Evolution vs. Creation

I am a conservative Christian and I think that my position on the evolution vs. Creation debate may surprise you. First of all, I accept the Bible, Old and New Testament as the word of God, written by human authors guided by the Holy Spirit. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The first sentence of the Bible says a lot and if it is not true, then the rest of the book is pointless fiction. With that being said, it is important to note what the Bible does and does not reveal to us. The Bible very clearly states who did the creating, what was created and why it was created. The Bible does not state when or how the creation happened. When and how is something God has chosen not to reveal to us. I have to stand apart from people who set an age for the planet earth either young or old. Neither is something that can be proven.

On the evolution side, I have a huge problem with teaching a theory as scientific fact. Some people may point to this page on the WikiPedia. Let me be clear, I accept microevolution. By this I mean that species can adapt to the environment. What I object to is the macroevolution. I have not seen evidence of one species evolving into another. An example would be the common ancestor between Man and Gorillas that has never been found. Right from the WikiPedia is their disclaimer on fossil records: “The study of fossil records is helpful for scientists to trace the evolutionary history of organisms. However, in reality, hardly any fossils that were intermediate forms between related groups of species could be found. The lack of continuous fossils records is the major limitation in evidence for the existence of such intermediate forms of organisms. These gaps in the fossil records are called the missing links.”

Here is an interesting piece of logic from the WikiPedia:

Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution

If widely separated groups of organisms are originated from a common ancestry, they are expected to have certain basic features in common. The degree of resemblance between two organisms should indicate how closely related they are in evolution:

  • Groups with little in common are assumed to have diverged from a common ancestor much earlier in geological history than groups which have a lot in common;
  • in deciding how closely related two animals are, a comparative anatomist looks for structures which, though they may serve quite different functions in the adult, are fundamentally similar, suggesting a common origin. Such structures are described as homologous; and
  • in case where the structures serve different functions in adult, it may be necessary to trace their origin and embryonic development.

When a group of organism share a homologous structure which is specialized to perform a variety of functions in order to adapt different environmental conditions and modes of life are called adaptive radiation. The gradual spreading of organisms with adaptive radiation is known as divergent evolution.

What you have here is a the assumption that a theory is true to prove the theory. The Comparative Anatomy fails to account for a common designer.

My point is that accepting either Creation or Evolution in exclusion of the other, requires a blind and unquestioning faith. To me, evolution as an attempt to explain the “How” of creation is reasonable, however it is only a theory. God separates the creation of living things into 5 distinct groups

  1. Plants
  2. Sea Creatures
  3. Winged Birds
  4. Land Animals (Livestock, Wild Animals and Creatures that move along the ground)
  5. Man

Evolution does not provide evidence of “crossover” or evolution between these 5 groups. There certainly a possibility and evidence to support evolution within each of the 5 groups above.

Pure Creationists have to ignore demonstrated scientific fact. Science has not been able to refute anything in the Bible, but it has been able to refute some of man’s interpretation of the Bible.

The problem in the Creation/Evolution argument is that is far more about the politics than the substance. And this is where the argument gets “Stuck on Stupid.”