theory of evolution is arguably the single most profound theory
emphasized by science in the twentieth century. In terms of its impact
and implications, nothing else even comes close.
its weight in the world of ideas, and despite its dominance, paradoxes
abound for the evolutionary establishment.
consider evolution to be an indisputable fact. But then how do we
account for statements by reputable scientists such as the following?
Molecular biologist and medical doctor Michael Denton concludes,
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than
the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century."1
Other scientists actually now refer to evolution as "a fairy tale."
For example, Dr. Lewis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and
Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in
France declares, "Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups."2
were an undeniable fact, how do we account for the thousands of
scientists worldwide, creationists and non-creationists alike, who say
the theory of evolution is false scientifically; indeed, that it has
more conclusive evidence against it than any evidence ever offered for
it? Many of these scientists have their Ph.D.s in the "hard" sciences
(biology, paleontology, genetics, biochemistry, etc.) from leading
American universities such as Harvard, Princeton, and U. C. Berkeley.
were a fact, proven beyond doubt, or even a convincing theory, we
could not possibly expect to see thousands of reputable scientists
rejecting it outright. At best, we would discover only a few fringe
"scientists" who would deny it—just like a few fringe "scientists"
might be found in the Flat Earth Society (if such a society exists).
that a lesser number of scientists reject evolution is not the issue
here, as some evolutionists maintain. The issue is that thousands of
credible scientists would not deny the theory of evolution if it were
a proven fact. Something else, then, must account for belief in
evolution, something other than the scientific data.
things are not as they seem to most of the world.
Evolutionists say the scientific evidence for evolution is
overwhelming. But critics of the theory allege that this evidence is
seriously misunderstood. And if the scientific evidence is really
undeniable, why have evolutionists lost hundreds of scientific debates
to creationists? Again, perhaps there is more than meets the eye in
the creation-evolution controversy.
On the one
hand, evolutionists everywhere say that the theory of evolution
represents the epitome of good science and that a theory of creation
cannot possibly be scientific. As the American Anthropological
Association declared in an official statement, "evolution is…a
cornerstone of twentieth century science in general."3
The American Society of Parasitologists
declared, "Creationism is not a science and cannot become a science."4
John Paul II issued a formal statement in 1996, widely reported in the
press, affirming that some evolution is compatible with Catholic
beliefs. He is the fourth pope to affirm this.
On the other
hand, many scientists with multiple doctorates in science, including
Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov and the late Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith, have
rejected evolution as bad science and say creation can be and is a
legitimate scientific theory. And leading theologians other than the
pope say evolution is bad science and worse theology.
conceivable that most scientists are uninformed on the true nature of
science? And perhaps even the pope is wrong—and the religious
implications of evolution are more complex than assumed.
additional paradoxes as science moves rapidly into the twenty-first
century. Scientific materialism, naturalism, and atheism remain a
dominant and powerful Western worldview, both philosophically and
practically. Yet the authors of texts like Cosmos, Bios, Theos,
written by 60 leading scientists including 24 Nobel Prize winners,
repeatedly inform us that only God can explain the complexity and
order of life as we know it. How can this be if materialism and
naturalism are as sacrosanct as proponents allege? As Arthur L.
Schawlow, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics, observes, when
confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, "The only
possible answers are religious…I find a need for God in the universe
and in my own life."5
An even more
surprising statement came from perhaps the most famous existentialist
atheist of the twentieth century, Jean-Paul Sartre, who publicly
stated his "faith" in God just prior to his death. Although a
committed atheist since the age of 11, he declared:
As for me, I don’t see
myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being
that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being
that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a
creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this
is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think
of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there,
floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in
this way, for want of being able to think otherwise.6
How do we
explain all of this? If matter alone can explain the origin of life
and all its glory, why do some Nobel Prize winners invoke the belief
in God to explain it? Again, if evolution is a fact, why do thousands
of scientists reject it? Thousands of qualified scientists simply do
not reject facts of science.
things aren’t quite as they seem to committed naturalists? And perhaps
most scientists and most Americans are wrong to believe in evolution
some might say. So everything. Whether or not evolution is true makes
all the difference in the world. Whether or not we believe it has
profound implications. The theory of evolution has significantly
impacted almost everyone’s life. As the great novelist Aldous Huxley
correctly declared, "Evolution has resulted in the world as we know it
today."7 That is no small declaration. For those who think
about it, such a statement is indeed profound. No one can over
estimate the importance of evolution if it is true or its consequences
if it is false.
The issue of
evolution is crucial today because, whether right or wrong, it tells
us who we are. And no one can ignore his or her own portrait.
open-minded evolutionists will consider the ethical implications of
continuing to advocate an undemonstrated explanation of origins as a
proven scientific fact. Evolution is simply a belief that people may
accept or reject—no more, no less. But beliefs should be accepted on
the basis of the evidence, without allowing philosophical premises
(e.g., naturalism) to skew the interpretation of the evidence.
major philosophical, theological, biblical, and moral implications of
evolution, Christian interest in this subject is more than justified.
If evolution isn’t even a good scientific theory as critics charge,
then these Christians should feel intellectually satisfied in letting
the Scripture speak for itself about creation and related issues.
There is no need to revise the historic orthodox theology of biblical
anthropology (the nature of man/the Fall), harmartiology (sin),
bibliology (inerrancy), or soteriology (salvation). In essence, there
is no need to misinterpret the Bible in light of the "truth" of
To put it
another way, there is no need for any Christian to feel intimidated by
science just for accepting what the Bible plainly declares. In the
end, the weight of the evidence tells us the Bible will always prove
true.8 No Christian should think there would be legitimate
evidence, scientific or otherwise, to deny what God has clearly
Evolutionists are, unfortunately, often rather condescending to
Christians for allegedly taking an irrational "leap of faith" in
believing in God, miracles, and the supernatural. Not only are their
charges false (as we indicated in Ready with an Answer), evolutionists
themselves take an incredible "leap of faith" that far exceeds in
credulity anything Christians have ever believed.
1 Michael Denton,
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler
Publishers, Inc., 1986), p. 358.
2 J. Rostand, "LaMonde et
la Vie," October 1963, p. 31 from V. Long, "Evolution: A Fairy Tale
for Adults," Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol. 78 (1978), no. 7,
3 The National Center for
Science Education, Inc., Voices for Evolution, rev. edition Molleen
Matsumura (ed.) (Berkeley, CA: The National Center for Science
Education, Inc., 1995), p. 20. This is a compilation of official
statements by leading scientific, religious, educational, and civil
liberties organizations containing their views on science,
evolution, and creation.
4 Ibid, p. 37.
5 Arthur L. Schawlow,
"One Must Ask Why and Not Just How?" in Henry Margenau and Roy
Abraham Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on
Science, God and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens
(LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1994), p. 105.
6 Simone de Beauvoir, "A
Conversation About Death and God," Harper’s magazine, February 1984,
7 Aldous Huxley, Ends and
Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods
Employed for Their Realization (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1937),
8 For detailed
documentation, see our Ready with an Answer (Eugene, OR: Harvest