On the issue of evolution, what is commonly seen as a conflict between science and religion is really something deeper. Religion tells us what God has revealed about Himself through His own words and the words of His prophets. Science tells us what God has revealed about Himself through His creation. The conflict, then, is really between two different sources of revelation about God. For evangelical Christians who place their faith in the Bible, to question the information it contains is out of the question. At the same time, to question the honest and objective observations of the scientific community would be foolish. If science and religion both purport to tell us the truth about God, what can we do when they won't agree? The simple answer is that they must always agree when properly understood. Whenever a conflict arises, we can be sure that we've either misunderstood the Bible or that the scientists have failed to uncover the truth. In the case of evolution, both factors come into play.
Part of the problem stems from the fact that the first few chapters of Genesis were not written for scientists, they were written for a far simpler society thousands of years ago. The point of the story was to impress upon it's hearers and readers that the God of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac was the same God who created the heavens and the earth.
But here we are, thousands of years later, with a creation story that tells the earth was created in six days contrasted with stacks of irrefutable scientific proof that the earth is billions of years old. If we choose the six days, we are made to feel like a fool. If we choose the billions of years, we are made to feel like a heretic.
Literally or Figuratively?
To resolve this conflict, we have to keep in mind that while everything in the Bible is true, not everything in it is literal. In Psalm 6:6, David writes, " I am worn out from groaning; all night long I flood my bed with weeping and drench my couch with tears." Did David really "flood" his bed with tears? Common sense tells us that David is employing poetic license to express how upset he was. It would be silly to accuse David of lying, nor would we ever take this literally. We expect modern poets to employ hyperbole, metaphor, personification and other figures of speech, and ancient writers did likewise.
We have to be very careful with this principle because it's a slippery slope. If we decide to accept the creation story as allegorical, then what's to stop us from dismissing Noah, Moses, Jonah or even Jesus as literary characters? We have to use common sense. First of all, Jesus confirmed the accounts of Moses' exodus, Jonah's time in the whale and Noah's flood. If you accept Jesus, you have to accept these men as well. On the other hand, we have to accept that there are some passages which are simply not meant to be taken literally, with poetry being the prime example.
Is the creation story poetry? There is reason to think that it is. Some of the sentence structure and vocabulary are unique to Hebrew poetry, and there is a difference in structure and style between the creation story and the rest of Genesis. If it is a poem, then its literary purpose is to explain God's plan of creation and His dominion over everything, just as the literary purpose of Psalm 6 is to express David's overwhelming grief.
How Long is a Day?
Even if the creation story is not poetry, it's still possible to take it literally and reconcile the account with the scientific evidence. It is quite legitimate to argue that the word "day" in the creation account does not strictly refer to a 24 hour period. The Hebrew word used is "Yom", familiar to us from "Yom Kippur", the Jewish Day of Atonement. Like our word "day", "yom" most commonly refers to a 24 hour period of time but occasionally, "yom" can be used to refer to any period of time. Though not as common in English, we still occasionally use "day" to mean "period of time" such as in the phrase "back in my day".
There are several examples of this usage in the Bible. As early as the book of Genesis 2:4, the word "yom" is used to refer to the entire 6 days of creation as a whole (the word "day" is not present in all English translations, but "yom" does appear in the original Hebrew).
Most biblical scholars, even conservative evangelical scholars will concede that either interpretation - creation in six days or creation over millions of years - is feasible. In Systematic Theology, well-known theologian Wayne Grudem concludes that it is is possible and acceptable today for a Christian to accept either viewpoint and either one represents a legitimate and valid interpretation of the text. As Christian apologist Dr. John Montgomery put it, he holds to an old-earth belief, but it would not surprise him one bit if when he died and went to heaven, God told Him that he really did make the world in six days.
What does it mean to "Create"?
This is an important first step, for if we hold onto the idea that creation took place in six literal days, then we absolutely cannot reconcile that with the fossil record and overwhelming geological evidence supporting a 4 billion year-old earth. However, one important conflict still remains. Genesis tells us that God created all the plants and animals as they were, yet scientists tell us that everything evolved from earlier, simpler species. How can we resolve this conflict?
There are two ways to approach this. If we want to be more liberal in our interpretation of the creation account, we can say that it is possible that evolution was the means by which God created all the species. In other words, God created life and imbued in it the power to evolve over millions of years into all the species which He intended. Depending on your faith in Darwin's theory, you can believe that God was active in the design of each successive new species which evolved, or you can believe that God simply started the process and then stood back and let evolution run it's course knowing that within millions of years, man would eventually come to be. This does not deny God's hand in creation, it simply posits that evolution was His tool.
Most conservative Christians (this author included) would find this explanation too liberal and at odds with the idea that God "created" man. Nevertheless, it's quite permissible to hold this view and still be a fulfulled and respectable Christian. It is not necessary to reject evolution in order to accept Christ's salvation and if someone cannot overcome the cultural bias in favor of evolution but still wants to be a Christian, it is completely satisfactory for them to do so.
Threshold Evolution
The second approach is to accept that evolution accounts for variation within a species, genus or class, but that the creation of each new major group of creatures, including man, was the direct and deliberate work of God. This theory is sometimes called "threshold evolution". The idea is that at various intervals which correspond to the "days" of the creation account, God introduces new lifeforms to the earth. Then, over the course of millions of years, there is evolution as tigers and lions evolve from a common ancestor, or new types of bird emerge. At the end of the process, God concludes by creating man distinctly and uniquely.
