Big Questions . . . Living Answers

If Evolution Explains Life, Is God Really Needed?”

There were three professionals sitting around discussing what the oldest profession was. The doctor speaks up and says, “Well, the Bible says that God took a rib out of Adam to make the woman. That clearly required surgery, so the oldest profession is obviously medicine.” The engineer shook his head saying, “No, no, the Bible says that God created the world out of void and chaos. To do that, God must have clearly acted as an engineer, so that is the oldest profession.” The lawyer smiles smugly and leans over saying, “but who do you think created the chaos?”

I wish the study of origins; the beginnings of the universe could be humorous. But it isn’t. It’s incredibly important. Those who oppose Christianity know it. We need to know it to.

About ten years ago, our family visited Disney World in Florida. Not long after that, I read the book by Charles Colson “How Now Shall We Live?” I found I was not alone in my deep concern as I traveled through Disney’s Epcot Center. I found that those concerns were recorded in Colson’s book.

As we took the kids on this much anticipated adventure into Walt Disney’s world, I couldn’t help feeling that we were not just being entertained, dazzled and thrilled. I had this nagging sense that we were also being educated – rather intentionally. There was something important the decision makers at Disney were trying to sell us.

I saw it when we entered a theater for a show called “The Living Seas.” There in that circular theater, the narrator tried to answer how the oceans came to be. He described in words as the screen described in images a process where our tiny planet was just in the right place at the right time for forces to unfold for chemical reactions, catastrophic explosions and eventually rain, lots of rain to fall upon the earth, washing down the bare slopes of a barren lifeless planet. Finally, the seas were born, and here, the narrator said, is where the primeval seas gave birth to single cell plants, which began to evolve into other forms of life. The narrator had painted a picture of a universe that was governed by purely natural forces that by pure chance brought about all that we know.

I saw it when we were on a ride that was supposed to tell us about the history of energy. Bill Nye The Science Guy and Ellen Degeneres hosted it. Bill gave it the credibility factor with kids. Ellen gave it a humorous touch. But the message was clear. We are here by chance. Everything happened in just the right way, by chance.

I walked away from Epcot that day thinking to myself, “I know this disturbs me, but I doubt it even phases the vast majority of the people who come here each day – millions upon millions each year. What impact was this place having upon the children whose dreams were fulfilled by a pilgrimage to Disney?”

On the other hand, I was thrilled when Lori and I were able to visit a new Creation Science Museum near Cincinnati this past summer. I had been reading about it for years, though it just opened in the last year. It was incredible. Instead of speaking in vague terms, it presented the same evidence that everyone sees and explained in detail and in a scientific framework how and why life is as we see it today – how and why the earth is as we see it today. I was very pleased, because it presented a universe, world and body of life that was created by God with incredible complexity. It presented a world upset by a catastrophic flood that covered the entire earth, changing the very atmosphere, geography and habitat of our world. It explained what our eyes see with a comprehensive and cohesive story that follows the trail of evidence we call geology, biology, physics, chemistry, and more.

The important question is “what is the origin of life?”

It’s a hot question today and a raging debate with huge repercussions. How did this universe get here? How did we get here? Did it all happen by time and chance acting on matter that has always existed or somehow spontaneous began to exist without a designer? Or is there a God who designed it all and by His power created it? The implications are far reaching, and we sense that this is the case. Americans are a bit uneasy about this question. For instance, a Denver Post article from March 11, 2000 reports that nationally, 79% of Americans think that creationism ought to be taught in the public schools alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution. 68% of them believe it is possible to hold both views simultaneously, as compatible. That is disturbing. You could not propose two views that are more incompatible. Darwin’s theory of evolution denies the existence of a god, saying that all that exists can be explained through purely natural causes. It is why it is often called naturalistic evolution. Creationism says that God is the origin and Creator of all that is. Creation says that God created all things in their kind. Creationism obviously accounts for changes on the micro scale; mutations within a species but not the mutations and adaptations on a macro scale that caused different species.

