A friend of mine sent me this link at Biologos to an article titled “Evolutionary Creation is for Everyone”, probably knowing full well the sort of reaction that provocative title would get from me, a reaction of the knee-jerk variety. While I hold no animus toward the Biologos organization, this sort of nonsense is what happens when Christians try to compromise with secular beliefs. Darwin’s theory of shapeshifting is actually a very poor explanation for the complexity of life, and yes, I’m about to explain why.
The reason I say that evolutionary creation is an attempt to compromise Christian beliefs with atheistic ones is because I’ve read the books by popular (atheist) biologists such as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and P. Z. Myers, and these “experts” all preach that creationism is nonsense, and evolution is truth. It is an attempt to compromise with people uninterested in compromise. These secular scientists will acknowledge that people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller are good scientists, but imply they are mentally unstable for being Catholic and claiming evolution and creation is both true. Are evolution and creation both true, or are they mutually exclusive beliefs? It seems to depend on whom one asks.
Advocates of evolution prefer to make arguments from authority, and have written books considered academic works, yet bearing ludicrous titles such as Evolution and the Myth of Creation. Author/Professor Tim Berra became famous for committing what has come to be known as “Berra’s Blunder” because he used an obvious example of intelligent design in a product created by humans, the Chevrolet Corvette, to argue for Darwin’s blind and undirected but very familiar biological processes as having creative power.
Darwinism only continues to succeed because it is treated as beyond challenge, and indisputable fact. Jerry Coyne had a bestselling book published with the title Why Evolution is True, and evolution’s high priest, Richard Dawkins, who famously wrote this:
Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eyewitnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips…continue the list as long as desired. [bold and italics added for emphasis]
Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth. Hardcover. page 8.
Think about what we are being asked to believe–basically, due to descent with modification via sexual reproduction, simply if given enough time, literally anything becomes possible. We are not merely related to apes by descent, we share common descent via sexual reproduction with apes, chimps, and bananas and grapes. That isn’t sane. Frankly, that’s stupid.
However, before going any further with my ridicule of evolution theory, we should establish the crucial role that creation plays in your existence. Evolution never becomes possible without creation, but this isn’t a transitive formula–creation does not need evolution to explain your existence at all. It merely requires a superior intelligence that some people like to call “God.”
The evidence for the Big Bang has established that the universe as we know it has not always existed and the earth has not always existed, and therefore by extrapolation we may safely assume that life has not always existed. Those are the first two miracles of creation: the origin of the universe, and the origin of life.
Here’s the myth of evolution in a nutshell: life cannot possible evolve (which specifically means change) until it exists. Even if we were to assume that Biologos and the atheists are both correct, and evolution is true, it never becomes possible until after creation has occurred. QED.
Therefore, we have absolutely no reason to doubt that creation was necessary, and our need for a creator God precedes evolution. The question then becomes, if God started creation, why did He stop? Did God really just program the DNA of the first living cell and then turn it over to Darwin’s theory to produce the obvious evidence of intelligent design? Is God lazy?
Evolution, as in the origin of a new species formed by metamorphic processes applied to existing species, is an attempt to apply known biological processes to explain an unknown phenomena by “careful” conjecture. These alleged processes can neither be observed in the wild nor replicated in laboratory environments because time is a crucial element in the process. Experiments that allegedly evolve the metabolism of a fruit fly to change its diet are not changing the organism in question into something other than a fruit fly. It is now a fruit fly adapted to prefer a different diet.
Pardon my reaction, but big deal. We should talk about something a bit more impressive–echo location navigation, for example. It is complex, highly intelligent functionality seen in dolphins, whales, and bats, to name at least three different species. Instead of using sight to detect obstacles while navigating, these animals use sound. Humans have stolen this technology from nature, and call it “sonar.” Eyes, wings, hands, brains–these things all create the overpowering impression that they were designed to serve their specific purpose, and we are told by the evolutionists that is merely an optical illusion.
In other words, the theory of evolution, as taught, has absolutely no explanatory power in regard to intelligence, the overwhelming and rather obvious duplication of design in nature, or complexity other than allow two secular gods, Time and Good Luck, to have the creative power and wisdom of one supernatural creator God. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the existence of creation without a creator, which means the concept being marketed as “evolutionary creation” is nothing but sheer nonsense. God created everything.
Evidence for evolution can be claimed to be practically anything. Even slight genetic changes between generations is allegedly evidence of evolution, but we used to call those phenomena mutation and adaptation, not shape-shifting and metamorphosis. It is assumed to be true (and taught in biology classes) that humans and apes share a common ancestor by descent, rather than by design.
What is the alleged proof of this shapeshifting from furry apes to fur-less apes? Comparative DNA analysis, and bone fragments. Darwin learned about DNA from Mendel, but DNA was not part of his evidence for his theory–he primarily used comparative anatomy to conclude that the Galapagos finches were “evolving” due to environmental conditions, when in fact he was merely observing evidence of variety within the genome.
It is only because of speculation, conjecture, and mostly flawed logic that humanity has been able to convince itself that eagles, flamingoes, and Darwin’s precious finches all share a common bird ancestor, which itself descended from a common fish ancestor, which also descended (all via sex, of course) from the first single-celled organisms that managed to miraculously organize themselves from chemical compounds that just conveniently happened to be lying around when the time came.
The article found at Biologos committed the scientific sin of appealing to a consensus, which is anathema to science. Whenever someone uses “consensus” and “science” as a compound subject, I remind that person of the B/Z reaction, and its relation to the censorship of peer review. It is a form of intellectual laziness to dismiss evidence without even bothering to look at it, and that’s what modern academia is attempting with the issue of creation. Real science doesn’t have an agenda, except seeking truth.
