“Creation or Evolution?” published in United Evangelical (September 1980): 2-3, 7-9.

Creation orEvolution?

Robert C. Newman

“Evolution” is a word of many meanings.  In its broadest sense, it merely means“change,” and is in no way opposed to creation. In its narrowest sense, evolution refers to small changes(mutations) taking place in living things – generally detrimental, butoccasionally helpful to plants and animals trying to cope with changes in theirenvironments. Most Christians whohave studied science believe such a narrow form of evolution is also consistentwith Biblical truth.

Two intermediate uses of “evolution,” however, are not sobenign. These may be called thegeneral theory of (biological) evolution and cosmic evolution.  The former theory claims that allliving things – plants, animals and mankind – are relatives, havingdescended by purely natural processes from one or a few simple one-celled formsof life. Cosmic evolution claimsthat the universe has always existed in some form or other, and that life arosenaturally within it. These twotheories together are usually presented as the scientific view of origins, in which God forms no significant part– though, of course, He may be added to it by those of a religious frameof mind. The Biblical picture oforigins is seen as the attempt of some ancient men to guess how things came tobe, not to be taken seriously in any modern discussion. In fact, however, as I shall attempt toindicate, the Biblical picture of creation actually fits modern scientific datafar better than these evolutionary views.

Let us look first of all at the nature of the whole universeas best we can observe it. Withthe development of telescopes of enormous size in the past century or so, andwith the improvement of photography and spectroscopes to analyze visible light,we have learned that our Milky Way is only one of at least billions of galaxies– huge “island universes” containing billions of stars each.  These galaxies appear to be moving awayfrom one another in such a way that the whole universe is expanding.

This [20^th] century has also revealed the greatcomplexity existing inside the atom. From Einstein’s formula for the equivalence of matter and energy we havebeen led to the discovery that the supposedly immutable elements may changefrom one to another, atoms splitting apart as in the atomic bomb, or joiningtogether as in the hydrogen bomb. Asa result, the matter inside stars will naturally in the course of time convertfrom hydrogen through the heavier elements to iron as the star burns up itsfuel and eventually ceases to glow.

These two discoveries, the expansion of the universe and thechangeability of matter, have forced atheists to abandon their old cosmology ofa static, eternal universe in favor of various types of changinguniverses. One class of recentcosmologies is the “steady state” theories, proposed by Hermann Bondi, ThomasGold and Fred Hoyle shortly after World War 2. Observations of galaxies, quasars and radio waves since thenhave resulted in these theories, too, being abandoned in their originalforms. Hoyle now believes thatevidence for or against his new modified theory is forever beyond the reach ofhuman test!

The other class of recent theories in the “big-bang” group,which see the universe as presently expanding from a highly compressed statethat existed some 10 to 20 billion years ago. Within this class are three basic models:  the oscillating big-bang of Ernst Öpik,presently favored by most cosmologists; the one-bounce big-bang of GeorgeGamow; and the no-bounce big-bang of George Lemaitre. Only the last of these is a creation cosmology, with theuniverse coming into existence at the time of the big bang.  Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic, wasapparently influenced by Biblical ideas in constructing his theory.  The other two theories of this classhave no real creation, as the big bang was actually only a “big bounce,” beforewhich the universe was contracting rather than expanding.  These bouncing universe theories differin that the oscillating cosmology repeatedly expands and contracts, whereasGamow’s universe had been contracting from eternity passt until 10 to 20billion years ago, and since then has been expanding and will continue to do soforever. But both of these “bigbounce” cosmologies suffer from the problem that no known force in nature willstop a universe from contracting and make it start expanding.  In addition, the oscillating cosmologyneeds enough matter for gravity to be able to stop the expansion and begin thecontraction. Recent studies of thematter between us and a distant quasar, however, suggest that the universehasn’t got one-tenth the matter necessary for this.

The upshot of all this is that Lemaitre’s no-bounce big-bang– with creation at a finite time in the past – is the only viewaround which fits the observations. Yet Lemaitre’s view is also Biblical, so long as one does not requirethe Bible to teach that the universe is only a few thousand years old.  In fact, the young earth view ofBiblical history, best known from Archbishop Ussher’s date of 4004 BC forcreation, is based upon the assumption that the genealogies from Adam toAbraham contain no gaps. Evangelical Bible scholars have realized for over a century that gapsare common in Biblical genealogies which can be tested by comparison with oneanother. Also, those Biblicalstatements which call the church age “the last days” or even “the last hour”suggest that the earth must be very old indeed.

