward reading of the Bible. It’s simply the name given to a constantly observable happening. (And if one would say “AHA! GOT YOU! Evolution is constantly happening all around you!” I would respond, “Well, adaptation and micro-evolution is constantly happening all around me. That IS true, but I’ve never contested that. I DO contest macro-evoluton; the suggestion that adaptation and micro-evolution lead to increasingly complex organisms of different species or genus. I DO NOT see that constantly happening all around me.”)
Gravity isn’t a philosophical and theological framework that calls for specific reinterpretation of many different sorts of observable and testable data.
And if one were to suggest that believing in gravity and NOT in evolution is inconsistent logic, I would simply ask if one to show me, from Scripture, how gravity challenges or conflicts with Scripture. If one would show THAT to me, I’ll gladly renounce gravity and start a campaign against it’s evils.
I’m sorry if that makes me sound like a smart alec, it’s hard to transmit ‘tone’ in pure text. I’m serious though. Show me where the concept of ‘gravity’ challenges the Bible and I’ll stop believing in it.
So your only criteria for rejecting a scientific idea (eg: gravity, which is only a scientific theory to explain why we don’t fall of the world) is whether it conflicts with your old book?
“When I see a ball falling off a table towards the ground, I can say “Hey. That attraction of the ball to the floor is called ‘gravity’”.”
As I say, only because a scientist has given it that label and put forward a theory which I’m sure neither of us fully understand.
I would totally disagree with your conclusion.
Gravity is like the second hand of a clock. You can sit and watch the clock and the movement of the second hand is easily observable.
Evolution is like the hour hand. If you stare at the hour hand, you will not see any visible movement. The only reason you know it’s moving is because you have a system to meaure it by - if you come back in an hour you will see it has moved on one hour.
We have ways of markiong the age of fossils, which then show a distinct patern of evolution.
Like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5363328.stm
What you’re saying is that the hour hand isn’t moving round the clock because you can’t see it moving, denying that the marks that calibrate the hours indicate that the hour hand is moving. Perhaps the marks are moving and the hour hand is stationary…
Simon, you said:
“So your only criteria for rejecting a scientific idea (eg: gravity, which is only a scientific theory to explain why we don’t fall of the world) is whether it conflicts with your old book?”
If you change that statement to:
So your only criteria for rejecting an interpretation of data (eg: gravity, which is only a scientific theory to explain why we don’t fall of the world) is whether it conflicts with your old book?
Then I’d say “Yes. Now you’re starting to get it. My only criteria for accepting or rejecting an interpretation of data is whether or not it agrees/conflicts with my “old book”.
YUP.
And as for the ‘hour hand’ idea, I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that “Gravity is true because it’s easily observable but Evolution is TRUE as well, though it’s NOT easily observable and instead must be deduced from a system of measure?”
I don’t really like the clock ananlogy because I’m having trouble seeing how Gravity is the ’short hand’ and Evolution is the ‘long hand’. I’m kinda getting confused.
As a historian and someone who has extensively studied intellectual history, I would like to agree with the basic statement. The Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment were both inspired by the ancient Greek philosophy of Epicureanism. All one has to do is read Lucretius’ work, The Way Things Are, to understand the origin of enlightened ideas like the state of nature as well as evolution. The Enlightenment was deist and used science to reject the Bible and Christianity during the 1700s. Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell and many others were influenced by this thinking to find a non-miraculous explanation for the existence of life and the fossil record. The result is Darwin’s theory of evolution and Lyell’s uniformitarianism. Both are not better explanations of the facts but non-biblical explanations of the facts. With the acceptance of this materialistic explanation, evidence that did not fit the new model was rejected and discredited. The book Forbidden Archeology brilliantly shows the rejection of human fossils based on their not fitting with the evolutionary theory. In fact, the very idea of slow uniformitarian formation of fossils is illogical and has led to the contemporary acceptance of neo-catastrophism. Also, Darwinism has has to change to Neo-Darwinism and many have turned to punctuated equilibrium. Basically, scientific facts have not been kind to materialism.