The mission statement of the Biologos organization is a noble aspiration, promising to show “the church and the world the harmony between science and biblical faith.” In my never-humble-enough opinion, it’s kind of tough to do that while simultaneously trashing the first two chapters of Genesis, which clearly describe God creating the universe, plants, animals, and finally human beings, and in that order. The order is actually quite important, because animals created before plants would starve. Yet for some reason, those who ridicule the idea of creation and call it myth tend to portray the authors of Genesis as ignorant (and illiterate) shepherds and farmers, not nearly as intelligent as the modern average high school dropout or the “Amazing Atheist” T. J. Kirk (who actually claims to be smarter than philosopher Thomas Aquinas in the video below).
It seems I’ve been unnecessarily worried about my own ego problems for no reason. I’m pretty sure Richard Dawkins is wrong about much of what he says, but I can’t imagine having the audacity to call him a moron. On the other hand, it’s pretty easy to pick on a dead guy. It might not work out so well on opponents who can actually respond to a criticism.
When the good people at Biologos tell us that we should not be afraid to accept evolution theory to explain life, they are not trying to deliberately evangelize for lies and illogical beliefs, but intentions are one thing, and results quite another. The problem is the article specifically rejects every conceivable form of creation by name (Old Earth, Young Earth, and intelligent design) in favor of “evolutionary science” which is actually a philosophical consensus cleverly disguised as science, which makes it a lie to say that evolutionary creation is for everyone, because there is no creation involved. I’m not buying the argument that God created by “natural selection” because it isn’t true. The author of the article is trying to cobble two opposing philosophies into one contradictory mess that nobody should believe.
If we begin at evolution’s end (which is us) and work our way backward, using what science has pieced together and calls evidence, the argument for natural selection as the true explanation for the origin of species isn’t terrible. Maybe, to some degree, it is even compelling. However, if we begin at the beginning, and realize for evolution without God to be true, that the universe must create itself, then life must create itself first as a single-celled organism of some kind capable of creating its own food from chemicals, and realize that every organism we see today must have “evolved” by sexual reproduction over time from that original species, making every plant, animal, bird, fish, insect, and person literally related by descent, the theory doesn’t sound as bulletproof as it originally did.
In fact, it starts to sound pretty stupid. We know from observation (a key component of the scientific method) of rather severe biological restraints in regard to reproduction. Hybrid animal specimens are invariably sterile. Nobody is taking the problems of evolution theory seriously. Instead, writers like this guy at Biologos have clearly been indoctrinated by that secular belief system and rendered incapable of critical thinking.
Yes, it’s a pretty word salad to read “Scientific knowledge gives us insight into how reality appears, but not how reality actually is,” but what does that even mean? Clearly, a blind and stupid process like natural selection cannot explain the symbiotic relationships between bees and flowers, birds and trees, or even the incredible (and well-documented) relationship between wolves and Yellowstone Park, shown in the video below. Evolution theory cannot explain food chains, complex designs in nature, or even how Oliver the “humanzee” was any different than the legendary Lucy, except for being male instead of female.
Not everyone must agree with me and believe that God created a Grand Plan, and we are part of that design, because we are all blessed with two great gifts, life itself, and free will. You are free to witness the beauty and majesty of God’s handiwork below and deny that it was created for you. Personally, I don’t care what anyone else believes as long as I’m free to believe in the God of creation.
Yet it is due to the arrogance of indoctrination and the false sense of confidence created by the herd mentality that causes people to assume the glaring problems of evolution have already been solved, or that they are solvable, and the concept of creation dismissed with sneering contempt, even by those claiming they can reconcile those two diametrically opposed systems of belief. The writer can claim that evolutionary creation can be accepted by some members of the Eastern Orthodox religion because they believe in compatibilism. However, having personally taken Jerry Coyne’s compatibilism quiz myself and failing to conclude that evolution is true, I cannot assume that is true, although I’m not Eastern Orthodox, or Catholic.
Needless to say, I’m underwhelmed by this argument.
As far as we Protestants are concerned, the author said that we’ve been hung up on the idea of design and divine action, but these concerns have been resolved by theologians, while unfortunately neglecting to identify these theologians or explaining how they resolved these critically important problems. The writer was too focused on getting to his criticisms of those pesky Christian fundamentalists opposed to evolution theory on purely ideological grounds as the impediment to universal acceptance of “EC.”
The author of the Biologos article mixes fairly reasonable statements like “We can accept the Bible and science” and wishful thinking like “Evolutionary Creation is for everyone!” and utter nonsense and gibberish such as “EC appeals to Protestant Christians because it not only maintains a commitment to the authority and faithful interpretation of the Bible, but it provides a role for God as designer and guider of creation.”
Hmmm…according to the secular authorities like Richard Dawkins, design in nature doesn’t exist; it is considered an illusion. And earlier in the same article, didn’t this writer lump intelligent design in with Old Earth and Young Earth Creationism and throw them all away in favor of evolution?
Evolutionary creation is an absolute pig of a theory that cannot be beautified with lipstick. It is very disturbing that a pastor would preach this contradictory garbage to his flock and present it as solid science to be accepted and believed. You can believe in evolutionary creation if you want, because of free will. The question becomes whether you should.
Christ is Risen! To God be the glory!
And if God can raise Jesus from the dead, I can’t imagine that creating a living organism from scratch would be all that difficult for Him, either.
Speak Your Mind