Since 1859, when Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published, Christians have been forced to wrestle with the challenges raised by his theory of naturalistic evolution. For millennia, Christians had taught that God created each species according to its kind. Slight changes may accrue for various reasons, but cows remain cows and horses remain horses. Darwin challenged this teaching by proposing a theory to surmise how various organisms may have arisen over time from a common ancestor. He suggested that offspring differ slightly from their parents and from each other. Animal breeders have long observed the same thing and take advantage of these variations by selecting the most desirable offspring to produce the next generation.
Darwin argued that something analogous to a human breeder exists in nature without any intelligent choices being made by anyone—human or divine. He argued that some biological variations provide individual offspring with advantages that make their survival more likely. Over time, those offspring with such advantageous traits survive, breed, and pass down those traits to the next generation. Thus, the mechanism of evolution was said to be a purely “natural selection.” When Gregor Mendel’s work on genetics was rediscovered at the turn of the twentieth century, an explanation for variations in offspring was added to Darwin’s theory.
Christian Responses to Evolution
Christians have responded to Darwin’s theory in a number of ways since it was first published. Some have rejected the theory completely, explaining its scientific problems but emphasizing that Darwinism is contrary to Scripture. We see this approach in the work of organizations such as Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, and the Institute for Creation Research. Others have rejected the theory completely but have focused almost exclusively on the argument that it is contrary to the evidence in nature. We see this approach in the Intelligent Design movement represented most famously by the Discovery Institute. The essential point to note here is that the Christians involved in these various organizations tend to agree that descent with modification and natural selection can account for neither the origin of life nor the diversity of life.
Since the nineteenth century, other Christians have accepted the arguments for the basic ideas of Darwin’s theory of evolution (descent with modification and natural selection) but have rejected the atheistic implications. Instead, they have argued that evolution is the way in which God created the various species. Versions of this view have been termed “theistic evolution” or “evolutionary creationism.” Adherents of this kind of view suggest that God’s work of creating the species is analogous in some ways to His creation of each of us in the womb. In the case of each of us, we can describe the natural processes from conception to the development of the embryo, all the while still confessing that God knit us together in the womb. Theistic evolutionists argue we can say the same thing, on a larger scale, with the process of evolution. God is the primary cause, and evolution is the secondary cause.
The Weakness of Theistic Evolution
Theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism seems like an easy way out where we get to have our cake and eat it too. I would, however, encourage Christians who are tempted to take that easy step to pause and take the time to research the issue. Darwin’s theory has always had some serious weaknesses. For example, from the beginning, every version of the theory assumed the existence of the biological process of reproduction as a given. Descent with modification assumes a process by which descent takes place. But how did the process of reproduction (a mind-bogglingly complex biological process) itself evolve without an already existing process of reproduction?
That question was raised by scientists in the nineteenth century, but things have not gotten better for Darwin over the last century and a half. The more we learn about biology, the more problems arise. One of the most intriguing problems involves the origin of the information coded in our DNA. Stephen C. Meyer explored this problem in his 2010 book Signature in the Cell. To this day, naturalistic Darwinism cannot explain the phenomena discussed in that book. Similarly, examples of irreducible complexity, first explored by Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box, have become legion, and they too are inherently inexplicable on a purely naturalistic basis.
A Call for Careful Research
It is easy to fall prey to the influencers and authors who say with self-assured confidence that the case for Darwinism is airtight and who mock anyone who would be foolish enough to disagree as ignorant buffoons. They argue by shouting the loudest and by mockery. A rock-solid case doesn’t require shouting and mockery. Only a weak case requires the methods of middle school locker rooms.
Furthermore, take a look at what scientists fifty years ago, one hundred years ago, or 150 years ago were boastfully claiming to be “the assured results of modern science.” Some of it is quite silly. I have no reason to doubt that scientists one hundred years from now will be looking back at some of today’s “assured results” with the same head-shaking disbelief. It might not include Darwinism yet, because that’s the only option for atheists, but don’t take self-assurance as proof. Scientists have been self-assured of many falsehoods over the centuries.
In short, take your time. Do some prayerful reading and research. You might be surprised to find out how weak the case for Darwinism really is.
Ligonier Ministries