Worldview Class #2 – Part 11 – Biblical Christian Biology

While teaching a Sunday morning class on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************

The theory of evolution is losing momentum. When I was in high school nearly thirty years ago, I was sometimes ridiculed for questioning this concept in my biology class. Arguing against evolution and in favor of divine creation was deemed by many (my teachers included) as being old-world thought. To them, the science of evolution was settled.

Advancements in scientific understanding have been made since that time, and though many scientists continue to put forth evolution as “fact”, there are many who now see purpose and design in the things they study. They are beginning to question whether or not evolution might only be a “theory” after all.

The Biblical Christian worldview espouses creation as the origin of species. The Christian belief is that the creation story in Genesis is a literal description of how the earth, plants, animals and humans came to be. God created it all, with a purpose in mind, in only six days. The pull of evolutionary theory has been strong in the last few decades, however, with some Christians accepting the concept of theistic evolution. This theory speculates that God started the spark of life in the universe, and then allowed evolution to work over millions of years, creating new species and ultimately resulting in the creation of man. This allows many Christians to breathe a sigh of relief, enabling them to accept scientific preaching about evolution, while still holding on to their concept of a loving God behind all of it.

But theistic evolution cannot be the Biblical Christian viewpoint – because it is neither Biblical, nor Christian. The Bible tells of a six-day account of creation, and a seventh day of rest for God. Many Christians have called into question the real length of a “day” in these opening Bible chapters, saying that perhaps the creation story is an allegory for millions of years. But if creation is a metaphor, then what is the allegorical explanation for God’s seventh day of rest? And why not question the meaning of the word “day” in verses such as 1 Corinthians 15:4 – “that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”? Simply put, many Christians have bowed to the whims of “science” in our modern age. Rather than questioning the theory of evolution, they have tried to make a bad theory fit the Biblical account.

The creation account must be literal for far more important reasons than the simple meaning of words. It is absolutely necessary to believe in Adam and Eve and the perfection of the Garden of Eden for God’s overall plan to have any meaning. The fall of man is critical to the entire Bible story, and most importantly, the story of Jesus Christ. Without Adam’s fall from a perfect, sinless state there would be no need for Jesus Christ to come to earth and accomplish an amazing thing – live a perfectly sinless life. Jesus came to undo everything that was lost by Adam – and he chose to take our sin on himself. The Bible story is clear – there is one man on each side of the story:

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned…..Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.” Romans 5:12, 18

It is vitally important that the Christian worldview contain the creation story, as it literally happened in the opening chapters of Genesis. Without it, the whole meaning of God’s plan for salvation is watered down and lost.

Science – real, high-quality science – declares a creation beginning of the universe, much more than an evolutionary one. For example:

1. Scientists are uncovering a design in nature, one that cannot be random. Even prominent evolutionists such as Paul Davies have stated – “Every advance in fundamental physics seems to uncover yet another facet of order.” Such statements are a blow to evolutionary theory.

2. DNA – the structure of DNA is so complex and fundamental to life that evolution has yet to explain how it could have “evolved”. It’s an “all or nothing” type of design. DNA is found in the lowest of life forms – fully functional and operating. Without its design in place from the moment that life began, there would be no continuation of life. Creation uniquely answers the question about how life could come about at the same time as DNA.

3. The inability for science to recreate spontaneous generation is a blow to evolutionary theory. Even non-creation scientists admit that they have been unable to recreate the process of life springing from non-life. Scientific arguments suggest that life and ozone in the earth’s atmosphere must have formed at the same time – a concept that points directly to the viability of creation.

4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the amount of useful, constructive energy in the universe is lessening with each moment. But an extrapolation of this law, backwards in time, would suggest that in an infinitely old universe this amount of energy would approach infinity – which violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Modeling suggests that the universe has a finite existence and just “happened” at some point in the past – again, agreeing with the idea of creation.

5. Gene pool barriers must be crossed in order for one species to evolve into another. For a bird to become a dinosaur, or an ape to become a man, there must be a significant genetic “crossing”. Yet science cannot demonstrate the occurrence of a crossing between species – not in the lab, and not in the fossil record.

6. The fossil record condemns the idea of evolution and supports creation. The sudden appearance of all levels of life in the Cambrian period point to a created world. The lack of transitional forms between species cannot be explained by a rational theory (the theory of punctuated equilibrium, while convenient, has no basis in scientific experimentation). And there is no fossil record supporting the idea of beneficial mutations helping one species along into the formation of another. Again, the overwhelming evidence of fossils points to creation and the Genesis flood.

