Author : Wayne S. Walker
We have now finished a group of articles in this series in which we have looked at some of the evidences for God’s existence as the Creator. Of course, our primary source for such evidence is the record that God Himself has left us.
“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth’ …Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” (Genesis 1:26-31).
One way that unbelievers have attempted to explain away God as Creator is by the theory of evolution. So we turn our attention to a short discussion of this important topic.
Evolution as an explanation for the origin and development of life on earth is very pervasive in our society. Not only is it promoted in college and university scientific studies, but it is found in high school and even elementary school science texts, as well as children’s nature videos, television shows, books, and magazines. Even though some of the latter may not overtly teach it, they contain evidences of the evolutionary bias of the authors and editors. But in spite of the fact that an admittedly overwhelming majority of the “intelligentsia” today seem to accept evolution, it is not as dead a controversy as some evolutionists would like to have us believe.
First, we must define our subject, which is not necessarily the easiest thing to do. The Encyclopedia Brittanica lists some twenty-two different theories of evolution. Basically, the concept of evolution can be defined in two ways. First, there is the special theory of evolution which states simply that change occurs within specifically defined limits. This is observable and not subject to reasonable argument. Second, there is the general theory of evolution. Batsell Barrett Baxter defined it in this way:
“The word evolution is generally understood to refer to the hypothesis or theory that all life on earth originated from non-living matter and that all forms of life on the earth today came from some original form of life by a connected series of changes, which at every point were only natural, and are therefore explainable by science.” (I Believe Because… p.119).
As you can see, there is great room for equivocation and confusion here. When we talk about “evolution” in common conversation, we usually mean the general theory. However, what the proponents of the general theory do is take the evidence that plainly exists for the special theory (microevolution), extrapolate it, and then present it claiming that it corroborates their general theory (macroevolution). They often claim also that all “good” scientists accept the general theory of evolution. However, the fact is that there are many scientists who are believers in creation, and many of them are working hard to see that the theory of “scientific creationism” or “intelligent design” is given a fair hearing. This results in public conflicts arising from time to time between creationists and evolutionists.
Therefore, even though it may not always be as “hyped up” now as a few years ago, evolution as a subject which is being taught in our schools is a topic that is still controversial and worthy of discussion. The atheists, evolutionists, and humanists evidently recognize this. In A Secular Humanist Declaration, they state,
“Today the theory of evolution is again under heavy attack by religious fundamentalism. Although the theory of evolution cannot be said to have reached its final formulation, or to be an infallible principle of science, it is nonetheless supported impressively by the findings of many sciences… Accordingly, we deplore the efforts by fundamentalists (especially in the United States) to invade the science classrooms, requiring that creationist theory be taught to students and requiring that it be included in biology textbooks. This is a serious threat both to academic freedom and to the integrity of the educational process.” (p. 21).
Why should we not, rather, deplore the efforts of humanists to invade the science classrooms, requiring that only evolutionist theory, which they cannot prove under any circumstances, be taught and included in biology textbooks, without any reasonable alternative explanations? This would seem to be a more serious threat to both academic freedom and the integrity of the educational process. In any event, the evolutionists have, in effect, declared war on Bible believers, so we need to be ready for it! We plan to do that in the next few articles of this series.
