A Christian defends evolution

A Christian defends evolution

I see a lot of people who believe in a literal 6 day creationism and Intelligent Design, let me say it on the outset, I respect their faith. I respect it because it is tied with their belief.

The point of this post is not to attack creationism or intelligent design but to ask my readers a few things to consider.

My humble opinion is that while there is a good following of Intelligent design and Creationism, these are still not scientific models of any kind. Many supporters of creationism and ID assert that evolution has problems. I agree it does, but they are not what the critics of evolutionary biology think they are. A lot of anti-evolution among Christians is because most often evolution is misrepresented and demonized. The worst of all misconceptions is that evolution makes man come from monkeys. No.



A lot of physical scientific theories are always open to change. Because the more we find out the more we learn. Evolution is the only mechanism that fits the scientific standard. And please do not at once revert to, fossils and observations, you have to see that there is a theoretical side of a theory and what it predicts and that is also what makes a good theory solid.

Lets me ask you, a good theory predicts what it observes or hope to prove so:

what can creation specifically predict as a model?
what can intelligent design specifically predict as a model?

Evolution predicts that we have missing fossils, which we we find from time to time. And it predicts a lot of other things too which are actually testable.(http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/evo_science.html)

In fact I would go and even say that even if there are no transitioning fossils to support evolution, evolution still would be a good theory compared to  Intelligent design because this mechanism CAN define the diversity of life.

Evolution can, like all theories make false predictions too and when it does it is more refined and that is just how science works. But there is truth in its predictions too and when they are tested, they add to the over all support of the theory.

Intelligent design is not science to even begin with, its a philosophical take on origins. I see it as a philosophical argument not a scientific one and should not be compared to evolution at all.

I suggest reading this paper by Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”.


19 thoughts on “A Christian defends evolution

  1. this may be out of topic,

    we all believe Jesus died and rose again, and all this took place in 3 days.

    but reading the scripture, it seems that it isn’t 3 days. less than 3 days

    how do you see this?

    1. I can’t remember the details, savedbygrace, but I know that it has something to do with the ancient Jewish delineation of what constitutes a day, where part of a day qualifies as an entire day.

    2. The Jews considered a day from 6 p.m to 6 p.m, not from 12 to 12 as we do. So compared to us, the Jewish Friday would start on the evening of Thursday at 6 p.m. Do you remember that they hurried because they wanted to get the crucifixion done BEFORE THE SABBATH BEGINS. But consider this, it was only Friday noon. They had plenty of time but that is only because they technically only had 3 hours, because at 6:00 p.m in the evening, Saturday, Sabbath would start.

      That is why when the women came to tomb on Sunday morning, Sunday had already passed by 12 hours (since it started at 6 p.m Saturday evening and not midnight.) and so the Jewish calender would count Sunday as a full day, since already half of the day has been passed.

  2. The major flaw with the argument is that it contains a heavy dose of the “presupposition of anti-supernaturalism.” It is only when one denies the ability of a divine Creator to establish and define life is a comprehensive scientific theory necessary. I am not trying to avoid science, and in fact am a proponent of scientific discovery and explanation. However, while Intelligent Design can be written off as philosophy, there is science that underlies the majority of its claims.

    Agree or disagree with Michael Behe, he uses science to bolster his assertions. The problems with evolution are manifest, but of course there are very few theories that do not share this problem at least to some small degree. Theistic evolution is an approach many have taken to try to resolve the conflict, but even that is a syncretic disappointment, rather than a coherent theory. When we try to scientifically justify everything in the Bible (as I have often done), then we ignore the role of God in it. The Jonah story cannot be understood outside of miracles: the miracle of survival in the fish and the miracle of God’s work in the life of that particular prophet.

    Speaking of design – I like the new blog layout!

    1. I respect that Aj, and I do think that there are stories in the Bible, miracles, which can not be explained by science alone. Evolution does not say anything about God. Most of the time it is falsely labeled as a study of origins, where as it is only a study of the diversity of origins. We have no way to know how things started, not yet at least.

      Theistic evolution is not that bad in my opinion. Plus I am not of the opinion that we should totally exclude God from the events described.

      Good day to you 🙂

    2. The major flaw with the argument is that it contains a heavy dose of the “presupposition of anti-supernaturalism.”

      Well, yeah.

      Why would this be a flaw? ALL science is approached with a “presupposition of anti-supernaturalism.” What would it look like otherwise?

      “Based on current research capabilities, we cannot determine what preceded the Big Bang. We will now invoke a supernatural cause and abandon further research. Because God.”

      My friend, science accepts a question, specifically without an answer, and exhaustively attempts to answer the question.

      ID and Creationism starts with the answer, and attempts to utilize science to regress an explanation.

      This is why they aren’t science at all.

