These days I try to dodge the topic of evolution vs. creation. Years ago I used to try to start debates on it because I read up on it all the time, formed my one-sided opinion, and would head out into the world with guns loaded and ready. Usually I’d get crushed by someone else who either knew more than me or was just a better arguer than I was. In the last five years or so, however, I’ve learned just how important the whole topic is over all (not very) and kept my beliefs to myself. Life as a Christian is supposed to be about living a changed life that pursues Jesus’s example and reaches those around you, not debating text books at PTA meetings, which only polarizes everyone. As I’ve said so many times before, our purpose is not to make everything look Christian; our purpose is to lead people to Christ so hearts and lives are changed. While I don’t believe in evolution at all, I don’t think Creationism or Intelligent Design (or whatever name it has now) should be taught in our schools anytime soon. If it happened it will only serve to polarize people all the more, and while Creationist “activists” would no doubt cheer wildly at their victory, those strongly opposed would demonize Jesus in their hearts and minds all the more. Then those people, whom Jesus loves dearly, would be that much closer to being lost forever. Seems kind of counter-productive, doesn’t it? Well, at least you can scoff more proudly at episodes of Nova.
Yet despite all of that, I’m still a critic of the way the scientific community treats evolution. As I’m sure you know, the whole debate has gotten quite ridiculous over the last few years, and (at least from a Northwesterner’s perspective) the evolution side is winning the popular vote. Darwin’s theory is held as fact more than ever before everywhere I look. Those who still participate in the debate but side with evolution have seemed to claim victory, and it’s amusing to me when it’s not breaking my heart. In my beloved Emerald City we have more cars with those “Darwin” fish on the back of them than the Mid-west has Wal-Marts. It’s getting close to the point that those fish will be more associated with evolution than the original symbol will be associated with Christianity. I’ve even been treated to some tasteful bumper stickers; the one most prominent in my mind said, “We have the fossils. We win.”
So with my seemingly-unique approach to the whole debate, does my continued belief in the Genesis account exist only out of faith, or do I still see fundamental problems with the theory? The answer is B. An article I found this morning (which prompted me to write this blog, which is making me late to the gym, which considerably slows down my day) reminded me of one of my primary problems with the evolution perspective.
A few months back, a very in-tact fossil was revealed to the world (which had been discovered, I think, two years prior) and was being touted as the “missing link” between reptiles and mammals (again – I think that’s what they said it was), and the scientific community was saying things like, “It changes so many of our pre-conceived notions about our evolution!”
About a year or so ago, “Lucy” (the revolutionary find of bones from an ancient ape, or early human, depending on how you look at it) were making their “World Tour” and hung out in Seattle’s Pacific Science Center for a few months. Radio advertisements for the exhibit mentioned how the discovery of Lucy “changed how we understand evolution!”
Something I read back in my days of unwisely starting arguments talked about how a guy was able to successfully create amino acids (which make up proteins) in a soup of what was then understood to be early-earth conditions. A while after that revolutionary experiment, something was discovered (I honestly can’t tell you what it was) that COMPLETELY CHANGED what scientists believed made up the atmosphere of early earth, thus rendering his experiment completely useless.
And now, today, I find this article that mentions the discovery of some hands and feet that, YET AGAIN, “reverses the common wisdom of human evolution.”
I’m sure there are countless other examples out there of which I am unaware. This is my main beef with the whole idea. We started with Chuck’s observations on an island, suddenly science takes on his ideas as truth, then when they find something that doesn’t fit their previous equation, they re-write the equation but maintain the same solution. Then something else is found and they re-write it again. Then they figure something out that contradicts what they thought before, and they re-write it again. I’m not so dense to the way the scientific method works to think that if you don’t get it right the first time that you must be wrong all together, but I do know that after re-writing everything several dozen times, at SOME POINT you, or someone else, needs to start asking some different questions.
Let me put it another way and conclude (because I’m REALLY running late to the gym, now). How about a metaphor? Fun!
Evolutionists have given the world a giant, incomplete puzzle, already in its frame, and titled it, “How We Came to Be.” When you ask about the many parts that are missing, they calmly tell you, “We haven’t found those parts yet, but when we do, they’ll fit perfectly.” Well, then they find some more parts, but it turns out they don’t fit perfectly. Therefore, they take down the frame, re-arrange a large portion of the puzzle to make the new parts fit, then put it back up and tell us it’s the same picture. As they find more and more pieces, they keep re-arranging different sections of the puzzle, but all the while maintaining that the “whole picture” is unchanged. How many times can you do that until you begin to question if you’re going about putting it together the wrong way in the first place? I’m putting my money on “many more times,” and I think that’s sad.