Another example comes to mind. The media was outraged. A national debate began. It all started when the Kansas Board of Education, voted 6-4 to de-emphasize the speculative aspects of evolution. The decision was in reaction to a 1995 decision by the National Academy of Sciences who had issued a new set of standards calling for “dramatic” changes in the way public schools teach science. The Kansas Board acted to conform to the new standards. As they examined the new standards, they noted that they called for evolution to be elevated from a “theory” to a “unifying concept.” of science. In other words, it was to be considered a fact upon which all other science was taught. That was too much for some members of the board. They were willing to increase the exposure to microevolution, or the observable changes we can all accept that happen in a short period of time. But macroevolution, the particles to people variety – they regarded as speculative or theory. (By the way, the MAJOR scientists of our day do as well.) They decided to give the local school districts the freedom to adopt their own standards on this subject. In short, the Kansas Board did not forbid the teaching of anything. But that is not how it was spun in the media. The Board of Education had not even suggested that evolution not be taught. Just that it be put into proper perspective as a theory. They had not even mandated that creation be taught as an alternative theory. Yet the outrage was swift and sure. The Kansas Board was labeled as right wing fundamentalists, backwards, ignorant. It proved too much in the end as a few years later the Kansas Board reversed its decision to accommodate the National Science Standards. In a couple of words, they caved in to the public pressure. Other states quickly acted to protect their reputation in the education community by bolstering guidelines to teach evolution only. Those who were outraged were people who adhere to naturalistic philosophy, not those who adhere to objective science. If they were objective, they would invite comparative analysis. As it is, they want naturalistic evolution taught exclusively, despite its problems and inconsistencies, because in evolution they have a theory compatible and supportive of their worldview or philosophy of life. In popular culture, the issue is all but decided. Evolution is a fact to most. But in true scientific circles, that is not the case at all.

The truth is it’s getting trickier to be a scientist and still remain a believer in atheism – naturalistic evolution. Naturalistic evolution is still taught by lower level science teachers in high schools and colleges. Philosophers and Sociologists are still firmly entrenched in it, but the highest-level scientists no longer believe in it. Francis Bacon once said, “A little science estranges man from God. A lot of science brings him back.”

That’s because scientists are continually uncovering new evidence that points to a Creator. For instance scientists are finding unanimously that . . .

1. Life had a beginning

- Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity pointed to this conclusion.

- Alexander Friedman – provided the mathematical basis for a “BIG BANG”

- Edwin Hubble demonstrated that the universe is expanding through the perceived “red shift” of the stars (Doppler effect). In fact, he discovered that the farther away the galaxy, the faster it was moving.

- The COBE satellite (1992) confirmed the data with its transmissions of radiation data.

The conclusions were irrefutable – it all pointed to the birth of the universe – a beginning of time, space and matter. It is a finite universe. Matter, after all the speculation, is not eternal. There was a beginning. And scientists knew that this evidence pointed to a cause, a Creator.

- George Smoot – the director of the COBE project said, “What we found is evidence for the birth of the universe . . . It’s like looking at God.”

- Robert Jastrow, an avowed agnostic and world-renowned physicist said, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (God And The Astronomers, p. 116)

- Mark Worthing: “today, therefore, it is generally accepted as a scientific reality that we live in a finite universe. While many physicists, at least initially, seemed uncomfortable with such results, not a few theologians found in the emerging view of a universe with a seemingly definite beginning a greater compatibility with the idea of a Creator God.” (God, Creation and Modern Physics, p. 28)

Scientists are finding that the origin of the universe is eerily like described in Genesis 1:3 – “ Then God said, Let there be light,’ and there was light.”

2. Life reproduces after its kind

What did Darwin ever prove? He observed animals and organisms making slow gradual changes within their kind. He noticed harmful mutations and helpful adaptations. He thought it was evolution in action. But what Darwin did not understand or accept was that these observable changes are limited. In fact, farmers and breeders have known the best argument against evolution for centuries. Natural changes in living things are limited. Or stated briefly, organisms stay true to type. You can breed endless kinds of dogs, but they are still dogs. None of the changes we observe first hand or through the fossil record have ever produced a new or novel kind of organism. It is just as we read in God’s Word in Genesis 1:11-12; 21, 24-25 – that plants and animals would produce after their kind.

Evolutionary scientists are stuck here. Their theory doesn’t fit the evidence. The evidence points to a Creator.

3. Irreducible Complexity.

Scientists are finding mountains of evidence that the universe is uniquely designed to support a delicate balance of galaxies, stars, planets and even life on earth. The complexity is so incredible that it demands that there was an intelligent designer who put it in motion.

Charles Darwin himself admitted there were many profound problems in his theory. One of them was the fossil record. Another was this idea of irreducible complexity. Darwin wrote long ago, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Origin of the Species).

That is exactly what scientists have been discovering. At every corner they find complexity that could not have evolved. From the human eye, to the existence of the ozone layer, to the complexity of a single cell to the incredible information system contained in a DNA molecule, any changes would mean non-existence. And the incredible design screams for an acknowledgement of a Designer.

We looked at this last week as the anthropic principle – a principle named by scientists that recognizes that everything must be just right – to an incomprehensible degree - for life to exist and for the universe to be sustained. Nobel Prize winning scientist Sir Francis Crick said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”

In other words, scientists are saying that the most logical inference (needed in science when testing a hypothesis) from all of the evidence is that the universe had a beginning and that it was designed by an incredibly powerful and wise Creator. Other inferences are still being introduced – including that life was brought here from another planet,(Did you notice that at the end of Ben Stein’s movie – “Expelled?”) but they are without any merit and evidence. They are just ways for some to continue denying the obvious. It takes reasonable faith to believe in a creating God. It takes blind faith to believe in naturalistic evolution. Science does not undermine faith in God – it greatly enhances it.

