The Insufficiency of the Theory of Evolution
So many times when I have asked people their views on God and eternal things, or what they think of Jesus, I get a response like, “Well, I’m more interested in science than religion so I haven’t really given it much thought.” Or, “I believe in evolution”, dead stop. But does that answer the question?
I would then say, ‘Okay, but who do you believe God is?’ Is this just a pedantic redundancy? No, it isn’t.
Without touching the issue of a literal or figurative reading of Genesis (read someone else on that one!), I wish to point out that the theory of evolution does not provide a meaningful response to my initial question in any way.
Your opinion on the issue of the mechanism by which the world came into its current form does not answer the question of origin. R.C. Sproul once said: [paraphrase] “Assuming the world around us actually exists and it isn’t an illusion; if anything is, something was.” [emphasis added].
The point Dr. Sproul is making, is that even if you are a humanist/naturalist who accepts macro-evolution, you are still faced with the logical problem of where the materials that supposedly were used in the big bang came from. Subsequently, the one who claims to strongly believe in unbelief must still deal with the logical inconsistency present in their thinking. (Note: micro evolution, or natural selection is a natural process which I definitely do accept – but macro evolution is how I would refer to the theories on the development of the universe which are popular today).
When Richard Dawkins, one of the most read and revered ‘atheists’ is faced with this issue, he is forced to concede that he ‘can’t be sure God does not exist’, but is nearly positive by a factor of 6.9 out of 7 that he doesn’t. Of course, by definition, that isn’t atheism. In addition, the late Christopher Hitchens who was in my opinion a much better debater, writer, and thinker than Dawkins demonstrated his own doubts of his position as he approached his death in some of his interviews. I am not suggesting that he had any sort of faith, but I am trying to demonstrate the logical fallacy of the atheistic position, and the doubt even its best proponents experience.
The truth is the Hitchens/Dawkins/Atkins fan has the same 1.5% of doubt in their mind Dawkins has. Deep down, we all know it is illogical to claim that there were materials somehow present to create the universe by a big bang explosion without a Creator of those materials.
We see in scripture that this doubt in people’s minds is because deep down, no matter how much this knowledge is suppressed, we ultimately know God is there. When we all appear before him on judgment day, we will not have any excuse.
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)
This often quoted text demonstrates that the futile thinking of our world is an affront to God and his grace towards us. He has given us life, a beautiful world to care for and enjoy, and not only do we not honour him for doing these things, we claim he isn’t even there.
Do not scoff at people who believe in an intelligent power higher than ourselves who has the wisdom and power to create. This is not a crutch, it isn’t a nice bedtime story, and it isn’t a pacifier.
There are many who would say that energy, which can become matter, is eternal itself, and that answers the concern of origin. Even if we take this assumption, I don’t think the problem is solved. What animated, or initiated the process which started the creation of the materials used in the big bang? Can there be effect in scientific processes without cause?
Personally, I can’t accept that.
You are encouraged to discuss the post in the comments, or for direct contact, email us at firstname.lastname@example.org