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, 220.127.116.11, 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.