Creation and Evolution, Reconcilable??

I’m wise enough to admit that I am not a sci­en­tist. I haven’t fol­lowed the sci­en­tif­ic method through on any­thing that I can think of since my sev­enth or eighth grade project on the rhodo­den­dron plant, and I’m not even sure if I’m spelling it cor­rect­ly anymore!

But, I’m also wise enough to know that the wis­dom of the world is made fool­ish by that of God. I believe Gen­e­sis 1 just as it is writ­ten, with six days of cre­ative work hap­pen­ing in the order described, in the man­ner described, and in the time described.

I believe that crea­tures were cre­at­ed to repro­duce after their own kind. The Bible begins with this foun­da­tion, and from it we can be assured that man did not have his ori­gin from the beasts of the field, but rather from the cre­ative work and breath of God. 

So what then of evo­lu­tion? Again, I am not a sci­en­tist, nor would I ever accept that evo­lu­tion can account for the ori­gins of all life on earth. The only way land life would have ever formed would be two sea crea­tures evolv­ing into land crea­tures at about the same time and in about the same loca­tion (else they would nev­er find each oth­er to breed, thus dying out after one gen­er­a­tion) and if some form of food had already evolved on land or in shal­low water which exist­ed at the point land life evolved. The odds of all that being “just right” seems absurd to me. Again, I’m not a sci­en­tist, and no, I don’t care to have it explained in detail. As stat­ed, I don’t feel evo­lu­tion is nec­es­sary to explain origins.

But what about since that time? Muta­tions with­in species do hap­pen, and they can be passed along. I saw a pro­gram on Ani­mal Plan­et yes­ter­day which dis­cussed two-head­ed ani­mals and oth­er such muta­tions. The exam­ple was giv­en of a sow which had a genet­ic muta­tion which she passed to her piglets. One was born with two esopho­gi, two snouts, two mouths, and there eyes. It lived for about a year and a half until dying of a lung disease.

We know that muta­tions do hap­pen. That’s evo­lu­tion. That’s genet­ic change over time. Can it cre­ate a new species? I don’t know, but I would­n’t think it is impos­si­ble either. A small change every few thou­sand gen­er­a­tions would mean a very slight change in the kind. But the off­spring would always be quite sim­i­lar to its par­ents, and this would be true down the line. Only by look­ing at the begin­nings and end of such a genet­ic line would one notice a dif­fer­ent, and at no time did any crea­ture not repro­duce after its own kind. The kind sim­ply became some­thing else one minor step at a time.

Sec­ond Peter 3:4ff. speaks of those who mock the com­ing of Christ by claim­ing that every­thing has always gone on as it has now, that no sig­nif­i­cant changes ever take place. Peter calls them will­ful­ly igno­rant of the great flood of the past, which rep­re­sent­ed a sig­nif­i­cant change from the way things had been since cre­ation. Would it not be accu­rate, then, to say that about those who claim that crea­tures can’t, over count­less gen­er­a­tions, become some­thing else if even in the slight­est way, so that they are reg­u­lar­ly dis­tinct from gen­er­a­tions past in at least one notable way? Are they not claim­ing that crea­tures remain the same since God cre­at­ed them, despite the fact we know they evolve and change, if ever so slightly?

Cre­ation­ists use the straw man of micro- vers­es macro-evo­lu­tion, but they fail to real­ize that macro-evo­lu­tion is micro-evo­lu­tion over a longer course of time. It does­n’t nec­es­sar­i­ly require that goo turned into you, but rather that some­time ago a pri­mate exist­ed which, over the course of thou­sands of gen­er­a­tions, has become slight­ly dif­fer­ent, the pri­mates we know today.

It is sig­nif­i­cant that when unbe­liev­ers attempt to rebuke the Bible or to make sense of it, they often make fools of them­selves for they can­not even com­pre­hend what they are reading–it is spir­i­tu­al­ly dis­cerned and their spir­it is dead to the things of the Lord. It seems to me that when Chris­tians attempt to dab­ble in sci­ence, they make fools of them­selves too, and per­haps I am doing a bit of that here. But I pro­pose that there is a mid­dle ground, which accepts the find­ings of evo­lu­tion­ary sci­en­tists in light of what we know to be true from the Scrip­ture. Scrip­ture gives us ori­gins, sci­ence gives us “since then” mate­r­i­al, and we are left to draw the con­clu­sions for ourselves.

Any feed­back any­one can give would be appre­ci­at­ed. But don’t both­er attempt­ing to con­vince me Gen. 1 and 2 are a lie or a metaphor or a myth or what­ev­er else. You’d just be wast­ing your breath. :)

Cred­it for some of the ideas pre­sent­ed here goes to my dad based upon an old page on his now defunct web­site, a soap­box page in which he won­dered why the Cre­ation vs. Evo­lu­tion debate was still rag­ing when it was seem­ing­ly quite easy to rec­on­cile the main issues between them. I’ve giv­en that some con­sid­er­a­tion, and I think he may have been on to some­thing there.

