Evolution

Evolution is evidence for creation. Oh yes indeed it is, because the only observable process of evolution is found in human creation — man’s technology. Therefore if the cosmos is not static but evolutionary, then this is evidence for design.

But the Darwinists obfuscate — they argue that evolution did indeed occur and then they turn around and proclaim this as evidence for Darwinism. But no! The Darwinists put forth a hypothesis that is supposed to explain how evolution might have occurred — the process that brought it about. They cannot then turn around and claim that what they propose to explain is evidence for their explanation.

Evolution, in the classic sense, is growth, development — in today’s terms this means an increase in information. But in our egalitarian climate it is often difficult to get people to admit to this definition. Evolution is simply variation in populations — which hardly needs a theory.

What cries out for explanation is the development, the net gain in design through cosmic and geologic history. There was a time, for example, when our planet did not exist, and there was a time after it came into existence when there was no life upon it. There is a long history of development — of evolution. Admittedly a steady state universe is more comforting to the atheist. The cosmos is then a given and its origin and development need no explanation.

So if evolution occurred, is Darwinism the only possible explanation? Of course not!

Now perhaps the philosophy of some theists is not compatible with evolution, with incremental development — perhaps their utterly transcendant Deity only brings forth instantaneously ex nihilo — but if, say, we see a dynamic, working God in Scripture, then our theism would indeed predict evolution.

The God of Israel, for example, works across the great cosmic week of Genesis — the redemption of Israel comes slowly and in stages — it is not all instant and ex nihilo.

Darwinism (or any model that combines chance and necessity) does not predict evolution — that’s what it aims to explain. How might evolution have occurred by “natural” means?

Now the geologic column, as I understand it, reveals apparently sudden appearance of species with what can be long periods of stasis and extinction. There is not the gradualism that Darwinism predicts.

But suppose we do find gradualism — gradual, incremental development? This is not evidence for Darwinism, it is only evidence for evolution. Remember — there is a gradualism in the evolution of the airplane and the computer, and these are prime examples of intelligent design.

Intelligent Design is defining design and providing the means to detect it. It says nothing about God. But this does not mean that God is outside of our science. When we are convinced that biological organisms were designed, then it will be appropriate — at least for those so inclined — to ask once again what kind of designer is suggested by the Book of Nature. The point is that there is a difference between determining whether or not something has been designed, and investigating or speculating as to what kind of intelligence is responsible for that design.

Once we have determined that there is design, then it is appropriate to ask what best accounts for the design — theism? animism? Behind the forces of nature the animist see intelligences that are fickle and perhaps more often malevolent than benevolent. Maybe his model is called for — at least at the start this is a valid question.

When I dispute with Darwinists the argument generally boils down to religion: Would God have done it this way (mass extinctions, etc.)? And do you want to give ammunition to the fundamentalists? and reverse the sexual revolution? Well, maybe so, whereas most definitely no for the other side. But if their reasons are political and sociological, why must they obfuscate, subvert, ridicule, and appeal to authority? Why not admit up front that this is their philosophical preference, and tell us openly whether or not they are not seekers or merely guardians of a philosophical preference.

Email the author