Evolution: In the Image of God or Animals?

2001-10-23

Introduction

The best way to examine what evolution is and what its underlying principles are is to read from experts who believe in it. Creationist theologians are surely going to have their biases on the subject matter. It is best to let evolution speak for itself so that one might understand it better, and why such a point of view came about. This will be by no means an exhaustive study, but an overview will be presented to show what evolution is in brevity and why it is believed among many sophisticated scientists. Since all religions have creation myths, this theory itself will also demonstrate in itself that it is the creation myth of the philosophy and religion naturalistic humanism.

The Principles of Evolution

Evolution rests on many basic principles, but three are most common. First, all celestial bodies and the elements came from a theoretical explosion called the Big Bang. Second, life began by chance when a single cell appeared from non-living matter. From the first cell, then, living organisms developed into simple forms of life, and then gradually grew more complex. Humankind also came from this evolution of life (Ryrie 198). From these postulates, one can build the foundation of the evolutionary process, which is one of many stories humankind has been telling since the beginning of time to explain our heritage.

The Explanation of the Big Bang

The Big Bang theory is the “theory that the universe began in a state of extremely high density and has been expanding since some particular instant that marked the origin of the universe” (Pasachoff 550). There are two observations that are the backbone to this theory. First, the universe is expanding uniformly, with the objects at the furthest limits of the universe receding at a greater velocity (Pasachoff 550-551). Second, the earth is surrounded by an isotropic glow that seems to be a vestige of a “hot primeval fireball” (Pasachoff 551).

The expansion of the universe seems to be evident in the spectra of spiral nebulae, clouds of gas that are galaxies on the scale of our own; they have large redshifts. In other words, according to the Doppler Effect, the frequency of the light is decreasing, showing that celestial matter is moving farther apart. With the data accumulated from such experiments, the universe allegedly began expansion from its initial state of infinite density between 13 and 20 billion years ago (Pasachoff 551). The temperature of such density would have been in billions of degrees Kelvin, and within five seconds, cooled to a billion degrees Kelvin. In addition, the universe would have expanded by a factor in the billions within a short time. Within four minutes, elements would have been formed. In the mid-1960s, scientists also discovered “an isotropic source of noise” which was of the same strength regardless of time of day, and of season (Pasachoff 552). They have since said that this is a sort of “fossil radiation” from the Big Bang.

Chemical Evolution

Ryrie speaks of a single cell that would appear that would be the beginning of all life. Scientists call this chemical evolution. It is important to understand a little bit about the origins of the earth according to the scientific worldview before demonstrating chemical evolution. Since the alleged explosion of the Big Bang, the dust particles and debris aggregated to form the earth about 4.6 billion years ago (Mader 553). In the primordial atmosphere of the earth, the earth was a reducing atmosphere; that is, there was little or no oxygen in it. Since the temperature of the earth was still extremely hot from the Big Bang a few billion years before, water was in vapor form, but finally formed into liquid water to form the oceans of the world. This is important, for scientists believe this is where life began thousands of millennia ago (Mader 553).

Between exterior energy sources of lightning, radioactivity in the earth’s crust, volcanoes, meteorites and solar radiation reacting with dissolved gasses in the water, simple organic compounds formed. This has been demonstrated by modern science experiments on a smaller scale. This happened for hundreds of millions of years. Therefore, the oceans became a thick, hot, organic soup (Mader 553-554).

To put these things aside for a moment, one must wonder why there was water on earth, because the other planets do not have water like the earth does. The creationist, of course, has an explanation in Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” There needs to be, therefore, a mythological explanation for the reason why water is on the face of the earth according to the science “creation” account. Many suggest that comets have hit the earth and brought water to the face of the earth. The organic composition of comets perhaps would also have had a hand in the beginning of life as well, according to this view.

The organic molecules that began in the early days of the oceans then combined to form even larger molecules. Cellular matter, however, still did not exist yet. Amino acids that had formed could have washed ashore and could have polymerized into proteinoids (Mader 555). It is theorized that chemicals evolved into fully developed proteins at this point. The idea that proteins were the first cellular macromolecules seems plausible to the scientist because the protein is an enzyme that allows the cell to grow. Others say that nucleic acids were necessary first because they contain the genetic information necessary for cells even to exist (Mader 555).

