The Great Evolution Debate

The lefties are chuckling over the various Republican candidates who have publicly stated they they don't believe the theory of evolution, including Ron Paul whose admission of doubt was made public yesterday. Somehow, this has become a campaign issue. If you don't fully embrace Darwinian evolution, which even it's proponents have to admit is a theory since it can't be proven, you're a science-denier and some kind of hillbilly redneck who probably also believes in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

I've commented on this debate in the past but think it's time to expound a little bit on the whole evolution debate. Part of the problem comes from the way the terms are defined. Here's how evolution and creationism are defined in the current political context:

• Evolution - everything that exists today happened by accident. You exist because of random events that occurred billions of years ago that resulted over time in various species that eventually led to humans and to you. That's just the way the molecules bounced. Congratulations, you're the pinnacle of evolution to date.


• Creation - God spoke the whole into existence approximately 6,000 years ago and everything that is and was was created in six literal 24 hour days. What exists today exists pretty much as it was created since such a relatively short time has passed. Most of the geological features that point to an old earth, like the Grand Canyon, were created in Noah's flood.

I'm not actually sure which theory takes more faith. There's not a lot of middle ground between those two points of opinion. Part of the problem in the political context is that candidates are not given the chance to offer any explanations. It's "raise your hand if you don't believe in evolution" and that's it. According to the press and the elitists you're either smart (evolution) or dumb as a box of rocks (creation).
Now let's look at the problems inherent with both positions. First, evolution:

• What are the chances that a couple of atoms banging together could have given rise to everything we see today? The diversity and complexity of life on this planet is truly amazing, and if it could happen here, where else did it happen? And where are all the intermediate species that must have occurred between monkey and man? Anthropologists have occasionally found ancient specimens of hominid-looking critters, but certainly not enough of them to convince me that there's a seamless line in the flow of evolution. Just because there are similarities between simian and man doesn't mean they're relatives.


• Secondly, if Darwinian evolution is absolute truth and God is not involved, your life has no meaning or purpose whatsoever. You're just the result of random chance and accidents and there's absolutely no reason for you to be here. How's that make you feel? That would really take the starch out of Rick Warren's book sales.

And now, creation (as defined above):

• There's ample geological evidence to indicate that the earth is much older than 6,000 years. It's just hard to twist science and observation around enough to make that young-earth age work.


• The Genesis story was supposedly written down by Moses and inspired by God. Given what he had to work with, who's to say that perhaps God chose to use terms (such as "day") that Moses and his people could understand when he described the creation, rather than a literal meaning of the word "day". To God, a "day" could really have been millions of years, but in order to keep the story understandable to the population to whom it was intended, God may have simplified it a bit. I don't think that an unreasonable theory. Jesus was known to use parables to make his teachings easier for His audience to understand. Maybe He learned that from his Dad.

There's one other issue with creation, and it's the one that got me thinking. One Wednesday night I was at a church service when the pastor decided to take questions from the congregation from those who wanted information about the Bible. One person asked about how dinosaurs fit into the creation story. The pastor tried to explain how dinosaurs were created at the same time as everything else (during the 6 days) and coexisted with man for a period of time. I had a hard time keeping from laughing as this pastor struggled to make the ridiculous sound reasonable. At that point I began to consider the possibility of sort of a hybrid solution.
What if there was both creation and evolution? What if there is a God who sparked the whole thing into existence, and created the complexity and diversity we see today, but did it over billions of years? That could certainly explain the changes in various species that has been documented by researchers, and would give time for the dinosaurs to have come and gone well before man came on the scene. It would also explain the geologic evidence that points to an earth that has billions of candles on its birthday cake.
Micro-evolution is evident in nearly every species which has adapted certain traits, coloring or other characteristics to its unique environment. There's nothing non-Biblical about observing and recognizing those changes for what they are. As far as that goes, Darwin and his "survival of the fittest" theory is probably correct to a degree. I just can't take the huge leap to assume that everything came from some random ooze one day.
I, for one, don't buy the idea of monkey-to-man evolution. I do believe that God created man pretty much as we know him today, though there has certainly been some micro-evolution within the species as with other species. However, the ultimate ancestor of man is God, not some monkey somewhere. If that makes me a science-denier, all I ask is you prove that your ancestor was an ape and I'll quit denying (and a striking resemblance is not sufficient proof).
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what any of us think because none of us can change it and I'm sure God gets a good laugh out of the self-righteous on both sides of the argument. I figure I'll ask Him about it when I see Him.