God and Evolution

Introduction

Science is fascinating. Some in this audience have engaged science in profoundly obvious ways but most of us have been exposed to science through our educational system. Science has significantly impacted life. We have all benefitted from the advances of science—from the microwave oven to computers to medical advances to psychological understanding—science has impacted all of our lives. Science is a broad field covering a number of disciplines of study.

Because of exposure to the scientific method, our culture has come to understand a process for investigating our world. We no longer think it odd to pay close attention to how things work seeking an explanation that will remove the mystery and leave us satisfied. Science in many ways has removed the mystery of life and replaced it with observationally based confidence of how things work in this world. We trust science. Christians are not against science. As Christians we too want to investigate our world. The scientific approach gives us the means to think, reason, and learn about our world.

Science covers a variety of disciplines but there is one term that quickly gains the attention of us all—evolution. The concept of evolution is older than Charles Darwin but he is the one the receives the recognition. Darwin in his book, The Origin of Species, proposed that changes in life as we understand it came about through natural selection or “survival of the fittest.” This idea says that evolution is about changes needed in order for the creature to survive. As a result, evolution tries to explain how modern day creatures came to be. Additionally, evolution proposes that we all share a common ancestry. These elements did not occur because of divine influence but through a natural process. This view is now accepted as basic science to explain the origin of our world and what we see around us.

Why a sermon about God and evolution? Since this is accepted science and since many espouse that to present a view that is counter to evolution is a sign of educational ignorance, it is important for us to examine some evidence that demonstrates that science fails at certain points and that an alternative that includes God is reasonable. I have borrowed freely from Norman Geisler and Frank Turek’s book I Don’t’ Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. This is a book that is worthy of your investigation. Christians are not opposed to science. We, too, want to investigate our world. But using science’s own methodology allows us to see that science has not and cannot answer some of the greater questions about life. Because of God, we can investigate our world knowing that we will find reasonable, verifiable answers about life.

The Fundamental Question

While we may not have a fascination about science or may think why do we have a sermon about science, let me suggest to you that this very basic overview is necessary for every generation. To avoid subjects is to suggest that a subject isn’t important or that Christians have no concern about such things. Our young people are exposed to these questions regularly in the classroom. We speak because we too want to know that our faith is real and without examination we only go through the motions without understanding.

The fundamental question when it comes to investigating the origin of our earth is this—Where did life come from? Science cannot answer this question. Those who hold to an evolutionary view have nothing to offer in answer. The assumption is that some matter existed. But it illogical to believe that something comes out of nothing unless one is willing to admit that there is a Designer. Unfortunately, this simple approach does not stop the evolutionist from espousing ideas that have not been proved nor can they hold up to a reasoned approach. Whenever we hear the word ‘evolution’ we tend to think of man developing from lesser creatures. Those who hold to evolution tend to believe that we are all descended from a single cell organism that over millions of years mutated into multi-cells creatures and eventually led to the development of fish, birds, reptiles, and man. All of these changes occurred by natural selection—i.e. random events that produced the changes or in other words unintelligent and random events.

The proof for such a belief is based on observation. Darwin observed that the beaks of birds changed over time and he proposed that such a change in a short period of time when multiplied over millions of years was proof that major changes occurred. The beaks of birds changed according to the abundance or lack of food. What Darwin observed is called microevolution. What he wrote about is macroevolution. From observing the changing of birds beaks, the believed that a small change was indicative of a major change. The major change meant that birds would eventually over millions of years changed into reptiles. The changing beak was just the beginning.

There are three reasons why microevolution doesn’t prove macroevolution:

Genetic limitations. Over time genetic material reaches a limit for any type of mutation. So experiments are done to prove that genetic material can be altered over time. Evolutionists point to Lensk’s work with bacteria. Lenski provides a forced deprivation environment to get the bacterium to accommodate to difficult surroundings. Then he freezes the mutated bacterium and then some time later exposes it again to a hostile environment to see if change will occur. He is up to 68,000 generations of bacteria. He is able to demonstrate that under carefully held conditions, bacteria will change. The problem is two-fold. First, this intelligent selection at work not natural selection. Second, the resulting mutated bacteria is still bacteria. It has not changed into another species. Micro changes have occurred but not macro.

