One of the
great controversies in the teaching of science in public supported
schools has been evolution. Many students who have been raised to
believe in God and the Bible or have chosen to believe in God and
the Bible for their own reasons often feel challenged by their
science teachers on the subject of evolution.
In public schools, millions of students are taught evolution as
truth, as fact, and those students who disagree are challenged by
their teachers. Many students find it difficult to deal with these
challenges because they have not studied the issue in depth before.
Their teachers have. Their teachers often have been schooled in the
arguments used on both sides in this controversy, and they have long
experience in debating the issue.
This has also been a legal controversy with court cases concerning
the teaching of evolution, intelligent design, or creation in the
public schools. Many intelligent design proponents want intelligent
design taught as an alternative interpretation of the evidence along
side evolution, while evolutionists oppose this saying that would be
introducing religion into science classes.
Evolutionists firmly state that evolution is true, that it is a
fact, that it happened. In fact, evolution has not been proved and
cannot be proved. But the reason it cannot be proved may be
surprising. The reason it cannot be proved goes beyond whether or
not evolution happened. The reason it cannot be proved has to do
with a fundamental limitation of science, a self-imposed limitation
that science has adopted as part of the scientific method as it is
practiced in science.
As surprising as it may seem, the scientific method itself, as
practiced by science, does not allow evolution to be proved! Even if
evolution were true, science would not be able to prove it
rationally using the scientific method. Nor can science disprove
creation or intelligent design. I will show why later in this
Does the physical evidence of fossils and genetics point to
evolution as the process by which species originated, as scientists
and evolutionists claim? Can evolution be proved?
Is there a contradiction between the Bible and the physical
Is the teaching of evolution in public schools constitutional?
These are the topics I will address in this article.
Many people are taught that the Bible says that the earth is 6,000
years old and was created in six days. Others say that the Bible is
not intended to be taken literally, and a figurative reading allows
for the six days of creation to be an undetermined amount of time
that could have been millions of years. I will show that both of
these views are wrong, that the Bible is intended to be taken
literally, but that even a literal reading of Genesis does not say
that the earth was created and came into existence in six days and
is only 6,000 years old.
I will show that the Genesis account in the Bible, even when
understood literally, does not say that the earth is only six
thousand years old. The six days of creation described in the first
chapter of Genesis are indeed six literal, 24-hour days, and this
creation occurred approximately six thousand years ago. But the
earth had already existed before the six days began, and as far as
the Bible is concerned, may have existed for hundreds of millions of
years. Moreover, there is evidence in the Bible that the condition
of the earth being covered in water and in darkness as described in
the second verse of Genesis is not the original condition of the
earth as God created it. The earth came to be covered in water and
in darkness at some point in time after God created it, and the
earth could have been populated with life prior to that, life that
resulted in the fossil records we see today. During the six days
described in Genesis chapter one, God renewed the surface of the
earth, that is, restored it to a condition it once was in.
I will also suggest possible reasons why God, who has the power to
create all life instantly, may have chosen instead to develop
species gradually or at selected times over millions of years in a
way consistent with the fossil record and the evidence of genetics.
I will show how the Bible account can be reconciled with the fossil
evidence and suggest one possible explanation for why life may have
appeared gradually or in stages on the earth with the simpler forms
appearing before the more complex forms, and why there appears to be
an inter-relatedness between species in the genetic code. Many
people who believe in God do not understand why God, who has all
power and can create all species instantly if He wants, would take a
long time to create all the species that have existed. I offer a
possible explanation for this.
I will show that evolution not only is unproved, but it cannot be
proved by science, and is in fact a faith adopted by those who
believe it, not a religious faith, but a faith that there is no God
who intervenes in physical processes on the earth. Those who believe
in evolution do so because they have made a personal choice to
believe it. It is a subjective opinion and decision. Evolution
cannot be proved by science. Even if evolution were true, it could
not be proved by science using the scientific method, and I will
Much of the information and ideas in this article are also in the
free online book,
The True Gospel
and the Ezekiel Warning, chapters one and six. This
book, like this article, is in the public domain and can be
downloaded in .pdf file format. Other chapters in the book explain
what Bible prophecy predicts for the English-speaking nations in the
world in the years just ahead, as well as what the Bible teaches
about major religious doctrines.
CREATION OF SPECIES - PART
CREATION OF SPECIES
Many people who
believe in evolution try to refute the creation account in Genesis
by saying that science proves that the earth is more than 6,000
years old. But this argument is based on a misunderstanding of
Genesis. The Bible does not say that the earth is 6,000 years old.
And I am not saying that the account in Genesis is using metaphor.
The Genesis account is literal, but it does not indicate at all when
the earth itself was created.
Let's start with
Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth" (all Bible quotes are from the King James Version unless
otherwise indicated). This is a simple statement that God created
the earth and the entire universe. It does not say when He did it
Now at this point
in the narrative, the earth exists. Verse 1 just said God created
the earth. Now look at the next verse, Genesis 1:2: "And the earth
was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of
the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters." Verse two is describing the condition of the earth at this
point in the narrative. It is covered with darkness and with
water. But it exists. God had already created it in verse one.
How long did the
earth exist in the condition described in verse two? How long was
the earth covered with water and in darkness? A day? A week? A
year? A million years? The Bible DOES NOT SAY.
Is there a period
of time between verse 1 and verse 2? In other words, could the
condition of the earth described in verse 2 NOT be the way God
originally created it? Could God have created the earth, not
covered with water, but with land areas and in light not darkness,
even with life on it, in verse 1? And could something have happened
later in time to cause the condition described in verse 2 with the
earth covered in water and in darkness? Genesis itself DOES NOT
SAY. However, there is an indication elsewhere in the Bible that
shows that God did not originally create the earth "without form,
and void," and that this must have been a condition that came upon
the earth later, after God created the earth as stated in verse 1,
but before verse 2.
Isaiah 45:18 says,
"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that
formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it
not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD;
and there is none else."
Where this verse
says that God did not create the earth in vain, the words "in vain"
are translated from the same Hebrew word in the original text that
is translated "without form" in Genesis 1:2. You can check this out
with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, which lists every word in the
Bible and every place it is used, and also gives the Hebrew and
Greek words that each English word is translated from. So in
effect, Isaiah 45:18 is saying that God did not create the earth
without form and void. So the earth would not have been in this
condition originally, without form and void, with water and darkness
covering the earth. This condition of waste and desolation came
What could cause
the earth to become "without form, and void," completely covered in
water, and in darkness? This pictures the result of destruction and
chaos, and can come about as a result of sin and rebellion against
God and His ways. For example, this is why the flood came upon the
earth in the days of Noah. Notice the reasons for the flood: "And
GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth,
and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had
made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the
LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of
the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the
fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them"
(Genesis 6:5-7). "And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is
come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them;
and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth" (Genesis 6:13).
"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth,
to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from
under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth
shall die" (Genesis 6:17). Then the flood came and covered the
whole earth (Genesis 7:17-20).
The sins of
mankind, especially violence, were the cause of the flood in the
days of Noah. What could be a cause for the surface of the earth to
be destroyed by water before man was even created?
When Adam was
created, Satan, described as the serpent, was already on the earth.
We first read of him in Genesis 3:1, yet he is not included in the
description starting in Genesis 1:2 through all of chapter 2. Satan
existed before Adam was created and before the six days of creation
described in Genesis 1:2-31.
Before man existed,
when the earth was first created, angels existed and were joyous at
the creation of the earth (Job 38:4-7). Lucifer was not created
evil by God. He was originally perfect in his ways until he sinned
(Ezekiel 28:14-15). He was also on this earth, and he rebelled
against God, desiring to rise above the heights of the clouds
(Isaiah 14:12-14). There are indications that he led one third of
God's angels into rebellion with him and they became demons
(Revelation 12:3-4), suggesting that Lucifer and about a third of
the angels inhabited this earth before man. How many angels is
that? Revelation 5:11 indicates there are more than ten thousand
time ten thousand righteous angels around God's throne in heaven, so
the number of angels who were on the earth under Lucifer's
supervision and who became demons when they followed Satan's
rebellion could be more than 50 million.
If this is the
case, the sin and rebellion of Satan and his demons on the earth
could have been the cause of the destruction of the surface of the
earth that we see in Genesis 1:2, "And the earth was without form,
and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And
the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters," just as the
sins of mankind resulted in the destruction of the earth by flood in
Noah's day. But if this is the case, and I believe it is, then as
far as the Bible is concerned there could have been a period of time
AFTER the earth was created and BEFORE the destruction described in
the second verse of Genesis that lasted hundreds of millions of
years, and the earth could have been filled with life at that time.
The Bible does not
say anything about the plant and animal life forms that existed
before Genesis 1:2 and how long ago they existed, but science does.
Fossils have been found that appear to be millions of years old, and
there have been found fossils of many species, such as the
dinosaurs, that never existed in the days of Noah when he brought
all the animals into the ark.
