This is a subsidiary post of The Original Creation.
Evolution as a theory which explains variations within a species (micro-evolution) may make sense. I’m not in a position to say one way or another because I am too ignorant of the science involved. However, evolution as an explanation for the origin of the universe in which we live violates both the Scriptures and reason.
Evolution would be easy enough to dismiss on the basis of reason alone, but when you add the Scriptures to the argument, it’s a wonder it hangs around at all – much less as a definitive answer to our origins for so many people. There are three reasons for its staying power as an alternative to the creation narrative of the Bible:
- The number of people who hold this view. There are many of them and they’re all over the world.
- The intelligence of many of the proponents of this view. There is no question that some very bright and accomplished people hold to and defend the theory of evolution.
- The confidence with which many people hold this view. One could wish that Christians believed in their Savior with as little doubt as some evolutionists hold to evolution.
These three factors combine to make evolution attractive many people. Yet one could say the same thing about the view that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. Therefore, those three factors do not guarantee that the view held is true.
Some people hold to theistic evolution, believing that evolution accurately describes how our universe came to be but that what looks to us like an unguided process (random mutation and natural selection) is actually a process guided by God. Such people would see the creation narrative in he Bible as mythical – though in the most positive sense of that term. The problem is, the Bible only speaks of myth in negative terms. Moreover, there are other aspects of biblical revelation with which evolution conflicts – one being that the Bible throughout both testaments – not just in Genesis – treats Adam and Eve as historical persons.
Another indicator of the historical reliability of the creation account is that our own experience with life comports with it in significant ways – which cannot be said of evolution. For example, the biblical account of creation says that man came from dust and “returns to dust” (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Corresponding to this, all human history, including that which we ourselves have observed, testifies that human beings at death return to dust. Also, the creation account says that living things reproduce “after their kind” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21,24, 25). Again, all human history, including our own, testifies that this is the way things work. Cows don’t beget kangaroos, palm trees don’t beget azaleas, and humans don’t beget anything but more humans. Knowing that Jesus felt on safe ground saying “Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles” (Matthew 7:16) knowing that His words would last longer than heaven or earth (Matthew 24:35), we should not expect that the future of plant, animal, and human life will be any different from what it has been in the past.
Christians may argue about whether the “days” in the first chapter of Genesis are 24-hour days or much longer periods of time, but there can be no disagreement about this chapter depicting creation as occurring by the word of God in discrete stages. That is, God did not speak a common ancestor into existence from which all other living things descended as evolution would contend. Rather, animals trace back to different ancestors than humans. Everything reproduces after its own kind and each kind was made in the beginning by God – even to the point of male and female (Genesis 1:27).
There is no good biblical or logical reason to accept evolution as an explanation for the origin of the universe as we know it. If it has utility in the field of biology, let it remain there and not attempt more than that of which it is capable.