Cyclical Changes. Micro changes do occur with species but those changes tend to follow a cycle. The change takes place when needed and then changes again when other environmental factors require a different change. Darwin’s birds (finches) grew larger beaks when the weather was dry. Larger beaks allowed for cracking open larger seeds. When the weather became rainy and moist, the birds grew smaller beaks to accommodate that change in environment. But the birds never changed species.

Irreducible Complexity. What Darwin was unable to recognize was the absolute complexity of a single cell or life on a molecular level. Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University wrote that an irreducibly complex system is “composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” In other words, to change one part of the system significantly will cause the whole system to die. A car engine is an irreducible complex system. If you wanted to change the size of the pistons in an engine you would also have to change the cam shaft, block, cooling system, and other systems just because of that one change. Failure to change one thing without changing all items will result in system failure. An evolutionist may suggest that these changes took place over eons of time. But that is exactly the point. The altering of the system means the system cannot survive eons of time while the alterations are made that allows it to move into a new species. A person can change an engine but that requires intelligence. Evolution demands that the changes are unintelligent and random acts. Behe goes one to write that “the idea of Darwinian molecular evolution is not based on science.

There are other reasons but these serve our purpose this morning. I want to quickly talk about the fossil record. Evolutionists often point to the fossil record as proof of the transition between species. Even evolutionists have trouble explaining that the fossil record is not only incomplete but that species appears without any transition. In other words, species appear suddenly. Such only proves creation rather than evolution. Without going too deeply, the problem with the assertion is that biology trumps anatomy. Anatomical differences does not tell us anything about the biological differences. The fossil record does not prove ancestry only the biological record can prove connection. To force the fossil record to say more than it is capable of saying is not scientifically authentic.

So What?

I am fully aware that at this point, you may be thinking. Okay, science is interesting but what have you got to help me tomorrow when I go to work or school. This doesn’t speak to my heart and doesn’t deal with the real stuff I have to deal with.

So give me a few minutes to speak to your heart based on today’s lesson. Whether we recognize it or find it important our culture is science driven to a certain degree. Our cultural thought has shifted dramatically. Our culture tends to look at life very personally. Faith is found in my own abilities, skills, and thoughts. Our culture doesn’t endorse looking outside of self or looking beyond self. The great questions of life are personal—what am I here for and what am I supposed to accomplish. When given the opportunity to think about God or evolution, many in our culture do a collective shrug and respond with “Who cares.” God is impersonal. Evolution is immaterial. What matters is what I think and what I can do.

We will have as a part of this series several lessons about God and without getting too far ahead of myself, let me tell you about the God who is personal. I’ve tried to demonstrate that macroevolution is inadequate to explain our existence. Instead consider the following:

For things to come into existence out of nothing there had to be something.

This something thought about you and me. He thought about how to make life pleasant and meaningful. He thought about how to create a world that would allow us to see, breathe, experience, taste, and enjoy. He thought about emotions and gave them to us. He thought about the profound elements of life like love, relationship, and purpose. He gave us minds to think and love deeply.

To say that this is random and by chance is to ignore our complexity biologically and psychologically. The evidence of science doesn’t point to a natural unintelligent series of highly complex events occurring. The evidence points to intelligent design and profound perception of how to make this life liveable.

It would take far more faith to believe in macroevolution than to trust that there is a personal God who planned for you and me. This God is so personal that he came and lived among the created things. This God is so personal that he experienced life as the created ones do so that he could show the depth of his love for us. This God is so personal that he knows you by name and knows you thoughts, desires, and wishes intimately. And he calls for you to trust him since he is the Creator to know what is best for you.

We can reject his overtures to us and he will still love us. He will send rain and sun and blessing even if we reject him. But what may seem impersonal is the result at times of the choices we make to ignore him, push him away, or to act for self-interest. Come to know this God personally. Come to know that he interested in your life not only to make this life matter but that he loves you so much that he wants to spend forever with you.

Invitation.

Follow Jesus

If you’d like to respond to this message or learn more about following Jesus, please reach out.