Biological Evolution

The next phase is biological evolution. Though there is no solid foundation to move on, one must continue because evolutionists do not know when chemicals evolved into life. Biological evolution is defined and explained as follows:

Biological evolution began whenever cells began to compete with one another for limited resources. The most successful of these cells reproduced at the expense of the other types of cells (Mader 556).

This seems to be the beginning of the “survival of the fittest,” a major thrust of the argument of evolution and the religion of humanism. The protocell, a pseudo-cell that had cell-like functions came about from this chemical evolution. These true cells that were formed carried out all forms that the normal cells of today do: cellular respiration, duplication, etc.

Likewise, to move to the next step, one needs to assume movement from single-celled organisms to species, which is believed to have taken place over millions of years. This is allegedly evidenced in strata of fossils, as there seems to have been a movement from the single-celled to multi-celled organisms, to more developed plants as we have today.

Two major schools of thought govern how species change. First is the gradualistic model that species change slowly over time. The second is the punctuated equilibrium model, where species stay the same for long periods, until there is a burst of change that leads to the extinction of some species and appearance of new ones (Mader 565). In the latter model, there is less of a need for intermediate forms (transitional forms in the species in the evolution process).

What evidence is there for evolution? Mader explains there are many similarities even between the species as we see them today. First they have comparative anatomy; some have homologous structures. Mader demonstrates this of course by relating humans with a family of primates, showing them to have similar body structure. Beyond this, the forearm structures of many vertebrates (animals possessing a backbone) have the same bones. Even if an organism is from a different family however, many different creatures have analogous structures, such as the purpose of the wing of both the bird and the insect (Mader 568). The common biochemistry of living things is also the same. Replication of cells is transferred by the genetic information in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Photosynthesis and cellular respiration use adenosine triphosphate (ATP) in living beings. One cannot help but link living things together. It depends on your worldview of how you link them together.

Living organisms that are in one geographic population in theory could remain the same generation after generation. However, genetic variations do exist. First there are mutations in chromosomes and in genes. Mutations are usually harmful, and not beneficial (Mader 574). If members from two different populations (group of interbreeding individuals in a geographic area), sharing of genes will bring about change.

Natural selection is a theory that explains “the process by which populations become adapted to their environment” (Mader 575). This theory came from Charles Darwin. This process is said to come about by both interaction with other organisms such as predators and the physical conditions of the environment. Darwin found in his studies that reproductive potential of organisms are amazing. Two elephants could have 19 million descendants in 750 years, yet the number of organisms stays relatively constant over time. This is where Darwin received his idea for natural selection. Organisms that are best adapted to their environment survive. The others disappear. The best organisms with the best characteristics pass on these characteristics to their offspring. These organisms compete over limited resources. The best survive, and these best characteristics are passed onward to make the species adapt better into the environment in which they live.

Evolution as Religion

“Oh, how far we have come!” Imagine if this version of such a creation myth were true. It is not unreasonable to explain what conclusions we can draw from evolution. We are the best of the best, equipped well enough not only to know this, but to communicate this; we are superior to animals because we survived by ourselves. This gives credibility to the self-sufficiency of humankind, and such self-deception and outright fabrication is the humanistic message that has spread across the world in a new ‘Tower of Babel’: except we are not trying to make a name for ourselves. In our eyes, we have made a name for ourselves. Since we are who we are, we should answer to no one. It is truly American to believe in evolution; in America, we believe that we can do anything, no matter what, if we work hard enough, and America has stood the test of time through many horrible times in its history.

However, the implications of this are severe, and on this basis, we fuse ourselves to the likeness and image of animals rather than of God. We open doors for all manner of terrible things, as some are already here like abortion and the dawn of the age of cloning.

Evolution, as formerly said, is a religion. Science is a methodological approach of testing hypotheses to come to a conclusion. Evolution does not fit this description at all, for “evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only be believed” (Morris, icr.org). Nobody was ever in the position, or ever will be, to observe the entire process of evolution. In Morris’ article, he compiles many terms used by evolutionists to describe what evolution is. Neo-Darwinism was called an “evolutionary dogma.” Another biologist said that “‘belief in the theory of evolution’ was ‘exactly parallel to belief in special creation,’ with evolution merely ‘a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature.’” Ernst Mayr called evolution “man’s world view today” (Morris, icr.org). Many other terms are used like these that are not used in conjunction with science at all, but with religion.

