Alan Scholes has been on the staff of Campus Crusade
for Christ since 1969 and teaches theology at the International School of Theology. He
holds three earned masters degrees and a Ph.D. in Theology and Personality from Claremont
School of Theology. He recently completed his latest book, "What Christianity is All
About: How to Know and Enjoy God." "You believe in evolution, don't you?" Ted asked. "That depends on what you mean," I said. He looked puzzled. I had been introduced to Ted two weeks earlier, and we had met several times to discuss the teachings of Christianity. "Ted, let me ask you, do you believe in evolution as a scientific theory or as philosophical dogma?" "As a scientific theory, of course." He still looked puzzled. "Why'd you ask that?" I smiled. "You'd be surprised how many people treat evolution almost as if it were a religious belief." "Oh, no," he said, "I just take it as a scientific theory." "Good," I said. "Then as a scientific theory, you would agree that it should be held as long as it seems to be a consistent explanation of the evidence we have available, right?" "Right." "And should be dismissed if new evidence starts contradicting it or if a more consistent model is proposed?" "Well, yeah, I guess so... But you still haven't told me if you accept evolution." "Until recently, I would have given you an unqualified 'yes.' But in the past year I've had to reconsider my position. Let me ask you something else, Ted. Were you aware that an increasing number of scientists in recent years have begun to seriously question evolution?" He looked skeptical. "No, I've never heard that." "Well, it's true. And their number includes science faculty from major colleges and universities throughout the world." "You're kidding!" Ted still looked as if he didn't believe me. "No, I'm not. In fact, I know of more than 400 men who hold advanced science degrees in the U.S. alone who fall into that category. And I'm certain there are hundreds more I don't know about."{1} "I have a question." Ted seemed to be choosing his words carefully. "Uhh...did you by any chance stop believing in evolution because you started believing in Christianity and the Bible?" "No, in fact, for the first four years after I received Christ, I was a thorough-going evolutionist. I'm curious, Ted, why did you ask me the question about evolution in the first place?" "Well, you remember a few days ago you were telling me about how we all inherited a sin nature from Adam?" "Sure." "Well, I got to thinking... It seems to me a person couldn't believe the Bible story about Adam and Eve and accept evolution too." I smiled. "I've never seen any problem between evolution and the Bible. Actually, the only doubts I have now are scientific, not theological." The puzzled look returned to Ted's face. "But evolution says that man evolved gradually over millions of years, so how could there possibly have been a first man and a first woman? There would have just been many gradual, transitional stages between ape and man." "Well," I suggested, "there are many serious scholars who have proposed that God may have used the evolutionary process to produce man's body, but then chose a single human pair into whom He placed a human soul. They would have looked like the other semi-apes around them, but they would have had a consciousness of themselves and of God." "And you say there are Christians who believe this?" Ted was frowning. "Yes. For example, the famous Christian scholar C. S. Lewis proposed that idea in his book The Problem of Pain. The view is often called 'theistic evolution'." Ted stared at me silently for a moment. "But wait a minute. Doesn't the Bible say that God created the world in six days? How could someone who claims to be an evolutionist ever believe that?" He folded his arms as if he had just proposed the unanswerable question. I laughed. "Well, many of them do! Theistic evolutionists have what is called the 'day-age theory.' They point out that the Hebrew word that is translated 'day' in Genesis may not necessarily refer to a 24-hour day. There are several other places in the Old Testament where the same Hebrew word obviously does not refer to a 24-hour day." "Like where?" "One example is just a few paragraphs later. In Genesis 2, the writer says, 'In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...' and then it goes on to talk about the creation of man. Obviously, 'day' in chapter 2 refers to the whole period of creation. "But an even more startling example is found in the final three chapters of Zechariah. The Hebrew word for 'days' is used in more than 20 places to speak of the last times. Theistic evolutionists often quote II Peter 3, '...With the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.'" "Well, that seems very convincing." Ted shifted in his chair. "Why don't all Christians accept this theistic evolution view?" "Basically for the same reasons that many nonreligious scientists are questioning evolution. There are just too many things that the Darwinian theories don't explain." "Like what?" "Well, Ted, some of the evidence is a bit detailed, and it might be easier to explain if you'd be willing to do a little reading. Would you consider borrowing a 120-page paperback for a week or so and then getting back together? It was written by a prominent biochemical researcher, but you won't need a science degree to understand it." "Well, can't you give me some idea of his basic approach?" "I'll try," I answered. "Basically he shows that many of the fossil finds that are commonly used to prove the evolution of man may well be simply fragments of ape bones or in some cases simply skeletal structures of men that looked much the same as men do today." Ted hesitated for a moment. "Okay, I'll read it; I'm really