The account of the
six days of creation contained in the first chapter of Genesis does
not describe the original creation of the earth, but a re-creation,
a refreshing, a renewal of the surface of the earth and a clearing
of any dust that obscured visibility of the other bodies in the
solar system in preparation for the creation of Adam and Eve. The
account is from point of view of someone on the surface of the
earth. When God said, "Let there be light," enough of whatever dust
was obscuring light from the sun was cleared away so that light was
able to reach the surface, yet diffuse, not allowing the sun, moon,
and stars to be clearly seen. On another day, God made the sun,
moon, and stars into lights for signs and for season visible from
the surface of the earth by clearing away any remaining dust so that
the heavenly bodies could be seen clearly from the earth. God
restored the same species of life that existed before the disaster
struck, with exactly the same genetic coding.
Some will say that
radiocarbon dating establishes dates for humans and their artifacts
that cannot be reconciled with Bible chronology. But radiocarbon
dating is based on an assumption that the intensity of cosmic rays
that bombard the atmosphere of the earth from space has always been
constant, and this assumption is unproven. If the intensity of
cosmic rays reaching the earth was different in the past, dates
established by radiocarbon dating by scientists today would be
inaccurate. Also, fossils of creatures that are similar in their
skeletal structure to humans today could be fossils of animals,
similar to humans, but not human, just as the great apes today are
similar in body structure to humans but are not human.
evidence does not prove that the creation account in Genesis is
But though there is
no contradiction between physical evidence and the creation account
in Genesis, I believe there are very serious problems with the
theory of evolution itself.
Problems with the Theory
I will state
right here that although I have done some reading on the subject of
the theory of evolution, I am not an expert on it. But what I have
learned suggests serious problems with the theory, and I invite the
interested reader to do his or her own research on the subject, with
these problems in mind.
While the majority of scientists support evolution, a minority
disagree with it, and many of them have published books and articles
showing how evolution is inconsistent with the evidence.
For example, Darwin's theory proposes that new species gradually
emerge from older species through a number of small changes due to
random mutation and natural selection. One would expect to find
transitional fossils that show the stages from one species to
another. But these transition forms are not found in the fossil
record, but rather the record shows that species have appeared
abruptly, not gradually. The lack of transitional fossils, some
scientists say, DISPROVES evolution.
Also, experience with mutations shows that random mutations are
almost always harmful, and rather than produce new species, natural
selection tends to weed out mutations. Species can change and new
varieties can develop, but within limits, and a species never
changes into a different kind, according to these scientists.
One of the main problems with evolution is that the theory does not
explain how complex organ systems and biological mechanisms can
gradually come into existence through a process of random mutation
and natural selection, when MANY changes would have to occur
together in the genetic blueprint before any of them would confer
any advantage to survival and the propagation of the species. This
is called "irreducible complexity."
One example is the woodpecker. While most birds eat seeds or insects
that are found out in the open, the woodpecker eats insects found
inside of the trunks or branches of trees. This bird gets these
insects out of the tree by drilling a hole into the wood with its
beak, then getting the insects that are inside with its tongue. This
requires a combination of highly sophisticated organs and instincts,
all working together, which other birds do not have, in order for
any of them to have a benefit.
In order to find the insects, such as ants, that have tunneled into
the tree, the woodpecker uses its hearing to find them as they are
moving around or digging tunnels. This requires a specially
developed sense of hearing. In order to drill into the wood, the
woodpecker has specialized feet and tail feathers that enable the
bird to maintain a strong and favorable grip and position on the
tree, as well as an especially hard beak that other birds do not
have. The beak has to be hard enough to drill a hole into the tree.
Once the bird has drilled a hole to reach the tunnel containing the
insects, it inserts a long, sticky tongue into the tunnel, and the
insects stick to the woodpecker's tongue. Other birds do not have
tongues of this type. The woodpecker has especially strong neck
muscles for delivering blows strong enough to penetrate the tree,
and to do so repeatedly in rapid succession without fatigue. Finally
and most importantly, the bird must have the right instincts to use
all these specialized organs together to actually obtain its food
this way, and other birds do not have these instincts. It would do a
bird no good to have an especially hard beak, special claws and tail
feathers for maintaining a strong position for drilling on the
trunk, extra strong neck muscles, specialized hearing that can
locate the insects in the tree, and a specialized long, sticky
tongue, if it did not have the instincts to use these organs
together to find and catch insects inside the trunk of a tree.
How could all these characteristics have evolved gradually if most
of them have no particular advantage unless all are present, fully
developed, at the same time? Generally, there is a biological cost,
in energy, growth time, and nutritional requirements, to any organ
or system, and highly developed and sophisticated organs tend to
diminish if they are not useful to a species. A bird would not tend
to have extra strong neck muscles if those muscles are not being
used to drill into a tree. Even if random genetic mutations produced
a bird with stronger than average neck muscles (one mutation would
not likely be enough for such a muscle system, it would likely
require many genetic changes, because it takes a whole group of
muscles working together along with neck bones that can take the
stress), unless that extra strength is used, not only does the group
of mutations provide no survival advantage, but it actually will
hurt the bird's chances for survival, since more food would be
required to grow and maintain muscles that are larger and stronger
So in order for ANY of these special characteristics of a woodpecker
to be developed and continue, each one has to be an advantage, not a
disadvantage, to the bird's survival and reproduction. Yet for these
characteristics to be an advantage, all have to be present at the
same time. How can this happen gradually? A bird would have to have
thousands, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of genetic mutations,
or more, in order for all these characteristics to appear fully
developed, or else the bird would not be able to obtain its food
this way. The odds against this ever happening even in hundreds of
millions of years are astronomical.
Another example is the archer fish. This is a fish that obtains
insect food by squirting a jet of water from its mouth above the
surface of the water to knock an insect off a low-lying branch or
twig of a tree that is over the water. The fish eats the insect
after it is shot down and falls into the water. To do this
successfully requires not only the ability to squirt water out of
its mouth at high speed, but extremely complex and highly developed
instincts to see the insect above water, aim the stream of water
accurately, and allow for the distortion due to the bending of light
as it passes from air to water at the surface.
There are many other examples of irreducible complexity in the
natural world, such as in symbiotic relationships between species,
bees and flowers being an example, and the migration of birds and
From what I have read, I think scientists have acknowledged that the
development of complex systems that require many genetic changes all
at once before any of them confer a survival advantage is a problem
with the current theory, and they have started to say that evolution
must happen in sudden spurts, not gradually, what they call
punctuated equilibrium. But I have read of no explanation as to HOW
this could occur.
I believe there may be another flaw in the theory of evolution that
has been identified more recently, and it comes from information
theory. Biologists realize that the genes of a species are a genetic
code, similar in many ways to computer code. The genes are a coded
blueprint that determines the characteristics of the species, just
as computer code determines the characteristics of a piece of
computer software. But the amount and complexity of information
coded in the genes of even a relatively simple species are so vast
that, even if it were possible for species to evolve, it would seem
that even billions of years would not be sufficient to produce the
quantity of code and the information in it. In other words, even if
evolution were possible, and based on the impossibility of complex
systems developing suddenly I believe evolution is not possible, but
even if it were, some scientists say that there has not been enough
time on the earth, even after hundreds of millions of years, for
evolution to have produced the species that exist today.
In a sense, evolution is not a complete theory. It states that
random genetic changes that give a species an advantage can be
preserved and spread through natural selection, and it states that
this can result in new species, even all species that exists, but it
does not provide an explanation of how this can occur that actually
works. Scientists and teachers who promote the theory of evolution
like to say that just because they do not know all the details of
how it occurred does not mean that the theory is wrong. But this is
misleading. The reason they do not know the details is not that
there are many possible ways it could have occurred and they just
don't know which one actually happened. The reason they do not know
the details is that they know of NO possible way it could have
Why do scientists and teachers believe evolution in the absence of
any real workable explanation as to how it could have occurred? I
think that for many people, evolution is a faith. They choose to
believe it because they want to, just as many others believe in
their religion of choice because they want to. I think that those
who believe in atheistic evolution find comfort in the idea that
there is no God who has authority over their actions and will judge
them for what they do in this life.
I do not say that everyone who believes in some form of evolution is
an atheist. Certainly there are those who believe that God exists
and have strong religious beliefs and who also believe in some kind
of evolution. Nevertheless, many of those who strongly believe in
evolution are atheists or agnostics and I think they find comfort in
the idea of "no God," and the theory of evolution helps them in
their belief that there is no God who intervenes in the universe and
has the authority to tell them how to live their lives.
Why Science CANNOT Prove
cannot be proved and is a faith, not a religious faith, but an
What do I mean by "faith?" Evolution is a faith in the sense that it
is a chosen belief system that cannot be proved by physical
evidence. Believing in evolution is a personal, subjective choice,
and evolution is not subject to physical proof.
