"The theory

that all life on

this planet
evolved... is
not necessarily
a theory that is
anti-God"
"Soren
Lovtrup,
damns
Darwinism as
"the greatest
deceit in the
history of
science"
"There are
many who
believe that it
is not wrong,
even in
science, to rule
out the
possibiltiy of a
guiding hand"
EXPLORING CHRISTIANITY - SCIENCE
THE BIBLE
Can we trust a book written 2000 years ago?
EYEWITNESS
Did the writers of the New Testament get their picture of
Jesus right?
GOD - MAN
Is Jesus really God?
RESURRECTION
Did Jesus really rise from the dead?
RELIGIONS
With so many religions, why Christianity?
SUFFERING
If there is a God, why is there so much suffering?
TRINITY
Understanding the Trinity.
SCIENCE
The complementary nature of Science & Christianity.
FORGIVENESS
What it is and why it matters?
GUIDANCE
How does God guide?
REPENTANCE
What it is and why you can't get to heaven without it.
BORN AGAIN
What does it mean to be converted and born again?
SAVING FAITH
The kind of faith that will get you to heaven
ASSURANCE
Can I know for sure that I am going to heaven?
TRUTH
What is truth and does it matter?
MORALITY
Does it matter how we live? A Christian view of morality.
THE CHURCH
God's vision for his family, the Church. A call to the churches
of the new millennium.
PURPOSE
How can I find a great purpose for living?
IDENTITY
Who am I; Finding my true identity as a human being and as
a child of God.
SELF-ESTEEM
How can I feel good about my self? The Christian basis for
proper sel-esteem.
LIFE AFTER DEATHChristianity's Hope &
Challenge.
THE CROSS
Why did Jesus Die? What the Bible says about the Cross.
Grace
The importance of grace in the New Testament.

