1. What is science?

2. Does science discover absolute knowledge and thus lead to absolute truth?

3. Do not scientists approach their work with a completely open mind, totally free of preconceived ideas?

Since Darwin's time scientists have also attempted to discover a materialistic explanation for the origin of the original simple living cells by chemical reactions of non-living chemicals on the primeval earth. The term given this hypothetical process is abiogenesis, which means the beginning of life from non-life. The chemical reactions that supposedly led to the production of the first living cells are encompassed in the term, chemical evolution.

During the past two centuries scientists and philosophers have also struggled to explain how the entire universe evolved from some original simple form. This concept is called cosmic evolution.

Thus secular scientists, philosophers and scholars in general see the whole history of the universe as one continuous process of cosmic evolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution. Therefore, Darwin and his modern followers consider that everything in the universe can be explained totally as a result of materialistic cause and effect. So to them there is only physical reality, and no spiritual reality exists. God, if He exists, is locked outside of the universe and has no significance inside. Therefore, there are no intelligence, purpose, plan, meaning or goals in the universe. This includes the human race, personal human consciousness, and all of human society, religion, and culture. To them human consciousness is "an illusion," although they avoid the question of who is experiencing the illusion.²

In its modern form, somewhat simplified, the Darwinian theory of evolution may be outlined as follows:

• Each organism reproduces itself.
• Random, slight, heritable variations appear in some members of each new generation.
• The environment of each organism, both internal and external, enables individuals with some variations to reproduce more rapidly than the original type and than other variant types.
• As a result, a new type comes to dominate the population.
• This process of descent with variation was able, tiny step by tiny step, to transform a microbe into a university professor in only 3 billion years.

5. What is the biblical doctrine of creation?

• Ex nihilo Out of nothing
• Fiat By His word or command
• Special Each created "kind" of organism reproduces separate from the other kinds
• Perfect Good, very good, to glorify the Creator and make His creatures happy
• God's image Intellect, affections, moral responsibility, and will in man
• Six-day creation

At some time after the creation week, when Eve had been created from Adam's side, our first parents disobeyed God and carried the entire race into an estate of sin and misery, but also the entire creation came under the divine curse. This is very important to the creation explanation of the world, for it tells why an originally perfect creation became filled with imperfection and misery as it now is.

6. Is not evolution a science and therefore based upon fact, whereas creation is religious and therefore based upon "blind faith"?

The idea behind evolution is materialism, a belief which is accepted by faith. Materialism is the view of the world that sees matter and the laws of physics and chemistry as the only ultimate reality or, at least, the only reality with any practical importance in the world.

A scientist who is a materialist and is interested in the origins of things will naturally pursue research aimed at discovering natural, i.e., materialistic explanations for the origin (the beginning) and development of all things including the universe, solar system, earth, life, species, and man.

On the other hand, the belief underlying creation is theism, especially biblical theism. Biblical theism is the world-view that sees infinite-personal Spirit as the source of all reality. The biblical theist believes that the infinite-personal Creator of all things has revealed truth about the creation in a book, the Bible. A scientist who is a biblical theist will naturally approach scientific research with a view to understanding more about the Creator's handiwork. He will expect his results to agree with his faith, to fit into the framework of the biblical record of creation.

It is clear, then, that evolution and creation are equally religious (or irreligious). Each requires faith in a basically philosophical or religious understanding of the world. On the other hand, advocates of both evolution and creation adduce from the data of science circumstantial evidence in support of their competing views of the world. In this sense evolution and creation are equally "scientific."

7. Can any theory about supposed processes of origins -- for example, the beginning of life or the origin of the solar system -- be tested in a way that might conclusively falsify the theory?

Since no humans were present at the beginning, no scientists could be on hand to record the conditions and the events. Furthermore, those conditions and events cannot be repeated experimentally. Therefore, the only evidence available is that found in the present world*in the rocks, fossils and living things. The data collected by observation and experiment in the present world, and advanced in support of one or the other theory of origins, is circumstantial evidence.³

By "circumstantial" we mean that the meaning or interpretation given to the data depends strongly on the assumptions and presuppositions of the interpreter. Furthermore, any objection raised against a theory of origins can often be answered by some additional new assumption. And this new assumption generally cannot be tested experimentally either. Thus theories of origins, be they evolutionary or creationist, cannot conclusively be proved false by experimental test.⁴ Therefore, they are, strictly speaking, outside the realm of scientific theories.

8. Is creation a scientific theory or a scientific fact?

9. How can one make a decision about creation and evolution?

Each person must weigh the evidence offered in support of evolution and of creation, deciding for one's self on which side the evidence is most persuasive. Due account can properly be taken of one's own personal philosophical-religious commitment. The natural tendency is to feel most heavily the evidence which is on the side of one's personal beliefs. Everyone has the right to his personal beliefs, including scientists and students of science. In considering scientific questions, of course, all pertinent facts should be recognized, even those which seem to threaten one's beliefs. Evolution and creation are equally scientific and equally religious. Faith is involved in the acceptance of either view, and scientific data is advanced in support of both.

10. But could not
God have created everything by some evolutionary process? Perhaps He created the universe and
then let evolution
do the rest.