Here is a test that can show that the theory of evolution is a kind
of faith for those who believe it. The next time a scientist,
advocate of evolution, biology teacher, or college professor
challenges you on evolution and wants to know why you don't believe
it, try asking, "Can you prove evolution according to the rules of
formal logic?" Many colleges offer courses in formal logic. Formal
logic is logic based on deductive reasoning. This is the same kind
of reasoning used to produce proofs in geometry. It is illustrated
by the example, "All dogs bark. Sandy is a dog. Therefore, Sandy
barks." Used properly it can be very accurate, but it has a
limitation. It can only reason from assumed premises. In the above
example, it is assumed that all dogs bark. Then, based on this
assumption, if Sandy is a dog, you can prove that Sandy barks. But
if the premise is wrong, your conclusion can be wrong.
The false premise in evolution that the scientific community assumes
is that there is no God who intervenes in physical processes.
People often think of science as a field of knowledge, a category of
information, a subject matter. This is often how the term "science"
is used. Courses in school for example are divided into categories
such as science, mathematics, history, etc. and books in libraries
and bookstores are grouped in similar ways. But science is more than
a category or field of knowledge. It is a way of looking at the
world and a way of trying to discover knowledge. It is a culture and
a community committed to discovering new knowledge using the
scientific method. And the scientific method, as it is practiced by
science, excludes consideration of supernatural causes as
explanations for physical evidence.
The scientific method works fine in the laboratory. God seldom
intervenes in everyday processes and experiments. God allows natural
laws to operate without interference because He wants man to be able
to work with a predictable environment, and because He has chosen
not to make His presence known in such a way that it would be
impossible for men to deny His existence. But that does not mean
that God did not create the universe, or life itself. This
assumption, that God never intervenes in physical processes, does
not work well in explaining how things came into existence in the
first place, or the past history of how everything came to be the
way it is. When scientists use the scientific method, with its
build-in assumption that there is no God who intervenes in physical
processes, to explain the origins of life, they are using for a
purpose for which it is not suited, and it doesn't work.
According to the scientific method as practiced, there is no God who
intervenes in physical processes, and the scientific method is the
only way of thinking most scientists and educators will acknowledge
as a way of investigating the origin of species. So their thinking
about evolution is distorted and biased from the beginning.
This is why the scientific community cannot accept or even
objectively consider creation by God as an explanation for life on
If you want to prove something rationally and objectively, and if
you are honest in wanting to find the truth, you have to be willing
to look at both sides of an issue objectively without bias. If you
only look at one side, you are not being objective and your
conclusions may be wrong. That is why science cannot prove
evolution. It cannot prove evolution because it cannot look at both
sides, creation and evolution, without bias. It cannot look at both
sides because the scientific method does not allow science to
consider supernatural causes for any physical evidence. That
possibility is always rejected without consideration.
You cannot objectively prove something by only looking at one side
of an issue. The question is, did God create life or did life evolve
through natural processes? If you are really after truth, you have
to look at both sides of a question objectively and without bias.
But scientists, in their work as scientists, cannot do that with
evolution and creation. The scientific method forbids it, as does
peer pressure of the scientific community. The scientific method as
it is applied forbids the consideration of supernatural explanations
for evidence. So the scientific method cannot examine both sides of
the issue, which is necessary for proof.
The alternative to evolution is creation by God. To prove that
evolution must have happened a scientist would have to prove that
the evidence cannot be explained by creation by God.
Even if evolution were possible, or in other words, even if a
process of random mutation and natural selection was sufficient to
explain how species came into existence, this alone would not prove
evolution happened. If creation by God is also sufficient to explain
how life arrived at its present variety, then how can we know that
life came through evolution and natural selection and not
intelligent design by a creator God?
If both evolution via natural selection can explain the evidence,
and also intelligent design by God can explain the evidence, then
either of these is possible and evolution via natural causes has not
been proved to be the origin of the species. Then it is wrong to
teach it as a fact.
You need to examine both sides without bias if you really are after
truth and want to prove it rationally. You can't look just at one
side. So for science to prove evolution happened, it has to show: a)
evolution can explain the evidence, and b) creation cannot explain
the evidence. It can try to do (a) but not (b). Science cannot
examine supernatural and theological explanations for the evidence.
It is not equipped to do so. Science is limited to the scientific
method, which is a way of thinking built on the traditions of the
scientific community. The scientific method does not permit
consideration of supernatural causes. So science cannot look at both
sides, as long as it follows the scientific method.
Scientists and educators cannot prove evolution according to formal
logic without setting as a premise that there is no God who
intervenes in physical processes, and this premise is false.
Nevertheless, they accept this premise without proof. For them,
though they will not call it a faith, it is a faith and it is like a
Evolution cannot be proved by science. The scientific method itself
rules out such proof. The scientific method itself prevents science
from trying to prove evolution rationally.
And if a scientist as an individual really examined both sides of
the issue carefully and without bias, I believe he would conclude
that the evidence is consistent only with creation and not with
evolution, and he could prove for himself that evolution never
occurred. But he would have great difficulty if he tried teaching
that in the course of his work, and would risk rejection by the
scientific and educational communities.
Many people who look at this issue with an open mind are troubled by
the idea that God created life because the fossil evidence appears
to them to indicate that the different life forms appeared at
different times on the earth over hundreds of millions of years,
with the simplest life forms appearing first and the more complex
life forms appearing later. Also, there are fossils of life forms
such as the dinosaurs that have become extinct. They cannot imagine
why an all-powerful creator God would choose to create the various
life forms in this order and over such a long period of time, or why
God would create some life forms only to allow them to become
I do not know all the events that may have taken place on the earth
before the account of the six days in Genesis. The Bible does not
give details. I also do not know if scientists accurately know the
ages of various fossils they find. Scientists may or may not be
mistaken in estimating the ages of the fossils that appear to be
tens or even hundreds of millions of years old. But suppose
scientists are right about the ages of the fossils of dinosaurs and
various other ancient species. Suppose scientists are right that the
fossils of simpler life-forms are older than the more complex life
forms. Does that prove that evolution is the process by which all
the species came to be? Absolutely not.
Because the Bible does not tell us how and when God created
different species before the earth was covered with water and God
renewed the face of the earth in six days, we cannot know exactly
how, when, and why God created the life-forms that resulted in
fossils of dinosaurs and other animals. He may have had particular
reasons for creating the simpler life forms first and the more
complex life forms later, and reasons for allowing the dinosaurs and
many other life forms to become extinct, reasons we cannot know
since God does not reveal them in the Bible. But because we do not
know what those reasons are does not mean that God did not have
reasons. We could speculate about God's reasons, and our
speculations might be right or wrong. But our lack of knowledge
about reasons God might have for creating life in the order in which
it appears in the fossil record does not prove that God did not
create life. And if you can't prove that God did not create life,
you cannot prove that evolution occurred.
The premise contained in the scientific method, as it is practiced,
that there is no God who intervenes in physical processes is itself
unproved and unprovable. Yet it is the basis for all scientific
investigation into the origin of life. This is why evolution is a
Why God may have Created
Species over Time
section, I want to speculate on a possible explanation, consistent
with a literal understanding of Genesis, for the appearance of
species in stages over millions of years in the past and why the
genetic code seems to show an inter-relatedness between species.
I want to emphasize that this is speculation only. I have shown
earlier in this article that the Bible indicates that the darkness
and desolation that existed on the surface of the earth as described
in verse 2 of Genesis chapter 1 was not the original state of the
earth as God created it. The earth existed before the six days of
creation, perhaps for hundreds of millions of years, and could have
been inhabited by any number and kinds of life forms as far as the
Bible is concerned. The Bible does not say. Also, if the earth was
inhabited by species that appeared gradually or in stages with
simple life being followed by complex life, the Bible does not say
why or how God created life in that manner. And since the Bible is
silent about this, I cannot know for certain. So what I offer here
is only one possibility, a speculation, on what might have occurred.
I do not say that this is the way it happened, only that it is a
Why do I speculate at all? Why not just say, "I don't know," and
leave it at that?
Many of those who have an open mind and are willing to believe that
God created life stumble over a problem. This problem and issue is
that evidence is shown to them from the fossil record that suggests
that life has existed for millions of years, and that simple forms
of life existed before more complex forms of life. Moreover, the
evidence shows that some species that existed, the dinosaurs being
the best known example, do not exist today. So the question arises,
if God created life and all the species on earth, why would He
create them gradually or in stages over millions of years, creating
simple species before complex ones, and letting some species become
extinct? If God is all wise and all powerful (He is) and had the
infinite intelligence and power to create this entire universe with
all its billions of galaxies (He did), why did He not create all the
life forms He wanted, exactly perfect and all at once? This question
can be a mystery, a dilemma, a puzzle for those who believe in
creation or have an open mind and just want to know the truth.
I have said before that God could have reasons that we do not know
about for why He did things certain ways. But that may be hard for
some to accept without at least some example of why He might have
done things a certain way. We like to see examples of things to
illustrate what we learn. God may have many reasons for creating
species in stages over millions of years, but without at least one
example that could illustrate this, it can be hard for some to
accept. That is why I offer this speculation as a possibility. It
can serve as an example to illustrate that there may be reasons why
God caused life to appear on the earth gradually in the millions of
years before the six days of Genesis 1:3-31 that are not recorded in
the Bible and that science cannot discover. The actual reasons why
God created life in a way consistent with fossil record and DNA
evidence and how He did it may be completely different from the
ideas I express in this section, but at least what I am suggesting
can illustrate that explanations are possible.