Conclusion:

So why has popular culture jumped to a conclusion that ultimately does not fit the evidence?

Again, man often denies the obvious – Romans 1:19-20 – “They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.”

Living Answer – Steve Johnson

I want to bring back to your mind a quote I shared last week. It comes from Harvard biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin. It is found in an article in the New York Review of Books from January 9, 1997. It shows what is a common view among secular scientists, revealing their bias – their lack of objectivity – need to be rather unscientific. Lewontin says, “We take the side of science in spite of the absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life . . . because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”

The great physicist Arthur Eddington summed up the feelings of many of his colleagues when he stated that the idea of a beginning is “philosophically” repugnant (The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics,” Nature 127 (1931), p. 450). Notice, it is not “scientifically” repugnant. In fact, science leads to this conclusion. But for him and many, it is “philosophically” repugnant. They do not want there to be a God.

Another angle to the issue is this: what is at stake is the definition of science. Will scientists go wherever the evidence leads or will they insist that any evidence or lack thereof fit into a presupposed framework of naturalism?

The implications are huge, and so the debate will always rage. You see, children and adults are not just being taught naturalistic evolution in the biology classroom. They are also being taught its implications in ethics classes, sociology, history. You can find it in Bernstein Bears books and Disney children’s videos. It’s in the way news is reported on television. It’s everywhere. Naturalistic evolution is a worldview just like Christianity. It gives explanation to every part of life. Is the ultimate reality the cosmos? Or is the ultimate reality God? What I want you to understand is that science is not at odds with Christianity. Many would have you believe that, but their definition of science is not science at all but philosophy. Science, true science, is the friend of Christianity because it is the friend of the truth.

The issue of origins is a foundation issue, and that is what people instinctively know. Berkley law professor Philip Johnson travels the country speaking at various universities. His topic is the problems with evolution and the evidence for intelligent design. Interestingly, he noted that when he begins to unfold the problems with naturalistic evolution, students and professors alike begin to talk about politics and moral issues. They fear that a discrediting of evolution will result in gays going back to the closet, abortionists going to jail and more. They sense that there is much more at stake than just a scientific theory. They are right. Our origin determines our destiny, our morality, our meaning and purpose, our accountability. It therefore shapes our view of law, ethics, education, sexuality. It would even shape our view of hot news topics like federal funding of stem cell research. It is a foundation issue – THE foundation issue. As Christians, we will never champion our culture fighting skirmishes over abortion, homosexuality, moral absolutes, etc. We will champion our culture when we demonstrate to it that our beginning is explained in God. Everything else flows from that. Where did we come from?

This is why so many are willing to champion a theory that is not supported by science. They don’t want to give up what a culture accepting evolution has given them – autonomy – freedom from God. And Romans 1 tells us what happens when people push away the truth intentionally.

Romans 1:25-27 – “They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.”

Darwin and his adherents were not led to evolution by the facts. To the contrary, they were first committed to the philosophy of naturalism and then they sought a means to justify it scientifically. Even when the facts are stacked against them, they hang tenaciously to their flawed system. Darwinism has championed in our culture over the past century because of its philosophical implications, not it’s scientific evidence.

Naturalism leaves us, necessarily, with no meaning, no purpose, no morals, outside of our own preferencese. Yet we do not experience this. As humans, we sense great meaning to life. We live with moral absolutes. If we did not, we would not live as we do. God has set eternity in our hearts. (Ecclesiastes 3:11).

Some Christians hope to combine the two views, shrinking back from acknowledging the contrast between them. They decide that it must have been God that used evolution as His means of creating. They call it theistic evolution. Yet even Darwin himself insisted that the two views are mutually exclusive. Darwin noted that if God had used a means such as evolution, He would have ensured that each variation and mutation was beneficial and positive from the beginning. He would not have allowed death and destruction to precede the fall of man into sin. Darwin noted that if there were a God, natural selection would have been “superfluous.”

Psalm 14:1 – “Only fools say in their hearts, ‘there is no God.’”

Psalm 19:1-3 – “The heavens tell of the glory of God. The skies display His marvelous craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make Him known.”

Who made me? And why am I here? Those are the questions we face this morning. Creation gives us the basis for human dignity, for moral obligation, for seeking God. Yet the world we live in often runs contrary to these values. God answered that dilemma in formidable fashion in His Son Jesus Christ. We are God’s special creation. But we fell from God in sin and need desperately to get back to God. God desperately loves us and wants us back. Jesus is the answer to that dilemma. Far from being a God we need to run from, He is a God who graciously invites us back to Him, to be His children, forgiven and free, and to experience with Him life eternal – life to the fullest.