These specific points will be covered in a future series – “Seven Reasons Why Science Points To Creation”.

In the end, the question of worldview biology comes down to this single question – Where will you put your faith? Both evolution and creation require a measure of faith. In many ways, scientific evolution requires more, because so many things remain unexplained. Creation, on the other hand, is rooted in the one absolute truth that cannot be ignored – THERE IS A GOD.

**********************
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class #2 – Part 8 – Secular Humanist Biology

While teaching a Sunday morning class on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.
*********************
Much of our world seems to revolve around science. This tendency has increased dramatically over the last hundred years as we gain more knowledge about our surroundings, and as technological leaps have enabled us to witness, measure, and create wonderful things. Indeed, for some, the wonders of science have almost become a cause for worship…

Among the many scientific areas of interest, the field of biology generates a greater intersection of scientific discovery and emotional response than any other. Topics touching how we got here, and whether we were created by God or formed through random chance, are usually accompanied by a passionate belief.

For the secular humanist, the guiding principle behind their opinion on biology is Darwinian evolution – the theory that matter was created from nothing and that man is continually evolving into a more capable being. The Humanist Manifesto I says “Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process,” while the Humanist Manifesto II claims, “Science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces.” It is interesting that in the forty year period between these two documents, humanists migrated from “Humanism believes” to “Science affirms”. Is that indeed a fact?

Facts are funny things – they are supposed to be unimpeachable. Yet most objective scientists who take a look at evolutionary science will admit that there are serious flaws.

First, where did it all come from? For matter and energy to become a living, breathing life form after “millions of years”, there had to be a start. That is, where did the original matter and energy come from? To answer that question, evolutionary scientists rely on the concept of spontaneous generation – the creation of something from nothing. Yet with all of our knowledge and advanced lab equipment, science has not been able to duplicate this theory in any fashion – not even on the smallest scale. So, how does “science affirm” this very important piece of evolutionary theory? So far, it has not.

Skipping past this obvious difficulty in the theory so far, evolutionists next claim that natural selection, through the mechanism of beneficial mutations, allows life forms to evolve over time – nature will select those mutations which give the life form a benefit over competing animals and organisms. Again, do science and observation bear this out? In discussing this with a medical friend, his observation is that nature actually appears to frown on mutations. Many fetuses with a genetic mutation do not make it to birth. And those that are born with a mutation typically have a much shorter life expectancy than average. Consider it – when was the last time anyone ever demonstrated a mutation in an animal or a human being that gave an advantage to that being? Could it be that mutations are actually detrimental, and that a living being with no mutations is actually the one most likely to survive (from the Christian perspective, does God’s creation require a mutation to be “improved”?) What does objective science and real observation say about this piece of evolutionary theory? Again, the proof seems to be against this hypothesis.

Finally, evolutionists point to the fossil record as proof that their theory is correct. Carl Sagan went so far as to say that “evolution is a fact, amply demonstrated by the fossil record.” But is this true? If evolution were to be proven by the fossil record, two things would have to occur. First, fossilized organisms need to become increasingly more simple, the farther down one digs into the earth. The most complex organisms should be nearer to the surface, because they “evolved” later in history. Add to this that there needs to be a plausible ancestor relationship that can be constructed between the fossils that are found in these layers. Second, transitional forms need to found in the fossil record – these are the “missing links” that must have occurred between species. You should be able to find a multitude of examples that appear to be somewhere between a fish and a frog, or that are part bird and part-dinosaur. Yet, do fossil discoveries bear this theory out? In fact ,they do not. So, scientists modify their theory to include unprovable new ideas like punctuated equilibrium (where inter-species evolution occurs very quickly, leaving little time for fossils of these “between species forms” to be deposited). How convenient.

But evolutionary science fails to display proof of any of these three theories (spontaneous generation, beneficial mutations, and the fossil record of evolution). That leaves them with an empty, unproven theory – open for debunking.

Evolutionary scientists could recover from this had they not made one far greater mistake at the very outset of their philosophy. Humanism rejects the possibility that a Divine Creator could have existed to create matter, guide genetics, and create all of the species ever needed in just a few hours. Julian Huxley, famous humanist of the twentieth century, spelled this out when he said, “Modern science must rule out special creation or divine guidance.”

To which I respond with a few questions:

1) Is it good science to initially reject the possibility of a supernatural Creator, without any experimentation or proof to make such a sweeping claim?