I have previously shown that before the creation of man during the
six days described in Genesis, angels existed (Job 38:4-7). Lucifer
was a great angel, and God did not create him evil. Originally,
Lucifer was not evil. But God gave him free moral agency and the
power to choose between good and evil. He was perfect in his ways
until sin was found in him (Ezekiel 28:14-15). Apparently, before he
sinned, God placed Lucifer and one-third of the angels on this earth
(Revelation 12:4, Luke 4:5-7, John 14:30). Lucifer was in a position
of leadership over those angels. His job was to supervise those
angels under God's overall rulership.
Herbert W. Armstrong spoke and wrote extensively about the Bible. He
published the Plain Truth magazine from 1934 until his death in 1986
and he is the author of Mystery of the Ages and many other books,
booklets, and articles. Mr. Armstrong taught in Mystery of the Ages
that Lucifer was placed in a position of rulership with one third of
the angels on the earth, and God gave them the job of using their
creative abilities to preserve and beautify the surface of the
earth. This earth was to be a testing ground to see if they would
remain loyal to God. They were perfect in their ways until Lucifer
sinned and became Satan, which means enemy. Mr. Armstrong taught
that He used his powers of persuasion and influence to gradually
turn the angels under his supervision into sin and rebellion against
God and they became demons. But it might have taken millions of
years for Lucifer, now become Satan, to turn the angels under his
authority against God.
Mr. Armstrong never said exactly how he thought the angels were to
beautify the surface of the earth, and the Bible itself does not
But God must have given them some job and activity to do. Angels
have great powers and minds, probably much greater than man. God did
not put them on the earth to be idle. God intended that they use
their abilities in some accomplishment and challenge to match their
great abilities, not existing in a state of boredom with nothing to
do. And they must have started on the right track with whatever job
God gave them to do. Lucifer was perfect in his ways, living
righteously for a time, before eventually he turned to sin. Even
after that, it may have taken a long time for him to lead his angels
into sin also.
Might God have used the angels and given them a job relating to
physical life itself on the earth?
God himself is all wise and all powerful. Nothing is impossible for
Him. His powers are infinite. But not so the angels. Though their
powers are greater than man's, they are finite. Their powers are
less than God's. They have to learn through experience and it takes
them time to do what they do, just as with man.
God is the creator. God created life. But God can accomplish His
will by using His servants as tools. God's servants have a role to
play in what God accomplishes. This is illustrated by how God builds
His Church. Jesus Christ said, "I will build my church" (Matthew
16:18), but Christ delegates work to His human servants in building
that church, such as the work of preaching and teaching that the
apostles and ministers did. God works, but He often accomplishes His
work by delegating tasks to others. This is illustrated by the
account in John 4:1-3 which says that Jesus baptized more disciples
than John, then says that Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His
disciples did the baptizing. The baptizing was attributed to Jesus
even though it was His disciples that did the baptizing, because
Jesus baptized through His disciples, using His disciples as the
tools and the means for baptizing, and the disciples baptized by
Likewise, God is the creator of life, but in creating life God could
delegate certain tasks if that is His will.
Suppose God gave the angels on the earth a role to play in helping
to develop all the vast variety of species of life on the earth? Is
Perhaps God created the first simple forms of life with the genetic
code contained in the DNA that would be the basic scheme for
producing all life on earth. He then could have provided the angels
on the earth with extensive instruction on how the genetic code
worked and in general terms what forms of life He wanted developed
on this planet. It would then be the task of the angels to work with
the basic life form and the knowledge of genetics God taught them
and using their brilliant minds and their labor, in an organized and
harmonious way under Lucifer's coordination, develop the variety of
plant and animal species that God intended cover the earth and
beautify it, under God's overall direction and authority.
Considering the number and complexity of the species today, it is
easy to see how this could have been a tremendous project that could
challenge the abilities of the angels and keep them occupied for
millions of years. This project would require that the angels be
organized, perhaps groups of them working on various families of
species. It would require that they work harmoniously as a team and
cooperate with each other so that the various species fit well into
the ecology made up of all other species -- no angel could be a
"lone wolf" and breed any kind of species he wanted without regard
to the effect on the overall ecology. It would also be an important
test of character by requiring the angels on the earth to follow the
overall direction of God in the kind of life that they developed,
and not just develop any kind of plant or animal (or disease
organism?) that they wanted.
Why would God have angels help develop life forms rather than God
simply creating every plant and animal species directly by Himself
in one day? God is certainly capable of creating anything He wants
without anybody's help. God with His infinite mind, power, wisdom,
and knowledge could develop every species of life perfectly and more
quickly than all the angels put together. Actually, whatever work
God wanted the angels to do, God could do it Himself easier and more
quickly, but God did not put angels on earth to be idle. He wanted
them to have work and activity that would match their abilities,
keep them challenged, provide intellectual and emotional fulfillment
for them, and provide the proving ground to test Lucifer and his
angels to see if they would remain loyal, to see if they would obey
God and work together harmoniously. This would be a test of their
character and at the same time give them the opportunity to
participate in one of God's great creative projects.
If this speculation is true, how could angels develop new species?
Though their minds would be greater than man's mind, their minds
would be far less than God's mind. They would probably have to
proceed slowly learning from experience as they went. With a basic
one-celled organism to start with, they could breed that species,
then take some descendents of the original cell and make small
modifications to the genetic code. This would alter the
characteristics of following generations. They could then watch the
new organism carefully to make sure the genetic change had the
It would probably be a long time before they had the skill and
experience to go on to multi-celled organisms. In most cases, even
when they progressed to the more complex plants and animals, they
would change and develop new species and make a large number of
small changes in succeeding generations, constantly observing and
checking the results in each generation before making further
changes. Not only would they have to make sure each change in a
developing species took place as planned, they would have to make
sure that it fit in with the overall ecology and did not upset the
balance. This could not be done hastily.
An analogy with this would be the way man develops a physical
invention such as the automobile or television. The first Model T
car was very crude by today's automotive standards; the first TV was
black and white, large, heavy, expensive, and had a round screen.
Today's automobiles and televisions are far more advanced, yet we
progressed from the earlier versions to more advanced models not all
at once but little by little, a small improvement one year, another
small improvement the next year. Even so, most small improvements
were the result of hundreds of highly trained scientists, engineers,
and technicians working together as a team. It took "generations" of
automobiles to get to where we are today simply because it took
years to develop the knowledge and ideas, and each improvement was
built upon what went before. That takes time, lots of it, and plenty
of cooperative effort.
And think of how much more complex is the simplest one-celled
organism than an automobile or TV set!
God must have given the angels on the earth plenty of help and
direction along the way, especially to ensure that His overall
principles and laws were followed. God may have intended that
animals not hunt and destroy each other but eat vegetation and live
in harmony and peace. It would be the task of Lucifer and the angels
on earth to ensure that the animals had the right instincts and
digestive systems to live that way. However, God may not have
necessarily given the angels an exact blueprint for every species to
be developed. Having laid down the broad guiding principles, and
having created within Lucifer and the angels great minds and
creative intelligence, God may have instructed them to use their
minds to design and create all manner of beautiful flowers, trees,
fruits and grains for food, fish and beautiful birds, mammals of
various kinds and colors and markings, etc. It would be up to them
to work out the details just as a human artist, music composer, or
automobile designer uses his creative mind to design a work of art,
a piece of music, or an automobile.
But at some point in time, Lucifer sinned, became Satan the
adversary, and began to sway the angels under his influence to join
him in rebelling against God. Mr. Armstrong has said that it must
have taken Satan a long time to turn one-third of the angels, which
were on earth with him and under his authority, against God. During
this time, these angels may still have been developing life but not
necessarily according to God's guiding principles and laws.
Scientists can tell from the teeth of dinosaur fossils which ones
had teeth designed to crush plants and which had teeth suited for
tearing flesh. Perhaps some large plant eating dinosaurs were
harmless and beautiful but I don't think God intended the angels to
develop Tyrannosaurus Rex, a killing machine. Yet God must have
allowed this to continue for a time, just as God allowed the
violence that filled the earth before the flood in Noah's day to
continue for a while. Perhaps in the time that the dinosaurs
existed, God allowed Lucifer to continue as he was because not every
angel on earth had yet made his decision whether to follow Satan or
remain loyal to God.
Scientists say that something happened some millions of years ago to
cause all of the dinosaurs and many other species to become extinct
on the earth, not gradually but all at once. They speculate that a
great asteroid struck the earth, filling the atmosphere with
sun-blocking dust, and changing the climate causing many species to
die out suddenly. But not all species died out - many continued.