Turning from the universe as a whole to our own earth andsun, the correlation of Biblical statements with scientific data is even moreimpressive. Both agree that theearth was once shapeless and empty; both that the material which later formedthe earth was once immersed in complete darkness that subsequently became lightall around. Next, the light anddarkness are seen separately, as the material to form the earth is pushed outof the contracting solar nebula. Both agree that the terms “day” and “night,” implying the formation ofthe solid planet, are only applicable after this point.  Both have atmosphere and water formingon the surface after the planet itself takes shape. Both see the earth as a water-covered planet before thecontinents emerge. Both see plantlife as providing an environment for animal life. Even the apparently conflicting Biblical picture of the sunand moon being made after the earth is, I believe, only ourmisunderstanding. Actually, theplant life oxygenated the atmosphere, decreasing its cloudiness to the pointthat the light mentioned earlier in Genesis is now seen on earth’s surface tobe the sun.

But what about the origin of life? Doesn’t Scripture disagree with most scientists when it saysGod made it and they say it happened naturally? Yes, I think we have a disagreement here, but Scripture fitsthe scientific data better than theories for a non-miraculous origin of lifedo. According to Carl Sagan,exo-biologist at Cornell University, the simplest living cell is a verycomplicated structure, containing an organized information content equivalentto 100 million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Boundinto volumes, this many pages would represent about four thousand 25-volumesets, all different! To have lifewithout God’s miraculous intervention, a series of random chemical reactionsmust produce this complexity in less than a few billion years (or, at most, inthe 10 to 20 billion years since the “big bang”).

But isn’t it true that randomness can produce order?  If you give a few monkeys enough time,won’t they eventually type out the whole Encyclopaedia Britannica? Let’ssee. Suppose we have a sufficientnumber of “monkey-proof” typewriters with a simplified keyboard of 33 keys– all the letters, punctuation, and a space key, but with only capitalletters so they won’t have to worry about capitalizing.  How long would it take, with eachmonkey typing at three characters per second, to type merely the title,ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA? A simplecalculation shows that the job would be expected to take 100 thosand billionbillion monkey-years! That is, onemonkey would take 100 thousand billion billion years, or, if we set a deadlineof 5 billion years, 20 trillion monkeys would be needed (typing constantly) ifwe expect to have the job finished on time.

Thus, even getting the complex organization of a simple cellby random processes is virtually impossible in the time available, even withouthaving to worry about the fact that chemical reactions will tend to break downthe huge molecules needed rather than build them up. At present, then, the origin of life involves “critical andunsolved” problems for those who deny miraculous intervention.  Some may think it is more “scientific”to avoid the miraculous, but if science is the study of what actually occurs inthe real world, then ruling out a real cause is not going to bring us to thetruth we are supposed to be seeking.

What about the general theory of evolution – that allthe diversity of life on earth today arose from one or a few simple lifeforms? To a certain extent onemight think that the Bible and evolutionists are in agreement here, as both seea progression of life on earth, and both put man last.  In addition, the Genesis account says“let the waters bring forth” or “let the earth bring forth” several times,which might sound like God is having the plants and animals producednaturally. However, the Biblicalaccount of the creation of man and woman in Genesis chapter two cannot be broughtinto agreement with evolution and retain any of its own real character.  That is, the type of adjustmentsnecessary to make Genesis 2 teach evolution can make any writing say almostanything.

Yet when we actually look at the fossil record and at moderngenetic research, we see that the scientific data actually fit a kind ofprogressive creation better than evolution. By progressive creation, I mean that God created the basickinds of plants and animals (and man) in a progression at various times in thedistant past, but that these have developed varieties over the centuriesthrough the sort of “microevolution” that can be observed in the laboratory andwhich evolutionists are usually thinking about when they claim “the fact ofevolution is as well-established as the fact that the moon goes around theearth.”

For instance, the fossil record is filled with missing linksbetween all the basic kinds of plants and animals. As George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard says, “It remains true,as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, andthat nearly all categories above the level of families appear in the recordsuddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuoussequences.”

In genetic research, changes can be artificially produced inliving plants and animals in several ways. Many of these changes will be passed on to latergenerations. Yet because of theextreme complexity and delicate adjustment of living things, almost all suchchanges are useless or harmful. Continued work over many generations with fruit flies, bacteria and suchorganisms as have short enough generations to be practical for research havenot produced any really large changes. Thus, under favorable growing conditions, there will be more generationsof bacteria in thirty years than for mankind in ten million years, yet we seethat bacteria after so many generations have only produced bacteria.  Horses and dogs after thousands ofyears of intentional breeding are still horses and dogs, though limited changeshave been made. All this seems tofit the Biblical picture better than the evolutionary one.

