The Insufficiency of the Theory of Evolution
Paul Jenkins
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 laodeciapress@gmail.com
Great title, well put. -d
Well said. Natural selection is necessary for evolution, but not sufficient. Natural selection is not a creative force. It can only select what’s available.
Another thing that bugs me is when evolutionists dismiss you outright when you say you don’t believe in evolution. The problem is that they equivocate microevolution with macroevolution. No one would dare say that microevolution doesn’t exist. Changes in gene frequency happen, there’s no question about it. But just because microevolution exists, doesn’t automatically mean macroevolution (all life arising from one single-celled organism in a primoridal soup) does. You can’t change the definition of evolution midway through the argument.
Well said
So we don’t know the answer to what matter, energy, or material was behind the creation of the existence of our present universe. But what matter, energy or material was behind the creation of God, where did He come from? Is there a definite answer in your opinion? Because that would make each argument (creation vs. evolution) just as valid as the other – which I suppose could suggest a co-existence, or simply that we’ll never know the answer.
Heather,
The Christian view (based on the Bible) is that God himself is eternal, and had no origin or need outside of Himself. This follows both scripture (Hebrews 1:10-12) and logic. If there was something that pre-existed God himself, then like you say, we wouldn’t have gotten anywhere – but also, that creative force would be itself God (or at least have some of the same attributes such as eternality).
Yes, if something created God, then we have supernatural activity that is unaccounted for. But which worldview is consistent with supernatural activity? Not naturalistic atheism. I suppose some sort of generic theism would be hypothetically possible – but as future posts will indicate – I think that only the Christian God makes sense.
As I was pointing out in the article, guys like Dawkins aren’t really atheists because of that unavoidable uncertainty.
Really appreciate your comment,
Paul
Hey, stumbled upon this, enjoying some posts here. Just wanted to point out that this is not dealing with the theory of evolution. This appears to be an article aimed at debating cosmological models for the origin of the universe. The theory of evolution offers an explanation of descent from a common ancestor and has nothing to due with theories of the origin of life or the universe. While I can see where the confusion came from as many naturalists will have similar responses to some of these big questions ->Big Bang Theory, abiogenesis, macroevolution etc. All those responses are mutually exclusive and should not be confused lest you lose the ability to debate any. Hope this clears up some terminology.
George,
Yes you’re exactly right. What I was attempting to do is demonstrate that the theory of evolution itself is unable to account for these things – and the reason I wrote the article is because people function on the wrong conclusion that it does (‘oh I don’t care about religion, because I have evolution’).
I’m not a scientist, so I don’t pretent to understand the supposed scientific processes of evolution – I’m just pointing out that it is insufficient to account for the big questions in life. Would you agree with that?
Of course – any suggestions or criticisms are always welcome.
Thanks for reading.
Paul