After that, millions of years went by while many old species
continued and many new species developed and appeared, according to
At some point in pre-history, God must have decided that the time
for the dinosaurs to end had come, and He caused or allowed them and
many other species to end. But it was not yet time for the earth to
become "without form, and void." God for His own reasons allowed the
development of species to continue for some millions of years more
even under the imperfect and corrupt leadership of Lucifer now
become Satan. Perhaps the destruction of the dinosaurs was a warning
to Lucifer and the angels on the earth that God was in charge and
God gave them time to see what they would do. Perhaps some angels on
earth had not yet turned to rebellion and were still developing life
mostly according to God's principles and laws. Perhaps Satan, though
had chosen the path of sin, simply was not fully ready to launch an
all-out rebellion against God's throne in heaven.
But eventually, Satan tried, as Mr. Armstrong described it, to knock
God off His throne, Satan and his demons were defeated and cast down
to earth (Isaiah 14:12-14, Luke 10:18), and the surface of the earth
was destroyed and covered by water. This was the condition when God
recreated the surface of the earth and created Adam.
Could angels develop new species or does only God have that power?
It depends on how much power God gave the angels.
In the speculative scenario I described, the angels on earth were
not creating life from dead matter, but merely using pre-existing
life starting with the first living cell God created and guiding the
development of that life into new species. In a similar manner, man,
using selective breeding and other techniques, changes and enhances
breeds of plants and animals and produces new varieties that did not
exist before in the same form. As an example, look at the huge
variety of the different breeds of dogs. Although all dogs are the
same species technically, dogs come in every size, shape, markings,
coloring, temperament, and ability (even a dog's instinct varies and
has been developed by breed - watch a pointer point at a bird
without even being trained, or a border collie try to herd and
control other animals!). Now that man is learning more about
genetics, he is using genetic engineering to splice genes from one
species to another and thus changing a species. Although man has not
yet been able to create new genetic material, in principle there is
no reason why he could not do so in the future. The atoms and
molecules that make up the genes behave according to laws of physics
and chemistry, which man is able to discover. If man is someday able
to decipher and understand the genetic code completely and learns
how to assemble genetic material atom by atom according to his
designs, there is no basic reason why man could not create new genes
that never existed before. And if man with his puny mind can do this
without God's help in a few hundred years, what could angels, who
are greater than man, do with God's direction and instruction over
hundreds of millions of years?
If angels did help develop life into its various forms over hundreds
of millions of years, this could account for the fossil record. The
simplest life forms would be the earliest and the most complex ones
would be the latest. All life would have been descended from the
first cell God created and provided for the angels on earth to begin
to work with. What the blind random forces of nature could not
accomplish even in billions of years, angels under God's direction
and with God's help and empowerment could accomplish.
What about the species alive today?
When the surface of the earth was destroyed and became "without
form, and void," covered with water and in darkness as described in
Genesis 1:2, all plant and animal life in existence at that time
died. But though they had died, a great many species of plants and
animals had been DESIGNED AND TESTED. The genetic code had been
developed. There had been a working ecology, though it may have been
When God recreated plant and animal life in the six days of
creation, did He design everything from scratch? Did He re-invent
the wheel so to speak? A great deal of work had been accomplished in
designing and testing the genetic blueprints for a great variety of
species of life. According to fossil evidence, the fossils that
appear to be only a few hundreds of thousands of years old or
younger appear for the most part the same as species alive on earth
today. If these designs for life were complete, tested together in
an ecology that lasted for a long time, and commissioned originally
by God to be developed by the one-third of the angels that were
placed on the earth, why would God throw away what could be useful
to Him and start from scratch? Why not simply recreate or
re-assemble those species exactly according to the genetic coding or
"blueprints" that had already been designed and tested, keeping
those species that served God's purpose and omitting any that did
If the angels had a role in helping to develop the variety of life,
not everything that the angels on the earth may have produced was
flawed or imperfect just because they eventually rebelled. Much of
what was developed may have been done before Satan rebelled, and
even to the end or close to the end some angels on earth may have
remained loyal to God. Whatever species God did not want was left
destroyed, the good ones were restored. Perhaps God added some new
species to replace those that were flawed.
This could explain why scientists find such a close relationship and
similarity between the genetic coding of similar species today. The
existing species, though not descended from common ancestors (they
were created, brought into physical existence directly by God during
the six days of creation week six thousand years ago), could have
been created according to the PATTERN, the GENETIC DESIGN, of
species that were developed over millions of years of breeding and
genetic engineering from a common ancestor, the original cell
created by God. They would have the same DNA, the same genes as the
species that existed before. God restored whatever was good that was
As I said before, I am only suggesting this as a possibility and I
am not saying this is what definitely happened. But it can
illustrate the general principle, that events could have occurred in
the distant past, events managed and directed by God, that can
account for the fossil evidence. I have tried to suggest a possible
reason for God to create life gradually or in stages, using angels
as His agents to participate in the process in some way. Perhaps it
was not this way at all, and God has other reasons for creating life
the way it appears in the fossil record. I do not know. But I know
that scientists cannot prove that God did not create species even
gradually over hundreds millions of years. And if they cannot prove
that God did not create the species of life, they cannot prove that
evolution is true.
And I know of nothing in the Bible that rules out the hypothetical
scenario I described.
There is also another, much simpler possibility. For those who
believe that God would never give the angels power to work with life
forms and change genetic code to develop new species, it may be that
God created all species directly and simply assigned the angels some
job of working with the life God created, managing it for example,
and God created more complex forms of life after simpler ones so the
angels could learn gradually through experience the skills they
needed to do whatever job God gave them in managing and regulating
Guided Modification and
I am not a
scientist. I cannot verify the evidence science claims it has in the
fossil record and genetics for common descent of species. Scientists
claim that the fossil record all over the world shows that simpler
species appeared earlier than more complex species. They also claim
that the genetic record shows an inter-relatedness of species that
suggest that they branched from common ancestors. While the majority
of scientists claim that this shows evolution through natural forces
only, a minority of scientists say that the fossil record does not
show gradual change, but the abrupt appearance of new species and
that missing transitional forms point to creation, not evolution.
But while I cannot verify whether or not the evidence seems to point
to common descent and branching of species with more complex species
descending from simpler ones over millions of years, I do know that
even if this is true it can be consistent with creation and does not
Guided genetic modification and branching of species can be a way
God created and developed the species and is consistent with the
Modification and Branching" (GMB) is a term that refers to the
intelligent design of species by making modifications to the genetic
code from one generation to the next to produce news species from
God could have changed the genetic code, either directly or through
the work of angels, to develop new species from old ones, and He
could have done it at various intervals over millions of years
during the time the earth existed before disaster engulfed the earth
and God renewed the surface of the earth in six days. He could have
done it this way to allow the angels to learn through experience how
to manage the ecology, rather than creating all species all at once.
This would explain common descent, and it would explain the fossil
Random mutation would still occur, but the vast majority of
mutations are harmful, with only a few being neutral or beneficial.
The primary role of natural selection is to weed out most harmful
and damaged genes - neutral or rare beneficial changes to genes
could remain. There would also be opportunity for new varieties of a
particular species or "kind" to develop to take advantage of local
or changing conditions, but within limits. Major changes would be
designed, developed, and managed by God or by God's angels under
God's supervision and direction.
With guided modification and branching, there is no problem with
irreducible complexity because God could design all features in a
new species that are required to work together all at once. There is
no problem explaining punctuated equilibrium either, because God
could design and make all the genetic changes to introduce a
complete new species suddenly without transitional forms.
But also, guided modification and branching would result in the same
evidence of genetic interrelatedness of species and the appearance
of simpler forms millions of years before complex forms that
evolutionists claim shows evolution through natural forces only.
The main work of building a species is designing the genetic code
for that species. It makes more sense to use the code of an existing
species and modify it than to design everything from scratch.
Computer programmers understand this. Often if a programmer is
writing a new computer program, he does not write it from scratch.
He starts with code from a similar program and adds any necessary
modifications. He may also take building blocks of code which he has
used and tested in other, simpler programs and use them to build the
God originally created the earth, not in chaos, but perfect with an
atmosphere, oceans, and land areas suitable for life, but without
life or with only a simple, primitive form of life. Then over
millions of years He developed or guided the development of a huge
variety of species, but at a pace that enabled the angels to learn
from experience how to manage a growing ecology. God gave Lucifer
the job of helping to supervise the angels and coordinate their work
in God's service. This earth with its life was a proving ground for
Lucifer and the angels who were placed under his supervision,
perhaps about a third of all angels (Revelation 12:4).
But at some point in time Lucifer turned against God and began to
persuade many angels under his influence also to turn against God.
Lucifer, now become Satan, and the angels who joined him in his sin
and hostility to God (who became demons) eventually mounted a full
scale rebellion against God (Isaiah 14:12-15, Luke 10:18). How long
all of this took and what events took place during this time is not
revealed in the Bible, but there could have been many events and
stages that occurred over millions of years. But eventually, the
rebellion of Satan and his demons resulted in the destruction of the
surface of the earth just as the wickedness and violence of mankind
resulted in the flood in Noah's day.
Then in six days God repaired the damage to the earth, once again
making the surface suitable for life, and directly restored the
species that had existed just prior to the destruction. God restored
those species by recreating them, directly and all at once, but
using the same genetic code that had been developed over millions of
years in stages before the destruction.