2) Are the theories of spontaneous generation and beneficial mutations, coupled with the lack of evidence of evolution in the fossil record, the best science that you can come up with? Don’t these theories require a great deal of faith, since the evidence doesn’t support them?

3) If we’re going to rely on faith, why not consider a “theory of creation” instead?

To me, the last question is intriguing. “Good science” is supposed to be objective. Most of us were taught in science class to assume nothing before conducting an experiment. Wrong assumptions lead to incorrect conclusions. By casting aside a very relevant possibility – that of a Divine Creator – humanism is painted into a very dangerous corner. The idea of humanism is built on two shaky foundations – one of Darwinian evolution, and one of atheism. If either of these foundations were ever to crumble, humanism would have its downfall.

I believe that science is beginning to question the reality of the theory of evolution. It seems possible that a new class of objective scientists will rise up to debunk the theory. Will they allow “the theory of creation” into the discussion? Romans 1:20 tells us that, “since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse”. This tells us that science – real science – can actually prove the existence of God. I can’t wait.

Finally, Romans 1:23 tells us,

“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”

Could it be that this scripture, especially the highlighted part, is fulfilled in the common textbook progression below?

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 9 – Marxist Biology
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class #2 – Part 7 – Biblical Christian Philosophy

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************

We have defined philosophy as the “rational investigation of the principles of knowledge.” Put more clearly – How do we know what we know?

Unlike the humanistic worldviews, Biblical Christian philosophy centers around one very unique belief – there is a God who exists and who is markedly different from the “natural” world. While most humanist viewpoints limit all things to only the natural world, or in the case of the New Age movement, a “non-natural” world ruled by man’s spirit, the Christian worldview opens the door to the “supernatural”.

As we will see in the future sessions on biology, it is “bad science” to eliminate the possibility of God at the outset of a philosophy, simply because one chooses not to believe. A tottering, ever-changing philosophy can be constructed - but is it wise to assume with no evidence to support it, that God does not exist? For this reason, many philosophers have come around to the idea that the Biblical Christian philosophy is the one which makes the most sense. C.E.M. Joad, once a staunch humanist, made this claim late in his life - “I now believe that the balance of reasonable considerations tells heavily in favor of the religious, even of the Christian view of the world.” In discussing philosophy, Sir Francis Bacon said, “A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”

The universe tells of a Divine Creator. Many scientific principles support the claim of intelligent design far better than that of humanist worldviews – non-spontaneous generation, DNA theory, and the delicate balance maintained between oxygen and carbon dioxide in our atmosphere – all of these tell of something much greater than random events. My favorite scientific principle to discuss is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which I like to summarize as “Things fall apart”. We all experience this natural tendency toward decay and disorganization in our everyday lives – dust falls on our mantle and picture frames, junk mail piles up on the counter, the garage begins to tend toward disarrangement shortly after we clean and organize it. Such tendency toward disarray is accepted as normal in our minds. So why is it so easy for some philosophies to accept the idea that something so complex as the human body could be created from nothing, though a series of random events? Such a belief radically violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics – and yet scientists stand by it, claiming that anything is possible given enough time.

For the Christian, we live in a world which moves gloriously to God’s principles and laws. Gravity – a law unto itself – works without fail, because God made it so, and because he wants the consistency of such a principle to tell of his constant and unswerving nature. If gravity were random, life would be far more unpleasant, and such a life would not speak of an unvarying Divine presence. God made gravity to be the way it is for a very distinct reason.

Finally, God made our minds to be a reflection of His mind. We are created in His image, making us unique among all of God’s handiwork. As such, He has given us curiosity and the desire to learn and know. Philosophy is not a thing which should be avoided by Christians – quite the opposite. We possess a philosophy which not only explains everything around us – we possess a philosophy which is right. It is unfortunate that our world pushes aside the Biblical Christian viewpoint as being irrelevant, or not belonging in the same class as other humanist philosophies. In fact, the dedicated Christian should be willing and prepared to defend his or her own philosophical viewpoint with anyone. Supernaturalism explains more than simple naturalism. C.S. Lewis summarized the concept brilliantly,

“The Naturalists have been engaged in thinking about Nature. They have not attended to the fact that they were thinking. The moment that one attends to this it is obvious that one’s own thinking cannot be merely a natural event, and that therefore something other than Nature exists. The Supernatural is not remote and abstruse; it is a matter of daily and hourly experience, as intimate as breathing.”

**********************

Next: Worldview #2 - Part 8 – Secular Humanist Biology

-- or –

Back to the start of this series

-- or --

Back to Worldview Series #1