Turning to man, we come very much closer to home and tomatters of direct social, political and religious impact.  The usual view of science today is thatman is merely a highly developed animal, sharing a common ancestry with theapes. The Bible, on the other hand,speaks of God having specially formed man “in his own image,” so that manshares intellectual, emotional and especially moral and spiritualcharacteristics with God rather than the animals. Some such enormous gap between man and the animals is indeedrecognized by many scientists.

What about the fossil record for man?  It is true that fossils suggest thatman has been on this planet for longer than a few thousand years, perhapsindeed for a few million years, though the fact that men bury their dead makesit hazardous to date fossil men by the strata in which they are found.  Recent discoveries in central Africaand Ethiopia have shown that the detailed scheme for human evolution acceptedin the 1960s is incorrect – that the fossils then proposed as ancestorsfor man are now seen to be younger than fossils which are demonstrablyhuman. As I understand the presentsituation, there are now no known fossils which could even be assumed to beancestors of man (genus homo) formillions of years before the homoskulls dated at 3.5 million years ago. The relation of man to ape therefore remains quite hypothetical.

The Bible and evolution view the problem of good and evil inman quite differently. For theevolutionist, there is a tendency to see human evil as merely the remains ofthe animal in man, whereas his good is the result of his growing humanity.  Scripture, on the other hand, seesman’s goodness as a result of his creation in the image of God, while hiswickedness is due to an intentional rebellion against God soon after hiscreation, by which man “fell” into sin and passed on this fallen nature to hisdescendants.

As a result, evolution sees man as improving, as takingcharge of his own destiny, as capable of bringing “heaven on earth” by his ownexertions. The Bible sees man not as one continually getting worse (as it sometimesmisrepresented) but like a ruin which still shows evidence of its formergrandeur. In spite of flashes ofbrilliance, man is seen as without hope unless God intervenes.

The evidence of history, we should note, favors the Biblicalview. No detectable difference hasbeen found in the general level of human intelligence throughout recordedhistory. Man, it seems, has had abrain which can appreciate are and music, and even do calculus, for thousandsof years during which he has done little more than chip stones and wieldclubs. Yet there have been bursts ofpromise at many different times and places: for example, in classical Greek philosophy, poetry andarchitecture, in Elizabethan English drama, or in Italian Renaissance art.  But morally the world seems to showlittle improvement. Hitler,Stalin, Mao, Pot Pol and Idi Amin have matched or excelled most of the ancientdepravities on record. True, weare presently at a peak period of civilization and technology, yet all theother peaks in human history have been followed by valleys, some quite awesomein depth. It doesn’t take too muchimagination to see another such valley before us should we have a nuclear worldwar or even run out of useable energy sources.

It is into this frightening picture that Jesus Christ comeswith a real message of hope. Notthat Jesus was some sort of evolutionary fluke, a chance mutation that produceda perfect man. Then indeed weshould be left with only despair, for His example is too lofty for our weaknessto imitate. He left no physicaldescendants, and who knows whether another such mutation would arise before man(or the sun) turns the earth into a smouldering cinder?  Besides, what hope is there for us ifsome other species (say Superhomo perfectus)inherits the earth?

No, the Christian message is that God, the creator of thephysical universe and the ultimate source of all standards – be theymoral, logical or esthetic – did intervene. God actually became a human being, humbled Himself to beforn in Israel two thousand years ago. As man He kept all God’s laws that men have never been able to keepbefore. Yet, as far more than anexample, He accepted the mockery and rejection of men and died as a criminalunder the curse of God that He himself might bear the punishment we deserve.e

The Christian message of hope, then, the promise of peace onearth, is that anyone of us who will turn back to God, will seek Hisforgiveness on the basis of Jesus’ death as God’s sacrifice for sin, will havepersonal peace and reconciliation with God. More than that, He will change us inside, so that we canreally begin to struggle against our own evil impulses, so that we can work inour community and nation for the things that really make for righteousness andpeace.

Only then will we begin to see the depth of evil inourselves and in our society, and realize that the return of Jesus Christ isnecessary to bring true peach on earth and to deliver us from our ownwickedness. Then we ourselves willbe changed into the new Superhomo perfectus. Then we will find our what man wasreally meant to be, which all of us have been dimly desiring all ourlives. This is the message of theBible. The hope of the world isthe incarnation of God in Christ, not the evolution of man into superman.