The Creation Evolution Conflict
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
(Investigator 172, 2017 January)
One of the most powerful arguments for the existence of God is the
physical creation—the earth, planets, stars, animals, plants, humans
and all the physical and biological reality that we experience around
us every day. The existence of creation demands a Creator, and proves,
at least in the minds of most persons, the existence of a Creator whose
many attributes are reflected in the wonderful created world that
Based on this reasoning, William Paley wrote a book in the middle 1800s
titled Natural Theology. In
this book he concluded that, just as a watch requires a watchmaker, so
a creation requires a creator. From the beginning of Christianity until
the middle 1800s, almost every scientist and educated person in the
Western world believed in a Creator God. After Darwin worked to “murder
God” this all changed.
In our generation, over half of all scientists are now atheists, as are
over 90 percent of all leading scientists. Some leading scientists are
aggressive militant atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, P. Z. Meyers,
Daniel Dennett, Isaac Asimov, Steven Jay Gould and Jerry Coyne.
Historians who study this shift from creation to atheism have
determined that the major reason for this change from belief to
non-belief is a theory named after its most well-known popularizer,
Professor Emeritus of astronomy at Harvard, Harlow Shapley, stated
“formerly the origin of life was held to be a matter for the Deity to
take care of; it was a field for miracles and the supernatural. But no
longer.” Professor T. H. Huxley added “the doctrine of Evolution, if
consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe the Bible.” And,
many scientists add, to believe in God as well.
Today’s Darwinian Theory is usually called the theory of evolution.
Evolution, often abbreviated as evolution from molecules to man, which
is the title of a major biology textbook, is also described as “from
the goo to you by the way of zoo.” The theory teaches that all life is
essentially the result of primarily two forces, genetic mutations and
natural selection of the genetic variety produced by these mutations.
Darwinism is also referred as “the survival of the fittest” theory
because a fitter animal is, by definition, more likely to survive the
struggle for life and which then allows him to reproduce.
The major problem with Darwin’s theory is not the survival of the
fittest, but the arrival of the
fittest because over 99 percent of all mutations are near
neutral or harmful and not beneficial. Thus, evolution teaches that
humans and all life are the result of billions of mutational mistakes.
Today, due to the lack of a better explanation, damage to the genes
called genetic mutations are seen by Darwinists as the ultimate source
of genetic variety from which natural selection can select.
Other explanations for the cause of evolution have been attempted to
explain the arrival of the fittest, but none of these claims have
survived careful examination. Some of these ideas include pangenesis,
the inheritance of acquired traits, orthogenesis, vitalism, and
macromutations, all which have failed as explanations for new genetic
information. This is why life, including humans, is believed by
Darwinists to be the product of trillions of mistakes.
Mutations are copying errors like typographical mistakes that occur
when writing books. It is possible that some typing mistakes can
improve a manuscript but, as any student knows, the vast majority do
not. As noted, scientific research has documented that almost all
mutations, over 99 percent, are either near neutral (meaning only
slightly deleterious), harmful, or lethal. One study of mutations found
not a single example of a beneficial mutation that added new
information to the genome. Some mutations are beneficial for human use,
such as seedless fruit, but these mutations do not produce a superior
animal or plant, rather they produce plants that cannot reproduce.
As a result of extensive research on mutations, many scientists have
come to doubt that Darwinism can do what it claims.
Christians have also taken notice because a central tenet of
Christianity is a belief that God is the creator of the universe and of
all life from single celled life to humans. Many Christians have noted
that, if carried to its logical conclusion, what evolution attempts to
do is explain the existence of the creation without a creator.
Darwinism argues that the entire natural world can be explained without
resorting to an influence outside of the natural observable world,
Christians realize that this doctrine is not only contrary to
scientific research, but also contrary to their core beliefs. Creation
demands belief in a Creator, and evolution, in attempting to explain
all reality without an intelligent Creator, has caused many persons in
our modern secular society to conclude that they no longer have a
reason to believe in God to explain life or anything else.
Some argue that the method God used to create was evolution. They feel
that God created some original one-celled life forms, which after
millions of years evolved into humans through the laws that God placed
within the original one-cell and the environment around it. The major
problem with this position is that it is not supported by either
scientific research or the dominant historical theology. The problems
Christians have include Darwinism is not supported by the Scriptures
either. They realize that once we accept the idea that the entire
natural world except the first “simple” forms of life are products of
evolution, it is not difficult to argue that the formation of the first
cell was also a product of evolution.
Actually, there is no such thing as a “simple” life form. All living
things are enormously complex, even the so-called “simplest” life forms
known as bacteria. The living cell is the most complex machine known in
the entire universe. Even the most so-called simple non “life” forms
[e.g. viruses and bacteriophages] rely on, and could not exist, without
higher forms to live off of and thus are parasites. Because the
scientific data does not support the theory, the acceptance of
evolution is based more on one’s belief structure than on science.
Evolution, as defined as the progression from molecules to man purely
by natural forces, did not occur, and could not have occurred, and this
conclusion is based squarely on science, not religion.