The state of the earth in Genesis 1:2 cannot be how God originally
created the earth. It would make no sense for God to first create
the earth desolate, in chaos and confusion, and then clean up the
mess and make it a beautiful place. God is not the author of
confusion and chaos (1 Corinthians 14:33, Isaiah 45:18). Why would
God create the earth that way originally?
But chaos and desolation can be the result of sin, either of the sin
of Satan and his demons or the sin of man.
Physical evidence itself seems to show that the earth existed and
was populated with life for millions of years.
Guided modification and branching is not evolution. Evolution is the
development of species from a common ancestor through natural forces
only. Guided genetic modification and branching is a form of
intelligent design. It is the intelligent design and development of
species by God directly or indirectly through the work of angels
over millions of years by modifying the genetic code of existing
species to produce new species in a planned, intelligent way. It can
explain descent of plant and animal species from a common ancestor
over millions of years, not through natural forces only, but through
supernatural design and control.
What about man? The Bible is clear that the first man and woman were
made on the sixth day of creation about 6,000 years ago. Man did not
exist in the world that existed before the destruction and before
the renewal of the surface of the earth in six days, although there
could be animals that closely resembled man in that earlier world.
Though humans are genetically similar to the great apes, there is a
vast difference between human kind and animals. The mind of man is
orders of magnitude greater than the minds of even the most
intelligent of animals. The Bible says that man was made in the
image of God. It does not speak that way of any animal. There is a
spirit in man which empowers the human mind beyond what is possible
with the physical brain only (Job 32:8, Zechariah 12:1, 1
Is the above scenario true or false? It is consistent with physical
evidence, and it is consistent with the Bible. I believe it is a
better explanation than evolution because it can account for things,
such as irreducible complexity, punctuated equilibrium, and the
absence of transitional species, that evolution has difficulty with.
In any case, science cannot prove guided modification and branching
false as an explanation for the origin of species because its main
characteristic that makes it different from evolution is that there
was supernatural intervention in modifying the genetic code to
produce new species. Otherwise, it would look like evolution in the
fossil record and genetic code. And science cannot prove that God's
design and intervention was not part of the process that produced
new species from old and resulted in the evidence we see today in
the fossil record and genetic coding.
CREATION OF SPECIES - PART
WHY EVOLUTION IS A FAITH
How the Scientific Method
Prevents Science from Proving Evolution!
logically prove that evolution actually happened because the
scientific method itself, as actually practiced by science, PREVENTS
science from proving that evolution occurred!
As startling as it may seem, the scientific method as practiced by
science does not allow science to prove that evolution actually
happened and is the way that species came to be on the earth.
Actually, I do not think evolution can be proved in any case because
I think it is false. But even if evolution were true and could be
proved, the scientific method itself does not allow such proof in
How can this be?
Evolution can be defined as the belief that life in all its variety
came into existence over time through the operation of natural
forces only. This is how evolution is taught in public schools.
The opposite belief is the belief that God supernaturally
intervened, directly or indirectly, in physical processes to create
life in all its variety. Those who believe in divine creation may
believe that God's creative power was exercised suddenly or
gradually, but nevertheless, there was supernatural intervention
that produced life and the species of life. According to this
belief, life we see today in all its variety did NOT come into
existence only through natural forces.
Although some people, in their personal beliefs, may merge the ideas
of evolution with their belief in creation by believing that God
guided a kind of evolutionary process, this is not evolution as
taught by science and as taught in public schools. Public education
allows for NO supernatural intervention in the development of life.
Evolution as taught by science in public schools allows for no
influences on the development of life but natural forces only.
Can science prove that evolution happened?
You cannot logically prove something by only looking at one side of
an issue. You can only prove something by looking at both sides
objectively with an open mind. This is basic.
In order to prove the truth of something logically, you have to look
at all sides of an issue without bias. In the case of the issue of
the origin of life, to prove logically that evolution as taught by
science is the way life actually came into existence, it is not
sufficient to prove that evolution is possible. It is not sufficient
to prove that evolution can explain all the physical evidence,
including the fossil record, the structure and chemistry of living
organisms, and genetics. Science must also prove that no other
explanation is possible, in other words, that evolution is the ONLY
explanation that can consistently account for all of the evidence.
In short, science must prove that divine creation never occurred and
there were no supernatural causes that brought about the development
of life on earth.
If both evolution and creation can explain the evidence, then you
have no proof that evolution occurred. That is why supernatural
creation must be disproved in order to prove evolution. Proving that
evolution is possible is not proving that it happened.
Evolutionists point to physical evidence to try to show that
evolution is possible, and they believe that evolution is actually
the process by which all the species came into existence. But trying
to prove that evolution as a process is possible and may have
occurred, and trying to prove that evolution actually happened are
two different things. A scientist could show that evolution is
possible and may have occurred if he could demonstrate that
evolution is consistent with all known evidence. But to prove that
it actually did happen he would have to go a step further. He would
have to prove that no other explanation is consistent with all the
evidence. He would have to show that evolution is the only way life
could have come into existence and is the only explanation that fits
the evidence. So how could he do that?
The alternative to evolution is creation by God. To prove that
evolution must have happened a scientist would have to prove that
the evidence cannot be explained by supernatural creation or any
creationist explanation. A scientist would have to show that
creation cannot explain the evidence and therefore is impossible.
Can science prove that God did not create life in a way that is
exactly consistent with the physical evidence? Can science prove
that there is no God who has supernaturally intervened in physical
processes to create life in all its variety that we see today?
No, science cannot prove that.
Supernatural Causes Not Allowed in Science
if any creationist explanations can account for the physical
evidence, you have to consider and evaluate proposed explanations
for how supernatural intervention could have resulted in the
physical record. You have to consider supernatural causes before you
can rule them out according to evidence. But science cannot consider
supernatural causes. That is forbidden by the scientific method.
Science cannot examine both sides of the issue without bias, which
is required for proof, because science has set limits on itself.
Science limits itself to consideration of natural causes only.
Science cannot rule out supernatural causes because science cannot
examine or consider supernatural causes in order to prove logically
that they cannot explain the evidence and therefore could not have
occurred. Science can only look at one side of the issue. It cannot
examine the other side to either prove or disprove it.
Science is a culture, a community, a process for trying to discover
new knowledge, and a way of thinking. It is a way of looking at the
world and a way of trying to discover knowledge. The foundation of
this community and way of thinking is the scientific method. The
scientific method is the only method for investigating questions of
science that the scientific community will accept. It is the basis
for discussion of scientific issues. Reasoning outside of the
scientific method is not allowed in a scientist's work. And a basic
premise of the scientific method as practiced by the scientific
community is that no supernatural explanation for any physical
evidence is even to be considered. In other words, the possibility
that there is a God who might intervene in any physical process is
excluded in scientific thinking. The scientific method therefore
rules out even considering the possibility that God created life and
all the species even before any physical evidence is examined. And
the scientific method is the only method of investigation a
scientist may use in his work.
A recent Nova program I saw on PBS entitled, "Judgment Day,
Intelligent Design on Trial," described a trial involving the Dover
school board in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania over the issue of whether
or not intelligent design is science and may be taught as science in
the public schools. Irreducible complexity was used as an argument
to support the idea that there is scientific evidence that life came
about through intelligent design, not evolution. This program
describes intelligent design as promoted by Discovery Institute and
quotes from a pro-intelligent design book entitled, "Darwin on
Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson. On December 20, 2005 the court made
its decision that intelligent design is not science.
What I found especially significant in this program were statements
made about attempts to introduce supernatural causes into science.
One speaker said, "With the scientific revolution, the work of
Galileo, Newton, and others banished supernatural explanations from
science." A pro-evolution speaker also said, "...when you loosen the
walls around what is science and permit the supernatural, permit
deities, you are really destroying what makes science so vitally
important to the progress that our civilization has witnessed over
the last four or five hundred years, you're going back to before the
scientific revolution, and that's a pretty scary thing."
Ask any scientist, "In your work with other scientists and in your
scientific writings, can you suggest supernatural causes for the
evidence you examine in your work? Would that be accepted in the
scientific community as a valid explanation for the evidence?" The
answer would be, no. Why? Supernatural explanations are never
accepted according to the scientific method as practiced by the
scientific community. Science NEVER considers supernatural
explanations for evidence.
Science requires that scientific theories be empirically testable
and be based on multiple observation, often in the form of
controlled, repeatable experiments. This alone excludes
consideration of supernatural causes for physical evidence. The
intervention of God is not subject to repeatable experiment. God
chooses when and how to intervene in physical processes, and such
choices are not predictable in their details.
