Anther deep thought from Jon. (Patti and I are heading to Mexico in 2 days, and I wanted to get this off my chest first.)

The topic of evolution has come up so many times recently that it seems worth addressing.  It seems like every show that I have watched recently, or article, or radio news story has had some reference to an animal or human evolving in a certain way. I am adamantly opposed to, and actively speak out against “such rubbish”.

Ok, to set the stage for this I am going to state that I am a Bible believing, God loving, Christian. The thing that strikes me the most about the whole topic of creation/evolution is that your belief or lack of belief in God seems to make all the difference.

For example, I see a bunch of systems in organisms that can’t evolve in stages – The Respiratory System, The Circulatory System, The Inner Ear, to name a few.

The Respiratory System:
The basic requirements are a vent for air to enter and leave, an organ capable of handling airflow and an organ that can transfer gases into and out of blood without letting the blood out – OR – a set of valves that allow water to be directed from the mouth to pass over gills and an intricate set of gills to extract the oxygen.  Oh, and don’t forget that at the exact same time you need a circulatory system that can make use of the oxygen to fuel the cells in the body.  A vent in the body that is not associated with any other air processing would be catastrophic; lungs not attached to tubes and vents would be catastrophic; etc.  Even if such a deformed creature did ever exist it would certainly not be “the fittest” to dominate its competitors for the bazillion years required through trial and error to oops its way into completing the pieces of the full system.  Remember its “Survival of the fittest” not “Survival of the weak, malformed half-step, that’s required to get to the next actual fit model”.

The Circulatory System:
Basic requirements are a liquid substance that can carry a variety of gases, a cell wall structure that knows the difference between good gas and waste gas, complete with an osmosis mechanic that can make the exchange with the liquid in a split second, a filter that removes expended cells, and a mechanism that continually creates more cells… oh and a complete respiratory system.  Try taking a single cell organism and injecting it with a foreign liquid and see what happens. Heck, inject it with some simple insect blood and see what happens. The result from such experiments is called ‘death’. For sure there are insects that have a small heart and an exoskeleton and no veins or arteries.  The blood just pumps out into the body cavity and back into the heart, but it still has all the required pieces.  (I’m not even going to start talking about what the kidneys do and what an evolutionary catastrophe it would be to either not have them or not have them work properly.) Please explain to me how a DNA miss-alignment at conception could result in the spontaneous development of all these systems at the same time. And if you can’t do that, explain to me how any creature could live and dominate the evolutionary game long enough to get all the pieces working together.

The Inner Ear:
The basic requirements, nerves that connect to the brain that can process a new and unique signal, a membrane that is responsive to sound waves, several finely tuned floating bones that connect to the nerves in such a way that the sound waves produce an electric signal that can be sent to and interpreted by the brain. This is one of the systems in the body that a half step may not be catastrophic, but would also not afford any benefit.  No benefit means natural selection has nothing to ‘select’. Imagine all the species that would have to exist with no hearing and dysfunctional attempts at an ear for one DNA lineage to randomly make it all the way to hearing.  The fossil record provides no such examples.

I have MANY more examples that make no sense to me.  But here’s the rub:

If you are an atheist, you don’t automatically say “Well, I’ll be! There must be a creator and therefore a God.”  You say, “There must be an explanation and dammit, I’m going to figure out what it is because I ‘know’ there is no God.”

If you are a “theist” then you say, “Obviously, your arguments are rock solid; jolly good show. There is a God and He made it all. Thou shalt suck lemons, atheists!”

The belief in the Divine is the basis of these thoughts, NOT SCIENCE! Science does not start with a conclusion and work backward. As a Christian, I start with a belief in God and my world view and my “how did humanity come to exist” thoughts are all based on that.  I will never see creatures as possibly evolving because my knowledge of God is at the core of who I am. I am most definitely biased.  Conversely, if atheism is at the core of who you are, you will never see the possibility of God’s involvement… you will never see a lack of evidence or contrary logic as proof for the creation side, but rather just another challenge of ‘science’ that is yet to be discovered, or logic that needs to be adjusted.  You are also most definitely biased.

I have yet to see a creation / evolution debate end in an alter call where people give there lives to Jesus because the creation side proved its point.  I have seen the creation side prove its point, but all that I have ever seen from the other side is regrouping and a challenge to come up with a better argument.  For that reason I stay way away from the whole debate most of the time, cause whats the point? But maybe its just me, maybe its just on my mind cause I have kids that are taking those subjects in school, I’m just opposed to every TV show, documentary, newspaper article, etc. basing all their comments and explanations on evolution.