If a compromise between the evolution and creationism is desirable, then this position permits us to hold to the notion that God directly created man, but does not attempt to ignore the significant scientific evidence that some evolution happens. What remains in debate is whether evolution by natural selection can account for the emergence of all species from a common ancestor, or that man descended from primates. As we will now investigate, this premise is more open to debate than we have been led to believe.
Questioning Evolution - Do We Dare?
If evolution is presented in biology class as a "theory" anymore, it's done with a wink or a tongue-in-cheek, for we're told that no mainstream scientist retains any skepticism towards Darwin's theory. While this article will not attempt to refute all the evidence for evolution point-for-point, we will investigate some major areas where evolution is, if nothing else, misunderstood by the general public.
Origins of Life
Evolution and natural selection absolutely cannot explain how life began on earth. This is not a flaw in Darwinian theory, but it is outside the scope of what evolution attempts to explain. Natural selection depends on random mutations of cells, but if there is no cell, there can be no natural selection and therefore, there can be no evolution. The theory does not take effect until there are already cells available to divide and mutate, so it can do nothing to explain the emergence of cells from their constituent elements. In fact, no credible and widely-held scientific theory exists to explain how life began. Modern science simply does not know. You can read more about this subject in this article
Fossil Evidence?
In Darwin's day, it was known that the fossil record could not fully validate all of Darwin's claims, for no transitional species had ever been found. It was assumed that more of these fossils would be discovered in time and solidify the theory. The promising find of the Archeopteryx only two years later was hailed as an important find, one of many to come. Today, it is no longer certain that Archeopteryx was a transitional species and even if it was, it was the first and only of it's kind to be found. Despite nearly a century and a half of new fossil evidence, the small, gradual changes that Darwin predicts have remained elusive and nothing has been found to add any additional weight to his theory of a common ancestor for all living beings. Dr. Jonathan Wells, PhD in molecular biology from Berkley, calls the fossil record "discontinuous" and asserts that as far as the fossil record is concerned, evolution at the phylum level has be "dis-confirmed."
What has been found during the Cambrian explosion are examples of some insects, crabs and starfish appearing in the fossil record fully formed, ostensibly from nothing. Evolutionists maintain that since the theory of evolution is correct, the fossils will be found. But the fossils were supposed to be one of the primary pieces of evidence to support evolution. If there are no fossils, then where's the evidence?
Descent with Modification or Design?
Another commonly regarded proof of evolution is homology - the similarities that can be observed between species which are believed to share a common ancestor. An example might be the skeletal similarities between a human hand and a bat's wing. In a similar vein, it is commonly touted that since man and apes share ninety-eight percent of their DNA code, we must have evolved from apes. The problem with this argument is that it cuts both ways. One can point to the similarities and claim that when something works, you use it again and again. If eyes work well, or hearts work well, why wouldn't God reuse the same techniques where it made sense to do so? It's a no-win situation for creationists, for if every species were vastly different, the evolutionist would point to the extreme variations and exclaim, "look at how natural selection makes everything so different!"
We can see examples of this design principle in our daily life. Walk into any two homes anywhere in the country and there is a very good chance you will see the same construction techniques - a foundation of concrete or brick with drywall nailed or screwed to frames made out of pine two-by-fours. Why? Because it works! When you have an effective technique, you don't reinvent the wheel for each new home.
If we looked at the materials list for the two homes, how much would they have in common? Every home, regardless of the design, needs nails, wood, drywall, carpet and so forth. It is the same with man and apes. If our anatomy is so similar, why wouldn't we have such similar DNA? It takes virtually the same materials to make a simian heart as a human heart. To put this in perspective, we share ninety percent of our DNA with mice so clearly we should not overstate the importance of having similar structures or composition. It's an argument for design just as well as it's an argument for evolution.
Irreducible Complexity
The concept of irreducible complexity was first introduced by Dr. Michael Behe, a PhD in biochemistry. Using the example of a mousetrap, Behe explains that if we remove any of the necessary components such as the spring or base, we don't end up with a less effective mousetrap, we end up with one which does not work at all. Behe has identified many biological components which he believes are similarly irreducible. Since natural selection favors only those adaptations which are beneficial, and since these machines are completely ineffective until they are complete, it's difficult to see how natural selection could have preserved these mutations before the completed structure was in place. For example, if a species were to develop a spring, the unguided and random processes of natural selection could not have preserved the spring in anticipation of it's usefulness in the mouse trap because in the absence of a designer, the completed machine could not be foreseen. Most adaptations such as a spring, absent the rest of the necessary components would have offered no survival advantage and thus would not be preserved.
One of Behe's most persuasive examples in nature is that of the bacteria's flagellum, a whip-like protrusion from the cell which acts as a tiny outboard motor. In recent decades, scientists have begun to realize that this is a very complex design requiring between 30 and 35 unique proteins to work. It's inconceivable to Behe that this machine could have evolved randomly when the entire mechanism would provide no survival advantage until it was complete.
Evolutionists have derided Behe's work and it has not been accepted in the academic mainstream, however Behe continues to stand by his work and theories, adding his voice to the rising chorus of those who feel that evolutionary theory is in crisis.