*Update: This topic has been moved up due to the number of comments and level of interest. -SS 6/05/2005

The recent case concerning theories of origin in the Kansas State Board of Education’s science curriculum raises many different questions. But one inevitable question is this: Could God have used evolution? The reason this inevitably becomes a question is because in the evolution vs. creation debate the two sides are always categorized as atheist vs. theist, and anytime that this happens there is always someone from the evolution side who says, “Hey, I’m a Christian, and I still believe in evolution.” Hence the question: Could God have used evolution to create?

Of all of the many issues that are debated in our time, this particular one absolutely astonishes me. You see, I can tolerate a lot of debate and a lot of healthy skepticism and doubt. I can tolerate and accept differing opinions, suggestions, perspectives, etc. But there is one issue that I cannot figure out, and that is how someone who – A.) believes in special revelation; B.) believes in the supreme authority of God’s Word (divinely inspired without error or defect in the autographs/inerrant/infallible); and C.) believes in the fundamental picture of God as painted by Scripture that He is all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and all-good (omnibenevolent) – could possibly believe that God used evolution to create. The two (evolution and Christian creation) are about as compatible as oil and water. And yet there are those who even claim to be evangelical who believe in the evolutionary system. Why?

There is a story written by John Woodmorappe titled The horse and the tractor that appears on Answers in Genesis’ website here. The story illustrates how ridiculous it would be to mingle God with evolution. The story and it’s moral are as follows:

Once upon a time, a salesman met a farmer, contentedly using a horse-drawn plough. The salesman, referring to the just-invented diesel tractor, said, ‘I’m here to tell you about a machine that will knock your socks off.’

After learning how the tractor worked, the farmer remarked, ‘So, the tractor is a new means by which the horse pulls the plough, right?’

‘Not at all,’ said the salesman. ‘The tractor does not work with the horse. The tractor replaces the horse.’ The salesman then explained to the farmer how the tractor is self-propelling and simply does not require a horse.

‘I see now,’ mused the farmer. ‘Still, I can combine the horse and the tractor by placing the tractor in neutral, and then letting the horse pull it and the plough as well.’

‘Wait a minute,’ said the salesman. ‘That doesn’t make sense. Why have the horse pull the tractor and the plough? If you’re going to use the tractor, let it run on its own power. If you want to use the horse, however, let it plough by itself. Don’t make the poor animal pull a heavy machine for no reason.’

‘In that case,’ replied the farmer, ‘I’ll drive the tractor, and just use the horse for recreation. But whenever I drive my tractor, I will tell everyone that my horse is really pulling it.’

Shaking his head in bewilderment, the salesman replied, ‘You can say whatever you want that makes you comfortable. But remember, the tractor is self-propelled. The horse has nothing to do with it.’

‘Oh, but now you’re wrong,’ said the farmer, with conviction. ‘Just because we can’t see the horse anywhere around the tractor doesn’t mean that the horse isn’t there anyway, pulling invisibly.’

The salesman sighed and put on his coat. ‘Yeah, right,’ he muttered, heading for the door. ‘I can’t get through to you. The horse has only an imaginary presence in the propulsion and operation of the tractor. In fact, sir, there is absolutely no difference, other than your saying so, between a tractor running by itself and a tractor being pulled by an invisible horse.’ And off he went to look for other customers.

The moral: the folly of combining a horse and a tractor is equivalent to combining God and evolution in so-called theistic evolution. A naturalistic, evolutionary explanation (for the origin of life, for instance, or the origin of the first animals) doesn’t need God acting to move things along. God, like the horse, is quite irrelevant. If the tractor is working properly, the horse can wander in the pasture.

Likewise, imagining God ‘working through’ naturalistic evolution is as nonsensical as having a horse pull a tractor in neutral. If naturalistic evolution is a truly sufficient explanation, it will run on its own power—that is, account for what we observe solely in terms of natural forces and entities. We may envisage other roles for God (if we still see a need for Him), but creating living things isn’t among them.

On the other hand, if evolution isn’t sufficient (if the tractor doesn’t work) then why hitch God to the explanation? Why encumber God the Creator by asking Him to ‘pull’ a false, not to mention cruel and wasteful, evolutionary process?

Oddest of all, however, is retaining a nominal or strictly rhetorical role for God in a process that has no need of Him. The farmer who claims that, despite all appearances, the tractor runs because his horse is invisibly pulling it, isn’t going to win the confidence of his neighbors. Instead, they will probably pity him for his self-delusion.

‘Theistic’ and naturalistic evolution are functionally identical. The only distinction is the empty theological language attached in the former case—making no more difference than an invisible horse to a tractor.

For more on this topic see:
Biblical problems for theistic evolution and progressive creation
Theistic evolution: what difference does it make?

An weekly news e-mail from Answers in Genesis:

Q: Surely scientists want to search for truth; they are supposed to be unbiased … aren’t they?

A: It is time for people to realize that what scientists believe about their origins does determine how they look at the world.