Morris goes on to explain that all religions are based on evolution, including many pantheistic religions. Theistic religions, including Christianity are based on the belief of Creationism, yet even in the increasing liberalism today, Creation has disappeared. Not only is evolution a religion, it is a foundation of a very large false religious system.

Now that evolution is established as a religion, can there be both Christianity and Evolution? The grave mistake of the Israelites in Canaan was setting up their own smorgasbord of religious practices, combining truth with pagan religion. One can see that the same thing happens when combining Christianity and evolution. Many theologians have created a compromised view of trying to fit evolution in the Truth’s clothing, but they do nothing except commit eisegesis and compromise the infallibility of the written Word.

Problems with Evolution

There is much to say about the problems of evolution. The following arguments are worth noting if one blindly believes in evolutionary theory.

First, it cannot and will not ever be proven. It is not science because it is a hypothesis that can never be proven. Many scientists get upset over this, declaring that evolution is a fact. But it is not, because we cannot prove it. We cannot go back in time; neither can we recreate the world and observe it as a third party over time to see what happens.

In Jonathan Sarfati’s book Refuting Evolution 2, he states that there is no evidence of any way that living matter can come from non-living matter. Evolutionists try to rectify their position by saying that organic compounds could have possibly come from inorganic material, bridging the gap between life and non-life. Nonetheless, it cannot happen. Think about this: we as good westerners and products of the Enlightenment think of ourselves as reasonable creatures. Can something that reasons come from something that cannot reason?

Sarfati also states that evolution demands many transitional fossils, in which the evidence is scarce and debatable. One example is the archaeopteryx. This animal is not part reptile or dinosaur and bird; it is a bird. This is one of the examples that evolutionists try to use as a transitional species. Other supposed examples are too ‘young’ by their historical model to even be considered evidence.

Second, is the simple argument of Intelligent Design from observing creation. Intelligent Design is broader than creationism; its goal is show there is an intelligent designer, not necessarily to prove the Creation account in Genesis. When we observe something in the creation, is there any pattern, and if there is a pattern, is it complex? Proteins, made up of complex patterns of amino acids, would be an example of this. Can something this complex and neatly organized be a product of chance as I described above with chemical evolution? What would be the probability even if we gave evolution trillions of years?

Consider another book by Michael Behe: Darwin’s Black Box. He makes major observations in regards to organic matter. Take for example, a mousetrap. If one were to take even of the smallest pieces of a mousetrap away, it would not function. Behe makes the same argument for some things he examined. The eye, the cilia, the flagellum, and blood clotting were some of the things that he looked at in detail. He concluded that these things could not truly function the way they ought if there is even one part missing. Take the eye, for example. If one takes any part of the human eye away from it, it does not work. How could the eye have evolved to function from less than what it is today? The same can be concluded about blood clotting, for example. One person wrote a thesis on the matter, but many steer clear of trying to argue Darwinian evolution from this. The system is irreducibly complex; that is, there is no evolutionary ‘step’ preceding the blood clotting system that works in our bodies today.

No Synthesis Between the Bible and Evolution

The main problem of synthesizing evolution and Christianity is that the biblical record cannot be warped in any way to say that there were any more or less than six literal 24-hour days in Creation. Read the first five verses of Genesis 1:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

There is a sixfold refrain we see throughout Genesis 1:1-2:3: “And the evening and the morning were the xth day”. In the Bible, when the word ‘day’ is combined with either the word ‘evening,’ ‘morning,’ or a numeral, it refers to a 24-hour period. Here we have all three. Everywhere throughout the Bible the word ‘day’ combined with any of these things means a 24-hour day, and people only question it here because major scientific theory would be in question. Even many Christians compromise here. If we want to question literal days in creation, then we must call into question the entire text. Do not believe in the infallibility of the Bible and then toss the Creation account out the window! Even the entire Gospel message will disintegrate if we destroy the Creation account, as you will see.

Why the big fuss about a literal creation account? If the above discussion of biblical compromise was not enough, it is important to note that our theological argument of the Gospel message will be negated if we choose any form of evolution as part of our worldview. Here is the argument: Death cannot exist before Adam. God declared His creation “very good” after it was completed on the sixth day (Genesis 1:31). This was before sin entered the world in Genesis 3. What does God say to Adam as commandment to him? That Adam would surely die if he rebelled against God (Genesis 2:17)! Death had not entered the world yet. When Adam and Eve sinned in Genesis 3, the whole world was plunged into a curse, where man was condemned to die. Death was a consequence of humankind’s sin. This is opposed to evolution, where death has always reigned over creation, ever since there was life.