Darwinian evolution in both its original and its modern form proposes evolution only by completely random chemical and physical processes. In this theory no trace of intelligent purpose, plan, design or goal is allowed. Therefore, theistic evolution which assumes divine direction to achieve divinely ordained goals is an entirely different and incompatible theory. As a result, belief in theistic evolution cannot logically be used as an excuse for accepting the modern evolutionary theory held by secular scientists. In addition theistic evolution leaves the believer with a God who really did not do what the Bible says He did, a God who apparently is not able to do what the Bible says He did. It makes man a half-evolved, half-created being who is a remodeled ape, so to speak. It also makes the Lord Jesus Christ into a very specially made-over ape. But the Bible says that He is the Creator of the universe, and the New Testament records His approval of the Genesis record of creation.⁵ Thus it would appear that those who accept theistic evolution are standing in an intellectual and religious no-man's land where they will be shot at from both sides of the battlefield -- by the materialists as well as by the Bible-believers.

11. I thought Darwin proved the theory of evolution in his book, The Origin of Species.

In 1956 W.R. Thompson, a Canadian entomologist (entomology - study of insects) of international repute, wrote in his introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin's Origin,

...Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."⁶

Chapter IV of the Origin, entitled "Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest," occupies 44 pages in the 1958 Mentor edition. In this chapter Darwin used the language of speculation, imagination, and assumption at least 187 times. For example, pages 118 and 119 contain the following phrases: "may have been," "is supposed to," "perhaps," "If we suppose," "may still be," "we have only to suppose," "as I believe," "it is probable," "I have assumed," "are supposed," "will generally tend," "may," "will generally tend," "If," "If...assumed," "supposed," "supposed," "probably," "It seems, therefore, extremely probable," "and "We may suppose." Is this really the language of science? No, it is not.

Of Darwin's speculative arguments Thompson wrote in his Introduction to The Origin of Species,

...Personal convictions, simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favor of the theory... The demonstration can be modified without difficulty to fit any conceivable case. It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified; but since the imagination has free rein, it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example of real transmutation [change of one species to another] has been given.⁶

12. Has Christianity hindered the progress of science? Some people think so.

The biblical Christian faith provided the philosophical foundation for the structure of modern science. This foundation is the concept of an orderly, rational, reproducible universe purposefully designed, created, and sustained by the infinite-personal, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign Creator. Many of the greatest names in the history of science, people who laid the groundwork in theory and experiment for modern science, were devout believers in Jesus Christ and in the Bible. Notable in the last century were Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Lord Kelvin (William Thompson). Faraday, who pioneered in experimental chemistry, electricity and magnetism, is called the greatest experimental scientist of all time.⁷ Maxwell developed the famous Maxwell equations for electromagnetic waves (such as radio waves) before such waves were even discovered.⁸ Lord Kelvin, a great British physicist, made important contributions to thermodynamics, geophysics, and many other fields of science.⁹ Each of these men was a Bible-believing Christian and a man of sterling character as well as a great man of science. Every field of science today owes much to the efforts of these and other Christians who have labored in scientific research, and many scientists today are Christians.¹⁰ How sad it is, not to say absurd, that so many people have been led to think that science must be tied to atheistic materialism.

Popper, Karl, Conjectures and Refutations (New York: Basic Books, 1963), p. 257.

...There will be well-testable theories, hardly testable theories, and non-testable theories. Those which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. They may be described as metaphysical.

Popper, Karl, Unended Quest (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Pub. Co., 1976), p. 168.

...I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme*a possible framework for testable scientific theories.

References

1 Popper, Karl R., The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1959), pp. 40-42.

2 Crick, Francis, Scientific American, 241, Sept. 1979, p. 224.

3 Matthews, L. Harrison, Introduction to Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species (J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, 1971), p. xii.

4 Birch, L.C. and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, 214, 22 April 1967, p. 352; Popper, Karl R., Federation Proceedings, Amer. Societies for Experimental Biology, 22, 1963) p. 964; Olson, Everett C. in Evolution After Darwin, 1, Sol Tax, Editor (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960), pp. 530-537.

5 John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:1-3, John 5:45-47, Matthew 19:4-6.

6 Thompson, W.R., Introduction to Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species (E.P. Dutton and Co., New York, 1956).

7 MacDonald, D.K.C., Faraday, Maxwell, and Kelvin (Doubleday and Co., Inc., Garden City, N.Y., 1964), pp. 10-11; Tyndal, John, Faraday as a Discoverer (Thomas Y. Crowell Co., New York, 1961), pp. 43-48, 176-199.

8 MacDonald, D.K.C., Faraday, Maxwwell, and Kelvin (Doubleday and Col, Inc., Garden City, N.Y., 1964), pp. 63, 97-98; Watson, Dwight, The Scientists: James Clerk Maxwill and Michael Faraday (Bible-Science Association, Minneapolis, MN, 1973).

9 Ibid., MacDonald, D.K.C., p. 63.

10 Morris, Henry M., Men of Science--Men of God (Master Book Pub., San Diego, CA, 1982). The Creation Research Society with membership office at P.O. Box 14016, Terre Haute, IN 47803, is a professional society with some 450 voting members having advanced degrees in science, a number of them on university faculties or in industry, who believe the biblical record of creation and the flood.