Science has intentionally put examination of the possibility of
supernatural causes for physical evidence outside of its field of
In science, the scientific method is the lens through which all
physical evidence is evaluated. The scientific method is the basis
for all reasoning that scientists are expected to employ in their
work as scientists. Reasoning outside of the scientific method is
not allowed. This approach, when applied to the origin of things,
denies even the possibility of a creator God before any evidence is
even examined. One who adopts this method in exploring the origins
of things has no choice but to search only for physical explanations
for any evidence he finds. The scientific community is made up of
hundreds of thousands of scientists who spend their whole lives
evaluating physical evidence and proposing explanations from this
point of view. Millions of man-years have been expended to explain
fossils, radio carbon dating, DNA, etc. from an evolutionary point
Scientists and science teachers may challenge those who believe in
creation to explain some point of physical evidence, such as
radiocarbon measurements, fossils, or evidence regarding the rate of
genetic mutations, and say to a believer in creation, perhaps a
young student, "How can you explain this apart from evolution?" Then
the student or believer in creation is expected to come up with an
alternative explanation in the next couple of seconds or the teacher
may say, "See, there is no explanation apart from evolution,
therefore this proves that evolution is true." But that is not
logical. If a student does not think of an alternative explanation,
that is not proof that there is no explanation. To be fair, not only
should the student have an equal number of years to explain the
evidence according to intelligent design, the same number of years
scientists have had to explain it according to the theory of
evolution, but the student would need access to the original
physical evidence itself as well as the equipment and training
needed to examine the evidence, not just published reports of the
evidence after it has been selected and interpreted by those who
accept and practice the evolutionary faith.
The point is, the whole field of study of the physical evidence in
life and in the earth is dominated by a community of scientists who
are biased right from the beginning of their education and training
against belief in a creator God who can intervene in natural
processes, and therefore their conclusions and explanations are
untrustworthy. To use an analogy, if this were a court case, if a
prospective jury member had such a degree of bias one way or
another, he could rightly be dismissed from being on the jury.
Science behaves as if God and the supernatural do not exist. But
science has never proved that God and the supernatural do not exist
or that God has never intervened miraculously in physical processes.
This is an assumption without proof.
Science excludes the consideration of supernatural causes from its
studies of physical processes. The supernatural is strictly beyond
the scope of science.
Yet excluding consideration of supernatural causes is not proof that
there are no supernatural causes. Indeed, some scientists do believe
in a creator God who created the universe. But those scientists keep
those beliefs out of the scientific work they do that is accepted by
the scientific community and is taught in the public schools. They
do not propose in the work they do and papers they write that the
cause of certain evidence is supernatural intervention. That is not
allowed by science. And if a scientist does propose supernatural
explanations for physical evidence, such explanations are kept out
of science teachings in the public schools.
Science cannot prove evolution happened because you cannot prove
which of two explanations is true by only examining one of them, and
the scientific method does not allow consideration of supernatural
causes. It therefore cannot prove by examination that creation did
not occur. And if the evidence can be equally explained by both
evolution and creation, then both are possible and neither is
Some evolutionists claim that the evidence "points to" evolution,
not creation. But evidence, apart from interpretation, never points
to anything, and the character of the interpretation is influenced
by the bias of the person doing the interpreting.
Evolutionists will talk about the evidence pointing to this or that
explanation, as if evidence can interpret itself. Saying that
evidence points to something leaves out the process of human
interpretation and understanding. Evidence is mindless. It does not
come with labels attached indicating the cause of the evidence.
Evidence means nothing, says nothing, points to nothing, until it is
interpreted by the human mind. The evidence itself is always
neutral. But when scientists examine evidence, they interpret it.
The interpretation is the product of the human mind. And if the
reasoning process of the mind of the person who interprets the
evidence is faulty, the conclusions will be faulty.
To say that evidence points to a conclusion about a cause is a
figure of speech. It is the mind of man that interprets the evidence
and points to a possible explanation.
How does a scientist interpret evidence? There is a creative process
and a critical process. In the creative process, the scientist
invents ideas about what could have caused the evidence to exist. In
the critical process, the scientist tests those ideas, tries to find
flaws in them, and the ideas that stand up under scrutiny are the
ones that have potential to be right. Those ideas that cannot be
broken during the critical process are ones most likely to be
suggested as the true cause of the evidence. And then a scientist
might say that the evidence points to a certain cause. But it is his
mind and the explanations his mind invents and accepts that point to
a possible cause. Sometimes the creative process and critical
process can occur in the human mind in such rapid succession that
the scientist may not even be aware of it. The conclusion may seem
to jump out at him instantly. Nevertheless, interpretation comes
from the mind, not the evidence.
Why are supernatural causes never considered by scientists?
Scientists do not in the course of their work as scientists invent
ideas for supernatural explanations as they do for natural
explanations. Supernatural explanations never make it to the
critical thinking stage because they are not produced in the
creative process. They are ruled out as unacceptable without
examination. The bias in science against God is absolute. All
thinking is based on the assumption that God does not exist as a
being who creates or intervenes in natural processes.
One person told me that evidence establishes a model. But this
leaves out the human factor. It is not evidence that establishes a
scientific model, but a scientist, a living person, who with his
mind establishes a model which he thinks is based on the evidence
and explains the evidence. It is the human mind that constructs the
model. And this is done by examining various hypotheses that can
explain the evidence. Before the scientist even writes a description
of a model or explanation on paper, he rehearses possibilities in
his mind. This is part of the mental process. He may quickly
consider and rule out several ideas in his mind before seriously
considering one or a few explanations. He has to use his imagination
first to construct explanations, and then he uses critical thinking
to try to tear down his explanations, and whichever ones can stand
up to this critical process become viable explanations for the
evidence. What I am saying is that a scientist in his work never
constructs supernatural explanations, even in the imagination stage
- supernatural explanations never make it to first base.
And if the scientist does construct a supernatural explanation,
because he personally believes in God, he will almost always be sure
to keep it out of his work and his writing unless he is willing to
throw away his career.
The Limits of Science
of science is that it is the study of NATURAL phenomena. This is its
specialization, and its limitation.
Science has set limits on itself. It chooses not to consider the
supernatural in its investigations. It limits itself to
consideration of physical causes only.
For atheists, this does not seem like a limitation. Atheists
generally do not believe in supernatural causes. They think they do
not exist. But that is a choice the atheists make. They cannot prove
it logically, and they have no right to try to impose their choice
Science is not wrong to limit itself to examination of physical
causes only. This limitation for science has advantages in the
investigation of everyday processes. It forces science to do the
work of looking for physical causes for physical processes. Science
is not equipped to study God and the reasons why God may have
created life the way He did. The limitations the scientific method
imposes on science are useful for examination of everyday repeatable
processes and laboratory experiments.
The scientific method works fine in the laboratory and in
investigating everyday processes because God allows the universe to
follow the natural laws He has created and does not ordinarily
interfere with natural law. He does not make His presence known by
constantly intervening in the physical operation of the universe.
God wants man to be able to work with matter and energy and to be
able to control his environment to a degree, and physical processes
need to be predictable for men to understand and work with them.
Also, it is not God's will to reveal Himself to mankind at this time
in such a way that men cannot deny His existence. At this time, God
is giving mankind a free choice about this, and so He stays in the
background right now. But that does not mean that God did not create
the universe, or life itself. This assumption, that God never
intervenes in physical processes, does not work well in explaining
how things came into existence in the first place or the past
history of how everything came to be the way it is. When scientists
use the scientific method in the laboratory, they are using it
properly, but when they try to use it to explain the origins of
life, they are using for a purpose to which it is ill suited, and it
Science may be within its limits when it investigates whether
evolution is possible or not.
Science exceeds its self-imposed limits when it teaches that
evolution is not only possible but that it happened. When
evolutionists teach that life came into existence through natural
forces only, they are crossing the boundary of science into the
realm of faith. There is no logical justification for saying that
supernatural intervention never occurred unless you first examine
without bias and disprove supernatural explanations for the physical
record of life on earth. Science not only has not done that, it
cannot do that according to its self-imposed limits of the
Some opponents of evolution use the term "intelligent design" to
refer to the concept that life shows design by an intelligent being.
This is sometimes promoted as a scientific theory without stating
who the intelligent designer is. But scientists know that the term
"intelligent design" refers to design and creation by an intelligent
God. And in the minds of most scientists, to even consider such a
possibility as an explanation for physical evidence would be a
violation of the scientific method.
Therefore, scientists within the scope of their scientific work and
teaching CANNOT accept creation by God or intelligent design. They
have no choice but to try to fit all physical evidence into the
evolutionary framework. They are required to be biased against
creation even before they look at the evidence, and they have no
choice but to explain the evidence in evolutionary terms. If a
scientist thought he found evidence of creation, he could not even
succeed in publishing it in mainstream scientific journals. Although
a minority of scientists may personally believe in a creator God who
controls and intervenes in the universe, those scientists must keep
those personal views out of their scientific work and teaching. And
the scientific community as a whole rejects the idea of a creator
God. This rejection is based on the community's faith in the
scientific method, not on logical proof.
Therefore, science cannot examine whether or not supernatural causes
can explain the physical evidence, and thus cannot prove that
supernatural causes cannot explain the evidence. Without proof that
supernatural causes cannot explain the evidence, there is no proof
that there were never supernatural causes for life on earth. And
without that, science cannot prove that God did not create life.