The theory of evolution
There are two points that I wish to make at this stage, both very important if we are to
get a balanced picture of the debate. The first is that the theory that all life on this planet
evolved over time from atoms floating in some primordial soup (or on the crystal edges
of minerals as is the more modern view) is not necessarily a theory that is anti-God.
There have been (and still are) plenty of Christians, scientists or otherwise, who have
accepted the basic scientific framework of evolution, who believe that perhaps this is the
way that God chose to do it. And they see no conflict between this and the teaching of
Genesis 1. In fact, some would say that Genesis 1 supports such a view. After all, if God
is a creative God, why should he not take time to do it. With our increasing knowledge
of the amazing properties of the DNA molecule that exists in every living cell, the tape-recording of every detail of our physical
makeup, why should not God choose to reprogramme the tape along the way as he lovingly prepared life on earth for the existence of
humans? Eric Delve, British evangelist and clergyman, has written:
What about the...question: "If God could have made the world in six days why would he bother to take six billion years?" Why not
ask: "Since Yehudi Menuhin has recorded the Bach Violin Concerto in A minor - why bother to learn to play it yourself?" The answer
is parallel. The God of creation making man in his image, created a being who could only be fulfilled by creating. How many men
have found themselves, like me, at the seaside completing a magnificent sandcastle "for the kids" only to find they have lost interest
long ago. Why would he take so long? He enjoyed it!
Darwin himself, though agnostic in his latter years as to how life began, never argued against the existence of God. From the second
edition on of his Origin of the Species, first published in 1859, he inserted a reference to the Creator who "originally breathed life
with its several powers into a few forms or into one." What Darwin did do was to provide for all people (those who believe in God
and those who do not) a more reasonable mechanism for how life could have arisen without miraculous intervention. Of course, if
people are actively looking for reasons not to believe in God, this gives them a way out. However, it is unreasonable to blame Darwin
for that. He was merely attempting to give the best interpretation of the evidence as he saw it. That is what good science is all about.
The second point of importance is that to believe in evolution does not necessarily mean that one believes in Darwin's view of how it
might have happened. It is a little known fact that a sizeable proportion of biology research fellows, professors, and graduate students
at leading institutions are Bible-believing Christians who deny the neo-Darwinist hypothesis of the development of molecules to
primordial life, and primordial life to humans, through natural processes alone.
The central idea of Darwinism is that evolution is due to the combined effect of mutations and natural selection.
"Copying errors" occur in the genes, some of which happen to be beneficial, to give the organism some advantage
over other organisms. These advantages are passed on to offspring. The arguments against all life on this planet
evolving in this manner, within the time scale allowed, or even evolving at all, are many and impressive. It is not
difficult today to find people with impressive qualifications, and not necessarily Christian, who believe in
evolution, but do not believe it happened the way Darwin said it did.
One example is the French zoologist, Pierre-Paul Grasse, who has been described as the most distinguished of
French zoologists. He edited the 28 volumes of Traite de Zoologie and is the author of numerous original
investigations and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. He is known for his encyclopedic knowledge of the
living world. In 1973 he published a major book on evolution, which appeared in English translation, Evolution of Living Organisms,
in 1977. First and foremost, the book aims to expose Darwinism as a theory that does not work, because it clashes with so many
experimental findings. Having studied the subject extensively, both inside his laboratory and in nature, he says that neither mutation
nor natural selection work the way Darwinists think they do. Having spent 200 large pages packed with evidence that Darwinism is
on an entirely wrong track, he then offers a new theory to replace it. Some would go further. Swedish zoo-physiologist, Soren
Lovtrup, damns Darwinism as "the greatest deceit in the history of science"!
Another very recent example is that of biochemist Michael Behe, who in Darwin's Black Box has challenged ("demolished" in the
word of one reviewer) the idea that complex biological structures could possibly happen by means of gradual accretions of random
mutations, chosen and preserved by natural selection. Either direct intervention or a guiding mind that knows the target at which the
organism is shooting would be necessary. The details he marshals are very compelling. Behe says that his fundamental assumptions
about evolution began to change when he read Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, a New Zealand medical doctor and
human genetics professor. I understand Denton is emphatic about the fact of evolution but questions the manner in which it is
supposed to have happened.
Mathematicians, physical scientists and philosophers of science could also be quoted in this regard. This is not to
say that evolution did not happen. It is simply to point out that, if it did happen, there is still plenty of uncertainty
as to how it happened. Other suggestions have been put Foreward such as Alister Hardy's third factor - of species
selecting the environment! However, there are many who believe that it is not wrong, even in science, to rule out
the possibility of a guiding hand.
Francis Collins, a leading scientist and head of the Human Genome Project, reconciles his Christian faith with
scientific theory, including evolution, in The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free
Press, 2006). In an interview in Christianity Today he made this sensible comment:
My heart goes out to sincere believers who feel threatened by evolution and who feel that they have to maintain
their position against it in order to prove their allegiance to God. But if God used this process and gave us the chance to discover it,
then it seems anachronistic, to say the least, that we would feel we have to defend him against our own scientific conclusions. God is
the author of all truth. You can find him in the laboratory as well as in the cathedral. He's the God of the Bible; he's the God of the
genome. He did it all.
In November 1996, more than 160 academics - scientists, philosophers and theologians - from 98 universities, colleges and
organisations gathered at Biola University in California to address these issues. The majority represented secular universities. Only a
few of the participants were young-earth creationists. This was the first major gathering of what may be now described as "the
intelligent-design movement". The movement's defining view was spelled out by Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial. He said:
We have to recognize the difference between materialist philosophy and scientific investigation. We need to have a separation of the
philosophy from the real science, both in order to have an honest, unbiased scientific enterprise, and to protect the public from
getting the false impression that scientific evidence has shown that [the] evolutionary process is our true creator.
Of the participants at the conference he said:
These are people who want to learn what truth is, what the facts are. They have a devotion to finding the truth, whatever it is.
If you do believe in the God of the Bible, then you still have the option of believing in his creation of the world through "natural"
processes. However, if you don't believe in God, then you have no alternative to believing that evolution happened somehow. And I
strongly suspect that what scientists believe about God is usually the result of other factors than whether their particular line of work
gives evidence of him or not!


Foreward
The complementary nature of science and Christianity
Christian foundations of modern science
Christian foundations - 1st to 14th centuries
Beginnings of modern science
The age of the universe
The theory of evolution
What does Genesis 1 really teach?
Sorting it all out
The three greatest acts of creation
The place of humans in the universe
The need of science and Christianity for each other
The nature of God's creative activity
A word to those still searching for God
Conclusion

Home
Copyright
About the Author
E-mail
Links

BUY RESOURCE MATERIAL

Site design by ttdesign.com
http://www.christianity.co.nz/science6.htm May 21, 2014, 1:54:51 PM

http://www.christianity.co.nz/science6.htm May 21, 2014, 1:54:51 PM