interested. Besides, my roommate is a biology major, and I know we're gonna end up talking about all this." "Good," I said. "I'll bring it by your room after lunch." Later that day as I walked toward the massive brick walls of Ted's dormitory, I glanced at the book in my hand. The bright blue cover carried the title Evolution, the Fossils Say No. Below it in black letters was the name of the author, Dr. Duane Gish. My mind raced back over a series of conversations that had begun more than a year before. I had become friends with a tall lanky graduate student in biochemistry named Sid. Sid had become a Christian three years earlier as an undergraduate, and within two quarters his grades shot from a dismal "C minus" to a consistent stream of "A's." As Sid put it, "I never had any real reason to study hard before. But now that I know the Creator personally, I'm fascinated by the study of the world He made." One day as we met for lunch, it was obvious he had something special on his mind. "Alan, I'm getting awfully close to dumping this whole theistic evolution view and becoming a thorough-going creationist." "You're pulling my leg!" "No, I'm not. Look, I think I already told you that the high-priced private school where I got my B.S. has some of the most respected faculty in the fields of biology and chemistry." "Yeah," I said. "Go on." "Well, all I ever heard there was evolution. And they taught it as established fact. I never heard a whisper that there ever was a conflicting view much less that any serious scientists doubted the Darwin model." "So?" I said. 'What changed your mind?" Sid paused a moment as if not certain where to start. "I attended a seminar this past week sponsored by the Creation Research Institute based in San Diego." "What's that?" I said. "I never heard of it." "Well, it's a national organization of scientists from various disciplines ranging from biology and physics to geology and mathematics. And they all believe that the evolution theory is not the best explanation for the origin of man and the universe." "That's very interesting. Who spoke at the seminar?" "That's the part that amazed me. The two main speakers were Dr. Duane Gish and Dr. Henry Morris. Gish is a professor in my field of biochemistry and, for the last 18 years, has done high-level research at Cornell and University of California Berkeley. Morris is the chairman of the Department of Civil Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. He is an expert in applied hydraulics or the geologic effects of water." "Sounds impressive," I said. "What did they have to say?" "That's the amazing part, Alan. Both they and all the other scientists who spoke at the seminar are convinced that scientific creation is a better explanation than any form of evolution." "That's a little hard to believe, coming from reputable scientists," I said. "What basis did they have for saying that?" Sid grinned, "Well, they spent a whole week's worth of seminars on their reasons, but let me see if I can summarize them briefly for you. "There seemed to be basically four lines of evidence: first, there has been nowhere near enough time for evolution to have taken place; second, the fossil record and geologic column are capable of being interpreted in a way that makes the earth only about 10,000 years old; third, evolution contradicts entropy; and finally, the theory of evolution is untestable and therefore not, strictly speaking, a scientific hypothesis at all." I gave a low whistle. "Wow, that's quite an indictment. But that last one confuses me...how could anyone say that evolution doesn't qualify as a scientific theory?" "Well, let's examine that." Sid leaned back in his chair. "Evolution is basically a theory about the origin of life, right?" "Right." "Then let me ask you something. Could you design a scientific experiment to see whether Napoleon won or lost the Battle of Waterloo?" I thought about it for a moment. "Well, not really. Although I suppose you could try to assemble similar-sized armies on similar terrain with authentic period weapons..." "Okay," said the biologist, "let's say you did that and in your mock battle, Napoleon won. Would that prove that he won the actual Battle of Waterloo?" "No," I said, "because you could never be certain you had included all the variables in your reconstruction. For one thing, where would you ever find another general to be Napoleon!" Sid laughed. "You're absolutely right. And you've put your finger on the problem of trying to use the scientific method to investigate any event that took place in the past. You see, to qualify as a scientific theory, any ideas must be testable in a controlled laboratory setting. The experiment we run must be capable of being repeated by any other qualified scientist. "The most that laboratory experiments could ever hope to show is that natural selection or spontaneous generation or some other evolutionary mechanism can work under certain conditions. And all that would prove is that it could have been the way life evolved. An experiment could never say that this was the way life did evolve." "Let me see," I said. "So you're saying that science can never make positive statements about historical events of any kind; it can only investigate current processes." "That's right. So evolution is really historical speculation, nothing more." "But that's horrible," I said. "I was taught that evolution was a scientific fact all through high school." "Don't feel too bad," responded Sid grimly. "I was taught it was fact all through college and graduate school!" We were both silent for a moment. "You mentioned something about entropy," I said finally. "Isn't that the principle that says everything is running down?" "Yes, it is. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that systems in the universe always tend to move from the highly complex and organized toward a state that is less complex and more disorganized. And that every time there is motion or light or any other exchange of energy, the amount of usable energy in the universe decreases. So, in a real sense, what you said is true. The whole universe is gradually running down. "Scientists predict that, eventually, millions of years from now, all matter will be distributed evenly throughout the universe, and there will be a uniform temperature everywhere. There will be no more stars, planets, moons or any other concentration of molecules anywhere. By any measure, the universe will be dead." "Hmm," I said, "that's very interesting, but I don't see what it has to do with evolution." "Just this. Evolution says that life started by simple, uncomplicated organisms evolving from inorganic matter floating in the primal ocean. Then gradually, through random chance, more and more complex and highly organized forms of life evolved. Entropy says the exact opposite: that random chance will produce less and less order and complexity." "I see," I said frowning. "But surely the evolutionists must have noticed the problem." "They certainly have...and you should see some of the far-fetched explanations they've come up with to try to explain away the contradiction." "Let's see," I said. "You've explained two of the objections, but what were the other two?" "Well, one was that there is not enough time for life to have formed by pure chance." "But it seems to me that there is plenty of time. Don't the evolutionists believe that the world is many millions of years old?" "Yes, they do." Sid paused a minute. "Maybe an illustration will help. Do you have a coin in your pocket?" "I think so," I said, fishing in my pocket. "Here's a quarter." "Great," said Sid. "Would you please flip it for me?" I watched the glint of the coin as it spun through the air and fell onto the table between us. "It's tails," I said, retrieving the coin. "Good; now what do you think the chances would be that you could flip 10 more tails in a row?" "Not too good," I said. "Why don't you try it?" The coin again landed on the tabletop and wobbled to a stop. It was another tails. But the third flip yielded a heads. My streak was broken. "Well, so much for that," I grinned. "Okay," said Sid. "Let's suppose that you sat here and flipped this coin steadily, five flips every second. How long do you think it would take for you to get 10 tails in a row?" "Hmm, quite a while. Fifteen minutes; half an hour maybe." "And what if I made you stay here until you flipped a hundred tails in a row. How long might that be?" "Oh, days," I said. "Or maybe even weeks." "Now, Alan, what if you had to stay until you got a million in a row?" "That's impossible," I said. "I may not live that long!" "You're right." Sid was grinning. "And here's the point. You know that protein molecules are one of the basic building blocks of life?" "Yeah, I remember studying something about that." "Well, there is a fairly simple protein called a polypeptid. Harold F. Blum of Princeton University has calculated that the odds against one of these polypeptids being formed purely by chance is one in one hundred trillion trillion! "Even if you could flip that coin a hundred times a second, it would still take you 31 billion years to flip your coin the equivalent number of times." I must have looked shocked, for Sid started laughing. "And keep in mind, Alan, that that is only the time required for one simple molecule! You have to figure many multiples of that time to get even the simplest fish and so on. You can see why many prominent mathematicians totally reject the idea that man could have evolved by random chance."{2} "Yes, I'm beginning to understand," I said. "But what about the fossil record? Doesn't that prove that man evolved, no matter how improbable it may seem?" "I don't think so," answered Sid. "But the subject of the fossil record is a little more complex...I brought a book back from the seminar that was written by Dr. Gish. In fact, I have it with me. Why don't you take it home and look it over?" He handed me the blue-covered book. The conversation from the year before faded from my mind as I reached Ted's dorm room. His roommate, Winston, was also there. "Hi, Alan, good to meet you. Ted told me of your conversation about evolution and Christianity. Very interesting. I have to go to class right now, but sometimes I'd like to ask you about all those miracles reported in the Bible. To me, things like turning water into wine or the virgin birth are the hardest things for a scientist to accept." "I'd be glad to discuss it," I said. "Why don't the three of us set up a time to get together in the next few days?" After agreeing to meet the next day, I walked out of their dorm and down the path that led to the parking lot. I wondered how Ted was going to respond to the book by Gish and how I would be able to answer Winston's questions. Endnotes{1} Duane Gish, Evolution, The Fossils Say No, I.C.L. Publishing Company, San Diego, Calif., 1973, p 9. {2} Since the time of this conversation, prominent scientists have continued to defect from the evolutionary camp. In a recent book, Evolution from Space, renowned English astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleague Chandra Wickeramasinghe conclude that random evolution could not even begin to account for the complexity of living matter and that scientists are going to have to find some other explanation. (Source: "Raising the Odds Against Darwinism," The London Ttmes, September 7, 1981.) © 1997, Alan Kent Scholes. copyright © 1995-1999 Leadership U. All rights reserved.Updated: 25 September 1997 |
The Artful Dodger: A Skeptic Confronts Christianity
