Evolution vs. Intelligent Designers
I have been thinking a lot this weekend about the arguments for evolution and the big bang theory compared to the Biblical accounts of God's design for creation. This came up Sunday night in my church's study through Job and I again found myself pondering the subject while talking to my grandma today about her house falling apart, even up to now while I am currently watching Star Trek Enterprise.
I have been thinking about God as the "Intelligent Designer" and mankind who was created in His image. We were put in the Garden of Eden and told by our Maker to take dominion over the earth. In essence we were told to continue in God's footsteps of creating. We were to take His garden and extend it out into the world. It amazes me to look at the history of mankind and see where that God-given creativity has brought us. Look at our buildings, cars, airplanes, ships, computers, and so on. Look at the Egypt's pyramids, China's Great Wall, France's Eiffel Tower. Think about the marvelous works of art that have been put out there throughout the ages. Read some of the classic writings of history (and even think about how we have taken those same tales and turned them into spectacular movies). Think about your favorite meal and imagine the culinary experiments that had to take place to bring it to you today. Throughout history, one thing has been proven true. Man is a creative being.
It is because of this I can watch shows like Star Trek and then walk outside, look up, and tell myself, "someday" I believe that it can happen, and unless God intervenes in opposition or by ending our time here on earth, I think it will. He created us for those things. He created us to take His creation and to continue to create. I think God created science to give us the ability to achieve the things we have (and will) and gave us an imagination to get us started in that direction. I believe that in God's creation we are people of infinite possibilities, but only if it truly is His creation.
On the other side of the creation debate you have the arguments for evolution and the big bang. In essence, for no reason whatsoever a giant explosion out of nothingness created everything in the universe. From that explosion, this newly created matter then turned that energy into forming giant rocks, which somehow mutated into living cells, creating plants and animals and ending up in the current time of humans, which according to this story came from monkeys.
What is interesting about the formation of the evolutionary theory is that it is based on the "rule of uniformity" (which should be called the theory of uniformity because it can not be proven, like evolution which stems from it). The rule of uniformity says that evolution is possible because things stay the same. It states that millions of years ago we see the same natural processes taking place that we see today. (I wonder how they apply El Nino and global warming to this rule.) It must do this to deny the possibility of divine intervention such as the flood of Noah's day because that breaks the chain.
However, by applying the rule of uniformity to this theory, it undoes itself. First of all, the rule of uniformity would state that there could be no big bang. If there were no matter in existence and nothing to create an explosion to create matter, then the universe is impossible. After this flaw, we come to the one I want to focus on here. If the laws of physics apply then we must look at why my grandma's house is falling apart. When you take energy (such as the sun, and the process of natural decay) and apply it to matter (in this case, the house) and extend it out over time, you get destruction. Throw a log in a fire, that energy applied for a length of time destroys the log. Put a rock in a stream and leave it for a few million years. It won't get bigger and then come to life. It will, in fact, be weathered down to nothing, long before that time period ends. It is not the natural process of the universe to create, then to maintain, and then to better itself. This is why it takes a handyman to come along and fix the house problems.
This leads to another dilemma. A monkey does not instinctively come along, pick up a paintbrush, hammer and nails and fix a house. Even if you could teach it to do so, the animal does not have the reasoning mind to figure out the work that would need done. If we came from monkeys then the question comes in as to why we have this ability fully developed in us, yet monkeys do not, not even partially.
Mankind is designed to be creators. That doesn't happen by chance. Imagination is not a trait developed by evolution. In fact, imagination would be something phased out in the evolutionary process because day-dreaming would be a flawed characteristic in an environment where "only the strong survive." Imagination and emotions would both be put away to ensure our survival.
I am optimistic about the future of mankind, because I can imagine a brighter future. Scientifically this is called "necessary existence." Look at the periodic table of elements. There are elements listed which scientists have never actually seen or would know where to find. They are listed, however, because we know everything about them. We know their atomic mass and their physical traits. Science says that because we know all of this information, it doesn't matter whether we find this element or not, it has "necessary existence."
Interestingly enough, the philosopher Rene Descartes used the same argument to prove the existence of God. Descartes has been called the father of post-modernism because he decided that until something could be proven to exist, then he wouldn't believe it. This led to his famous statement, "I think, therefore I am." He said that because the thought pattern was there, and personal to himself, that he must mentally exist at some level. The next thing that Descartes 'proved' with his reasoning was the existence of God. He said that because his finite mind could grasp the thought of an infinite mind greater than his own that this being has "necessary existence" because the thought of this being could only be put into his mind by this being. (Interestingly, Descartes never 'proved' his physical existence.)
Why is flight possible? Because the human mind saw it in birds and could imagine it for ourselves then used science to bring it about. Same thing with space travel and electricity and everything else we have created. Evolution doesn't work because we can't imagine it. Sure, it sounds good, but our minds outside of scientific debates wrestle too hard with the impossibilities of it. We have never seen it happen, nor can we make it happen in a lab. There are too many flaws in the details. If this is supposed to be base on scientific proof, then why isn't there anything to show for it. Why can't we use what we have learned from evolution to cure AIDS and cancer? Why do we wrestle with morals if scientifically (and therefore logically) "only the strong survive"?
Yet on the other side of science we can take what we see in natural processes and take that information and do wondrous things like cloning a sheep and using DNA to trace crimes?
Creationally, we are tied to this creation and bound by the natural laws which God set up. The human mind is too great to think that after all these years of digging into evolution we have proved nothing, much less how to take that knowledge and use it creatively.
We were designed to be designers and everything we design takes cues from God's original creation. How come we can make movies about space travel, yet every creature we find in these movies is created in the form of man or some other earthly thing (roaches or slugs for example). We can't imagine anything 'new'. Even Solomon said, "there is nothing new under the sun." God created it, brought it before Adam and told him to explore it and then to take dominion over it.
If we don't build the house, the house doesn't get built. If we don't maintain the house, it goes away.