If death is not a consequence of sin, then God first created an imperfect world. If God created an imperfect world, then we can question His goodness. If we question God’s goodness, then we are all without hope, and the promise of the Gospel is void.

Secondly, if death is not a consequence of sin, then what do we say of Jesus Christ, who suffered and died for us? If death is not punishment for sin, then Christ died in vain, and we are destined to futility.

I conclude, if there is death before Adam, as evolutionists say that there was death since the beginning of life, then Christianity is void of any divine power that it truly has.

In addition, if we question the first few lines of the Bible, why even bother to keep reading? If the foundation of the whole framework of our faith is fiction, than how can we take any part of the Bible at face value?

Other Differences Between Evolution and Christianity

Mockery of Creationism

The origin of the universe according to the Bible has been mocked in this way: God created everything in 6 days, which included a garden, and a talking snake, followed by people who lived 900 years, a global flood, and a bunch of events that only primitive peoples of the ancient world could ever believe.

Now hear the other side. An infinitesimally small speck of infinite density exploded and started the whole universe as we now know it. That’s right, everything we have now came from this speck. Planets and stars formed, with planets revolving around the stars, and moons around planets. One of those planets had water and was just the right distance from its star so that proteins, and then cells, spawned randomly from primordial ooze. These cells then evolved into every living thing we see now over millennia.

The beginning of the universe happened once; we know that whatever happened, it was a unique process and is not repeatable. Nobody was there when the universe began, which calls for humility. God’s recounting of the events is much more valid than anyone else’s, because he was there.

Conclusion

Like all religions, there are major problems with evolution. As a religion, there are many implications that lie behind evolution. We face a major dilemma in evolution. This religion that is taught in every public school institution in America and elsewhere teaches us inaccuracies about who we are. It is only in our pride that we think we are the ‘greatest survivor’ in the survival of the fittest. Humankind, however, is not in the image of God, but mere elements without the value that God has given to us. Human life is therefore expendable. This is obviously a paradox.

If we are trying to ‘survive’ in this world, we can eliminate our competitors (compare this with what Jesus says in John 13:34). Abortion is acceptable because a) life is worthless, b) a new baby is too much of a burden to a would-be parent, and c) people are hedonistic; they would rather have sexual “freedom” and immorality than responsibility. Stem cell research on embryos is accepted, because it will benefit those who are already alive (all of which are grave-bound anyway). This paradox alone shows the depravity and hopelessness of the world we live in. The abomination and destruction we see around the world today is the fruit of our humanistic philosophy that has governed our lives since the earliest days on the earth.

In reality, there is a God, distinct from His creation, and He has made us (people) stewards of His Creation. Just as humankind did in the ancient world, today we are exchanging God for a lie (Romans 1:25). Humankind has tried to make a creation myth that would honor the human race as a god and the “fittest survivor.” Since we allegedly chose our destiny and earned our standing in life by successfully competing against nature, we can choose our own morality, according to evolutionary religion. But this is not how God sees it. God sees evolution as a repetition of history as humankind makes up another religion and explanation to justify turning away from Him. But the truth is that God wants to see people turn to Him. He wants to see them abandon the same old lies of humanistic religion and turn to Him. There is nothing we can do to earn anything before God to please Him. What we need to do is turn toward Him and recognize Him as God. For God sent His appointed Man Jesus Christ to suffer and die for our rebellion against Him. By trusting in Jesus Christ alone, we can stand before God with confidence in the Day He returns, so that we do not have to rely on anything we did in life to please Him. Is death inescapable, as the evolutionary religion says, or is death a punishment for our rebellion, that can be reversed by believing in Jesus Christ? It does not matter who you are or what you have done in life. He wants you to turn to Him. This is the choice you are left with.

References

Behe, Michael. Darwin’s Black Box. Simon and Schuster, 1998.

Mader, Sylvia S. Inquiry Into Life, Sixth Edition. Dubuque: William C. Brown, 1991.

Morris, Henry M. Evolution is Religion, not Science. “Vital Articles on Science/Creation” May 1982. Article can be found on the website of Institute for Creation Research <http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-332.htm>.

Pasachoff, Jay M. Big Bang Theory. McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Volume 2. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992.

Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.

Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution 2. Master Books, 2002.