      (Note: Behe is much maligned in the scientific community due to his pseudoscience practices.)

      1. I did not say that the problem with science is the presupposition of anti-supernaturalism; that is – and must be – a qualification of all scientific exploration. Science deals in a realm wholly separate from the supernatural, by definition. The flaw comes from the inherent bias that determines that creationism must be false because science cannot explain it.

        History, creationism, and much of cosmology, for example, are not science. These deal with unrepeatable events which cannot be tested by science. They can, however, use science to test the theories, along with logic, philosophy, and critical thinking.

        Not knowing what was before the Big Bang is not the problem, either. The concept of the Big Bang points to a definite beginning of the Universe – a beginning of physics, nature, and time. The same way that the origin of life is glossed over even by such reputable and knowledgeable scientists such as Carl Sagan, the cause of the Big Bang is similarly explained away, rather than explained. Outside of theoretical mathematics, there is no such thing as an infinite string, which includes time. Therefore, there must have been a beginning, else today would never have come. The theories promoted to explain this (the multiverse theory, for example) are even less likely than any probability assigned to the likelihood of God (as if that could really be measured), and have less evidence.

        (Note: Behe himself is attacked for his ID leanings, but I have not seen much credible defamation of his book, “Darwin’s Black Box,” – or the science that he delineates in it – which I read, outside of personal attacks a la Richard Dawkins in “The God Delusion,” which I have also read, and was VERY unimpressed with.)

        1. “Science deals in a realm wholly separate from the supernatural, by definition.”

          You’re absolutely right. So why are theists so bent on interfering with science?

          If you agree that Creation is a supernatural event, what place does “Creation Science” have in any science discussion?

          Here’s what you must acknowledge, on some level: the scientific consensus is that evolution by natural selection is the mechanism by which species have arrived at where they are today. To reiterate, it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept that evolution is a fact.

          So, one of two things is true here: either the science is sound and the ongoing research is accurate, OR…there is a massive global conspiracy designed to undermine Christians and their idea of Creation.

          Feel free to subscribe to fringe psuedo-scientific explanation from the likes of Behe, if you want.

          I will join the consensus and continue learning actual science.

          (Here’s an excerpt regarding the reception of Behe’s book:

          “Darwin’s Black Box was not well received by the scientific community, which rejected Behe’s premises and arguments.”)

      2. I appreciate your feedback Andrew. 🙂

        “ID and Creationism starts with the answer, and attempts to utilize science to regress an explanation.”

        Very true indeed. I was never impressed by the ID theory.

        “My friend, science accepts a question, specifically without an answer, and exhaustively attempts to answer the question.”

        Absolutely. 🙂

  3. I like reading your stuff because you are smarter than I am!

    I’m not saying this to toss aside your thoughts. I like that people are discussing these things. It’s great. As for me. I have just decided to let it fall where it falls and know and trust, God did it. When it comes to creation, Genesis 1:1 is enough for me.

    Now, in other facets of scripture I’m all about picking it apart. I’m just not equipped for this topic.

    Keep it up. We need people like you who are!

    God Bless.

        1. It warrants some thought though, doesn’t it?

          Like Bill Nye said, if you wish to believe ancient myths about how the world came to be, by all means, believe it. Just don’t force it on your kids or on the public at large. We’re in desperate need of scientifically literate voters.

          Mr. David is scientifically literate…I hope more people read his blog for a fresh perspective.

      1. To be honest, science in the realm of natural works, is what should be taught. And the reason is simple. the account of genesis is a theological one, not a scientific one. The point of the story is to establish theology, not scientific processes.

        By the way, not all Christians are arguing against evolution either. In my opinion most Christians do not credit creation because they think its scientific, it is because they think that evolution still has many “evidence gaps” therefore it is still “belief”.

        On a personal note, I hope people study evolution, it is more than a theory and belief. Most people in general want the same evidence for evolution, that which most atheists at times demands from Christians.

        It is more of political and idealistic issue now, than an intellectual one.

        I have also seen very harsh treatment to Christians who believe in YEC too who are called “retards”, and I am using this word as it was recently attributed to me by a guy who thought all Christians are “retards”; I find it most unfair. Two wrongs do not make a right.

        It takes more than facts to change someone’s view, it happens when we listen and we are open to be corrected. Most people, on both sides of the fence, need to do this and they are not doing it. That is why we have a war between science and religion. It saddens me greatly. This is not to say that anyone should just forfeit their position, it is just that we should remember it is our attitude that helps the most when we try to convey what we feel is the truth.

    1. I absolutely respect that, Micah. In fact one of the golden principles of theology is that when the scriptures are silent on something best is to leave it at that.

      Best is to have our faith on Christ and not on dogma.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, feel free to leave a comment. Thank you.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s