I am very pleased to see the rise of Old Earth Creationists among my Christian brethren. So many are willing to follow the Bible where it leads, and that it is consistent with contemporary science in some aspects. Following the Bible where it leads often leaves us open to the discoveries that the scientific community offers. A few examples of this are my friends Evan Minton at Cerebral Faith, Doctor Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe, and Doctor William Lane Craig of Reasonable Faith. While we believe that the Bible leaves us open to scientific discoveries, we have a great amount of freedom about what we accept. Many of us accept an old earth, but do not accept evolutionary creationism. I can think of at least 5 reasons that I do not believe in evolution.
However, I want to note that I do think that the Bible permits us to believe in evolution (or, at the very least, biblical arguments that can be mounted against evolutionary creationism can be treated as denominational, secondary issues). So what scientific reasons are there to doubt the evolutionary model?
1 – The Fossil Record
Charles Darwin noted that the best objection to his theory was the lack of fossil evidence. He attributed that to the underdevelopment of the fossil record, but that later generations would reveal overwhelming fossil evidence. Today, contemporary biologists are finding way to explain away why there is no fossil evidence. That have developed an ad hoc theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium.
Now, evolutionists often portray a line of fossils with apparent development. This is an example of change within a species, or micro-evolution. But it is not an example of macro-evolution, or change from one species to another. All of these fossils are a human being evolving into a human being (or a fish into a fish, bird into a bird, and so forth). Just with new capabilities or a new adaptation. Secondly, it cannot necessarily be said that just because they look alike that therefore one evolved from the other. The whole moon did not evolve from the crescent moon, despite that we can align them in such a way as to appear as though it did.
2 – Lack of DNA Evidence
In response to this, most evolutionists will object that we do not need fossil evidence to believe in evolution, because we have DNA evidence. The DNA molecule is present in everyone, and this proves that all living organisms are related. That is true, they are all related, and they do all have a similar construction. One possible interpretation of that data is that macro-evolution occurred.
However, another possible interpretation of that data is that a designer created all biological organisms similarly. In the same way that an architect will use the same basic construction, so God could have used the DNA molecule in all of his creations. However, DNA cannot be said to prove anything one way or the other. There are numerous options that are open to us. The DNA molecule in and of itself does not prove evolution.
3 – Irreducible Complexity
When it is said that something is irreducibly complex, that means that it has properties which could not be removed; it would not be able to function without them. A car engine might be an example of irreducible complexity. If we removed part of the engine, it would not function properly. So the engine could not have come together slowly, piece by piece. So the same with many organs. They could not have come together piece by piece, because they would not function unless they were fully constructed.
Doctor Michael Behe, a microbiologist, has argued that the eye, flagella, and blood clotting cascade are examples of this. Since they could not have come together piece by piece, as the evolutionary model proposes, the evolutionary model is rendered insufficient to explain these organs.
4 – Genetic Limitations
Dog breeders have attempted to breed new varieties of dogs so that they could sell them. But always ended in failure. While dogs may range from Great Danes to poodles, they still remain dogs. Each dog has a genetic limitation. Scientists attempting to genetically engineer fruit flies encountered the same genetic barriers, and always ended up just producing more fruit flies – often crippled or otherwise deformed. Thus, I ask, if intelligent scientists cannot break these genetic barrier, why should we expect that the blind forces of nature can?
Further, these genetic barriers are often represented in the micro-evolution that we do see. When a finches’ beak evolves, growing larger, it adapts to the environment. But laters generations of finches will grow smaller, readapting to the environment. Evolution is not linear. It is cyclical. Evolution explains the survivability of species, but does not explain the appearance of new species.
5 – No Time For Evolution
There is an insufficient time frame for an evolutionary model. As the astrophysicist, Doctor Hugh Ross pointed out, the time between the extinction of the Triassic and the appearance of the Jurassic is merely about 40 million years. Thus there would not be enough time for evolution to occur, rendering the evolutionary model insufficient.
Further, Doctor John Barrow and Doctor Frank Tipler, two physicists from Oxford University, in their book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, lay out ten steps that are necessary to the process of human evolution. Each one of these steps are so improbable, they write, that before they would have occurred, the sun would have incinerated the earth. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it must have been a miracle.
So macro-evolution, as we understand it, is overwhelmingly improbable, in that there is a lack of evidence, and evidence against it.
What do you think of evolution? Leave a comment!
If you would like to discuss further, come join our Theology Discussion Group