What do you think?


Author: Patricia Culley

I'm the ringmaster of my own circus. Just trying to stay one step ahead of the monkeys.

4 thoughts on “Evolution”

  1. Nice post Jon. Since about 2002 and on, I’ve read and researched a large amount on the creation evolution topic. In my view, the evidence fits very well into a recent creation, just as the Bible dates indicate. I don’t believe it’s a Salvation issue, if someone proposes to believe in evolution and you can certainly still be a Christian. However, there are doctrinal issues when you start to believe either the gap theory or a few others.

    What you are talking about Jon is what the scientists over at answersingenesis.org announce as a presupposition. A world view that starts with logic, but dictates how we view the evidence. We all have the same evidence.. example, a mountian.. how did the mountain get there? that is a interpretation, based on a presupposition. If someone believes a molecule will eventually turn into a man and a fern, and a zebra, given enough time, then that is their presupposition. They will believe that mountain was created over large time periods. But a young earth creationist will see this as a product of the flood, when the “fountains of the great deep” broke open. Where the “valleys sank, and the mountains rose”.. Even the dating games folks often play are presuppositions. Example the RATE project. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/11/07/rate-research-results

    I believe we as Christians need to stand firm on the word, it is rock solid. Over the years of researching and reading on this particular topic, sometimes, I admire the faith of the evolutionist. My 2 cents.

  2. Two words: Directed Evolution

    Essentially, I believe in natural micro-evolution and directed macro-evolution. That is to say, I think the our universe is 15 to 20 billion years old just like the astronomers say. I believe the earth is 5 to 7 billion years old, just like the geologists say. I believe man has been walking on the earth for 10’s of thousands of years, just like the anthropologists say.

    However, I also believe that God directs the macro-evolution that resulted in modern man suddenly appearing within the Neanderthal fossil records. That is to say, I believe God caused pre-historic man to evolve suddenly (miraculously?) into modern man. Ditto for all the other major changes that have obviously occurred, yet resulted in no supportive fossil records.

    In short, I believe God created the universe, and then allowed time and natural processes (which he set into motion) to eventually produce in the earth as we know it, where he created modern man by “evolving” him from pre-historic Neanderthals, who were themselves created/directed-evolved from ?? (How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?)

    I see no reason why creation and evolution can’t co-exist within a God-centric cosmology.

  3. Hi John and Patti Hope yo have a great Anniversarry holiday. When I talked to you Patti and asked about the family thought we had to go to Kelowna to meet Judy but those plans changed. Hope every thing worked out I wanted to ask if there was someone who you wanted me to take. Love Grandma

  4. Hi Jon,

    I’m happy to chime in on this one. I’ve been a Christian for a long time and for most of my life I never understood how an atheist could sleep at night claiming that everything we see around us evolved by random chance, without any direction. However, as I dove into the conversation several years ago, I discovered that much of what I “believed” as a Christian was not based on orthodoxy, but a deep seated evangelical distrust of the scientific community and ignorance of the scientific method.

    Methodological naturalism suggests that every physical thing we see can be explained in physical terms. Snow, for example can be explained scientifically in meteorological terms. None of those explanations conflict with a Theological position stating who created the weather system on our planet. Philosophical Naturalism, on the other hand, is an atheistic worldview that claims that that beyond the physical understanding of any natural phenomenon – there is nothing. Philosophical Naturalism is Atheism. It’s a belief system. Methodological Naturalism, the scientific method as it is ascribed to in the laboratory, is unfit on it’s own terms to make judgements on the purpose or ultimate cause of any natural event. For me that is very good news.

    What this means is that while the scientific theory of evolution (which is the best framework we have for understanding the development of species “In natural terms”) doesn’t conflict with the Divine or belief in God, because God isn’t subject to natural laws. God, and any discussion of a theological nature doesn’t live or die on our understanding of the natural world. In this framework, evolution isn’t the enemy at all. It’s just science. God’s book of natural revelation.

    I too believe that God created the universe. And that the laws that he set in place “In The Beginning” show how powerful a creator He is. He doesn’t need to intervene and spontaneously create creatures or species, because He created an entire universe that had the instructions for life built in. Yes he upholds all things by his hands, but we measure those things with physical instruments, and make sense of our universe by discovering the laws – the “how” of nature. Theology is the domain of “why”.

    Good conversation. Keep it up.

Leave a Reply