Small edit: Thank you, 74.134.106.31, for the col­or­ful com­ment which you left. Due to its nature and the nature of Tim­o­th­y’s Bur­den, the com­ment can­not be pub­lished, but I want­ed to let you know I appre­ci­ate the time spent writ­ing it. With love, thanks for reading.

5 thoughts on “Creation and Evolution, Reconcilable??”

  1. For clar­i­fi­ca­tion purposes.…

    My rec­on­cil­i­a­tion is sum­ma­rized most briefly by say­ing that the sci­ences (geol­o­gy, biol­o­gy, et.al.) do in fact cor­rect­ly inter­pret the evi­dence. This evi­dence is there either because God put it there at the time of cre­ation, or because it was cre­at­ed by process­es since the creation.

    Even if peo­ple are not, in fact, descend­ed from pro­to­plasm, it is only because God chose a much lat­er point in the evo­lu­tion of the plan­et to start from.

    If we are to under­stand the process­es and func­tions of the plan­et, we need to under­stand that one of them is evo­lu­tion. We would be descend­ed from pro­to­plasm if God had cho­sen to cre­ate the world at a point pri­or to or just at the appear­ance of life.

  2. I won­dered whether you still read here or not. :P

    And with that I must dis­agree. It does not seem fea­si­ble that a soul could evolve from that which pos­sessed no soul, or how the spir­it could evolve from return­ing to the earth at death to return­ing to God at death.

    Because these things are non­cor­po­re­al and pret­ty much entire­ly unver­i­fi­able out­side of the wit­ness of the Bible, it is not sur­pris­ing that sci­ence does not offer any expla­na­tion for such things–for tru­ly, it can­not. I accept that–science must be ver­i­fi­able, after all! :)

  3. As you say, those things are non­cor­po­re­al and unver­i­fi­able by science.

    If God had cho­sen to cre­ate at the big bang, for exam­ple, then a being with­out a soul would evolve into the being with a soul at the touch of God. Sci­ence is blind to this.

    But the larg­er point is, that evo­lu­tion is how the bio­log­i­cal world works. Even if God cre­at­ed the world and man six thou­sand years ago, evo­lu­tion is how the bio­log­i­cal world changes. If one wants to under­stand the present and future bio­log­i­cal world, one needs to exam­ine it in the light of evolution.

  4. Well stat­ed, and with that, I think I can agree.

    And in light of anoth­er com­ment which my fil­ter thank­ful­ly blocked, thank you for remain­ing calm, cool, and collected. :)

  5. I agree with MUCH of what you say, but not quite everything. :)

    We know that muta­tions do hap­pen. That’s evo­lu­tion. That’s genet­ic change over time.

    It’s actu­al­ly not change. Cer­tain­ly it’s change (as in the exam­ple of the pig) of what’s nor­mal. Pigs don’t nor­mal­ly have an extra head, if it does, you might want to move. If that’s what you mean by change, then yes, I agree, that is what’s happening.

    But the kind of change that macro-evo­lu­tion demands is change of types. A pig isn’t going to sprout wings and fly. (they used to fly though, foot­balls used to be made of pig’s skin) That’s the kind of change that macro-evo­lu­tion. That’s a new kind of animal.

    A pig sprout­ing a head is not any new infor­ma­tion added.

    Cre­ation­ists use the straw man of micro- vers­es macro-evo­lu­tion, but they fail to real­ize that macro-evo­lu­tion is micro-evo­lu­tion over a longer course of time.

    Micro-evo­lu­tion is a small change in a species. For instance, a dog chang­ing into a wolf. Gen­e­sis 1:24 says that ani­mals pro­duce accord­ing to their kind. So a dog and a wolf (cor­rect me if I’m wrong) can have a baby wog or dolf. There­fore they are the same kind (or type) of animal.

    Macro-evo­lu­tion is a large change in a species. For instance a dog becom­ing a bar­racu­da. (Not propos­ing that that’s the actu­al order that any­one would sug­gest, it’s just an exam­ple) A dog that had a bar­racu­da baby would be an instance of (sud­den) macro-evo­lu­tion. That’s com­plete­ly new infor­ma­tion in the DNA. No mat­ter how much mico-evo­lu­tion occurs you can’t make a dog turn into a barracuda.

    I think we agree on the basics (Lit­er­al six day cre­ation, the Bible being absolute­ly 100% true) so a dis­agree­ment in this is not only okay, but healthy. :) I have no qualms, just want­ed to offer my two cents.

    I give you my full per­mis­sion to make fun of any gram­mar or spelling errors I have com­mit­ted. I would do the same to you. :)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Rick Beckman