We received a letter from a person who’d been named the editor for a geologic society. He was asked to provide articles of substance for their newsletter. In his first issue he included articles that questioned established evolutionary geologic principles. In less than two weeks, members of the society demanded his resignation and the return of all the materials that he had, even when these actions were in violation of the society’s constitution.

This is not an isolated case. We’ve heard of graduate students being refused entry into schools because they believed in creation, and other scientists being driven out of their fields because of their creation beliefs. Whenever a discovery is made that casts serious doubt on evolution, it’s often quickly hidden and not published in the major journals.

None of this should be surprising to those of us who get our answers in God’s Word—after all, man’s heart is deceitful and rebels against the Truth of the Creator God. That’s why we need ministries like Answers in Genesis to tell The truth to the world.

AIG’s Evolutionist Quote of the Week
“It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus’ life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam’s fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.”
– G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30, September 20, 1979.

Kansas School Board considers broader definition of science

The on-going argument over the science curriculum in Kansas (mentioned last week here) is developing even more. Instead of the discussion sticking to the arguments for and/or against either evolution or Intelligent Design it seems that the discussion is swinging wide and going beneath the surface. School board officials have rightly identified the deeper issue, which is our approach to science in general. Evolutionists claim that the purpose of employing the scientific method is to produce a natural explanation for origins (in this case). In other words, they do not want any suggestion that might include something other than what comes from a naturalistic world view.

But herein lies their error. Science alone as the practice of an objective method cannot distinguish between world views. The five-step method is independent of suppositions: (1) identify a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3) test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make conclusions. Clearly evolutionists approach evidence with a presupposition that evolution is true and that there is no creator God. Therefore, the results from their employment of the method will always point to a naturalistic explanation since that was their starting point. Even if the evidence points to an intelligent Designer that simply cannot be correct for their fundamental world view does not allow room for such a conclusion. However, the same is true for creationists. Every scientist, or anyone who makes truth claims, comes to the table with a world view. The scientific method is objective, but people who use it bring to it subjective beliefs.

The above picture from Answers In Genesis illustrates this point quite clearly. One’s fundamental world view acts as a form of ‘lens’ through which one views objective evidence. An evolutionists looks at millions of dead things buried beneath the ground through a naturalistic ‘lens’ and proclaims, “Millions of dead things are a result of millions of years of living things dying.” On the other hand, creationists look at the exact same evidence but through a Christian theist ‘lens’ and, along with the truth of God’s Word, proclaims, “These millions of dead things are a result of a catastrophic global flood several thousand years ago.” Two different people with two opposing world views look at the exact same evidence and get two completely different conclusions. Why? Both used the same method, yet their world views shaped their conclusions.

Will the Kansas school board do what’s right and straighten out the definition of science? Or will they cave in to the pressure of a growing minority in America: Evolutionists? We shall see in the upcoming days and weeks.
For more on world views as lenses, visit here.

FOXNews.com – Politics – Scientists Boycott Kansas Evolution Hearings

Scientists in Topeka, Kansas are refusing to share their arguments for evolution during State Board of Education hearings. Proponents of the Intelligent Design theory are arguing that the science curriculum should include alternative theories of origins besides evolution. Those in favor of Intelligent Design argue that the universe is way too complex to exist apart from some form of design. At first glance, Intelligent Design seems appealing to Christians who are tired of aggressive evolutionary indoctrination. Christians seem ready to wholeheartedly accept Intelligent Design as the best alternative to evolution.

However.

Christians need to be very careful with the Intelligent Design model. Most Christians, in their desperation to replace evolution, seem to want to adopt Intelligent Design without really understanding its concepts and what their implications are. As Francis Schaeffer has said, “Ideas have consequences,” so we need to consider the ideas of Intelligent Design and what its logical conclusions are.

While Intelligent Design is a great step up from evolution it has a very long way to go. While some have labeled its major campaigners as ‘creationists in disguise,’ the truth by and large is less than as exciting. Many may be sympathetic to the creation account in Genesis, but Intelligent Design by nature does not seek to point to a personal God who creates and sustains and is actively present. Stopping short of this axiomatic truth is like stepping into the Atlantic Ocean with no intention of actually crossing over to Europe – it’s a big step to get into the water, and it is a drastic change compared to the sandy beach, but it is far short of crossing the ocean. Christians cannot talk of origins without talking of a three-personal God. And while Intelligent Design may be more compatible with creationism it is not the ultimate solution that our culture needs. Acceptance of Intelligent Design thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions, or even more probable, Deism. What’s more, Intelligent Design tactically excludes the Genesis idea of man’s Fall, therefore there is no philosophical answer to the origin of evil. The Fall was a major event in history that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed. Thus, the movement’s success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways.

In the end, the Lie of evolution may have wrought as much or more damage to mankind than any other in history. But Christians need to be guarded and counter with the Truth of God’s Word and not settle for anything else just because it’s not evolution.