If God created life, evolution is false. If science cannot prove
that God did not create life, it cannot prove that evolution is
This is why the scientific method does not allow evolution to be
proved. It does not allow science to examine supernatural causes in
order to eliminate them as possible explanations for the evidence.
The scientific method does not allow creation by God to be
disproved, and thus does not allow evolution to be logically proved.
Since science has put limitations on its methods of investigation
and interpretation, it should acknowledge those same limitations in
its conclusions. It has restricted itself to examination of
physical, repeatable processes only, and it should restrict its
conclusions to repeatable processes and not be dogmatic about
Can Science Disprove
Creation by God?
If a scientist
wants to prove that evolution definitely happened by showing that no
creationist explanation is consistent with the evidence, how would
he go about doing that? He has a bigger job than just showing that
the physical evidence suggests an earth older than 6,000 years. For
one thing, not all creationists believe that the earth is only 6,000
years old; some people, like myself, believe the earth is several
billions or at least hundreds of millions of years old, and that
life existed on the earth millions of years ago as indicated in the
fossil record, but that God nevertheless designed and created life.
Even among those who think the earth is only 6,000 years old, many
of these people have explanations for the physical evidence
consistent with a 6,000 year old earth. A scientist may not agree
with these explanations, but can he prove them wrong logically?
How can a scientist prove that intelligent design never occurred?
How can he prove that no logical self-consistent creationist
explanation for the evidence is possible? To put it another way, how
can he prove that every creationist explanation is inconsistent with
the evidence? Many or most of those who believe in creation believe
in a God who can do anything, create anything out of nothing, change
anything, and perform any miracle. How could a scientist prove that
such a God did not design and create life and the different species
of life outside the normal workings of physical law in a way that is
consistent with the physical evidence?
Since such a God is capable of creating any kind of life, at any
time and in any way He chooses, there is no question of whether an
all powerful God is able to create life the way it appears in the
fossil record and in life forms today. The question becomes, why
would God choose to create life the way that He did? And that
becomes a theological question, which science cannot deal with. Not
knowing God's reasons for every choice He makes does not prove that
God did not create life.
How could a scientist, following the scientific method, even
approach such a problem? The scientific method does not allow for
supernatural explanations of evidence. So even if it were possible
to prove that the evidence cannot be explained by creation, a
scientist could not do it in the course of his work. To do this, he
would have to consider, evaluate, and then rule out supernatural
explanations for the origin of life. He would have to get involved
in theology in order to try to rule out any explanation that God
created life in a way consistent with the evidence. He can try to do
this as a private individual, but it can't be part of his work, his
writing, his publishing, and his teaching as a scientist because the
scientific method rules out consideration of supernatural
explanations for evidence.
You can't know from scientific experiments and observations what God
may have done in the past. You can't use scientific experiments to
prove that God did not create life. The best a scientist can do is
to try to show that evolution is possible, but he can't prove it
actually happened. And I personally do not believe that evolution is
Some evolutionists say there they do not believe God exists because
they see no evidence of God. Yet the greatest evidence of God's
creative action is the universe itself. The universe shows design
choices that have been made to make the universe as it is with the
number of dimensions it has, the number and kinds of forces, and the
laws of nature that make the universe able to support life. The
universe did not create itself. There has to be a Creator.
The fact that these evolutionists deny that this universe is
evidence of a Creator shows that their bias against God is real.
Some will say that the evidence points to evolution. This is not
true. Evidence does not point to anything apart from human
interpretation. And the bias of science prevents any interpretation
of evidence other than natural causes.
Evidence alone does not point to anything. It does not come with a
handy label attached to it identifying its cause. When a scientists
digs up a fossil bone, he does not find a white tag attached to it
with neatly printed black letters saying, "killed by an asteroid
strike in the North American continent 90 million years ago."
First you discover evidence. Then you interpret it and try to
identify the cause. Knowledge of evidence comes before you know what
the evidence points to. It is in this step of interpretation that a
scientist does not consider the possibility that the evidence was
caused by God's intervention in the natural world. So with that
interpretation, there will never be evidence of the supernatural
from a scientific point of view.
Science NEVER considers the possibility of supernatural causes for
the evidence it examines. In his day-to-day work, a scientist in
examining evidence does not consider and evaluate supernatural
causes for the evidence he is looking at. He only considers natural
When a scientist examines a piece of evidence, he looks for natural
causes. He might have two or three ideas for natural causes for the
evidence. He then looks for further evidence that will narrow down
the possibilities among possible natural causes. He does not add the
possibility in his lab notes or papers he submits to scientific
journals, "maybe God caused it supernaturally." And if he has no
idea what could have caused it naturally, he simply keeps looking
until he finds what he thinks is a plausible natural cause. And if
he cannot find any natural cause, the question remains an open issue
that scientists claim they will eventually find a natural
explanation for, some day.
Science can never see evidence of God's supernatural intervention in
the natural world, not because the evidence does not exist, but
because the traditions of science prevent science from acknowledging
evidence for God's existence and intervention in the universe.
Science will always find a way to interpret evidence only according
to its pre-conceived bias against God.
Science, with its traditions and scientific method, does not accept
the possibility of the design and development of species by God
through a process of guided genetic modification and branching, even
though that possibility is consistent with all the physical
evidence, because science will not accept the possibility of God's
existence and intervention.
Evolution Is a Faith
Why do many
people believe evolution in the absence of logical proof? I think
that for many scientists and educators, evolution is a faith. It is
like a religion for them. They believe it because they want to
believe it. In this respect, they are like millions of people who
believe their religious ideas because they want to. Just as millions
of people who practice their traditional religious beliefs and
customs find that belief in God and in an afterlife comforts them,
so many of those who believe in evolution find comfort in the idea
that there is no God who has the authority to tell them how to live
their lives and they will never be held accountable by a higher
power for what they do in this physical life.
Most people have a built-in bias against God telling them what to
do. Some people deal with this by choosing religions that express
their own inclinations and opinions, and some deal with this by
denying the existence of God altogether. The theory of evolution, as
a faith, despite its lack of logical proof, enables those who
believe in it to believe that there is no God who intervenes in
human affairs and has the authority to tell men how to live.
One might define "faith" as a strong belief in something without
objective physical evidence and proof that can be seen and examined,
especially in regard to religious thought. The belief, without
logical proof, that there is no God who has supernaturally
intervened in physical processes to create life, would certainly
fall into that definition. It is not a religious faith, actually. It
is an anti-religious faith. And in the educational system and
scientific community, the majority who practice this faith are in a
position of power and influence that enables them to put enormous
pressure to conform upon those who do not want to accept this faith.
There is a problem with the way evolution is taught in the schools.
Though it is called a theory, it is not taught just as a possibility
of how life and all the species might have come into existence. It
is taught as fact, as the way life actually came to be. One of the
principles that the scientific community claims to follow is that
for a theory to qualify as scientific, it should be considered
provisional or tentative, admitting that it might not be correct
rather than asserting certainty. Yet that is not how evolution is
taught. Evolution is presented in the classroom and textbooks as a
certainty. No room is allowed for doubt about whether evolution
actually occurred or not. Yet evolution is unproved and unprovable.
What is happening is that the scientific and educational communities
are trying to impose their faith in evolution upon their students.
And in many cases they are succeeding.
Evolutionists can become quite vehement in their defense of their
faith in evolution, and many of them become offended or angry if you
call evolution a faith and unproven. But they are being emotional,
not logical. In science, the only way you can know something is true
is to prove it, and the only way you can prove something by the
physical evidence is to show that your explanation covers all the
facts and that no other explanation can explain all the facts, which
science never attempts to prove with evolution.
To rule out creation or intelligent design, an evolutionist would
have to show that no creationist explanation is consistent with the
evidence. If he cannot do that, then he would have to be content
merely to acknowledge that evolution is one possible explanation for
life, but not the only one. But if he takes that route, he is in
conflict with how evolution is actually taught in schools. It is not
taught as a possible way life may have come into existence, it is
taught as the only way, the one way, the way it definitely happened.
No scientist in his work or his private writings has ever proven
that God did not create the species of life. And if God did create
the species, then evolution is false.
Those who believe in evolution have made a choice to believe
something they cannot prove from physical evidence, whether they
realize it or not. Evolution has never been proved. It is a faith
held by those who choose to believe it.
Evolution is a faith taught in the public schools. It is a faith
that God has not intervened in the past in physical processes to
create life in all its variety.
Are the Evils of this
World Evidence Against God's Existence?
reason that there cannot be a God because of the suffering in the
world. They reason that if God exists and He is good, He would not
allow the wars, the injustice, the poverty, and the general
suffering of mankind that occurs on this earth. But this is
short-sighted. God is allowing mankind to experience lessons that
show that the way of man, cut off from God, leads to suffering and
destruction. God has a purpose and a plan, and this plan is revealed
in the Bible, as I have shown in my book,
The True Gospel
and the Ezekiel Warning. This physical life is
temporary, and God has a plan for teaching mankind lessons, lessons
that will bring benefits for all eternity, and the suffering of this
life is part of that plan. It will work for good in the end. But the
atheist is unwilling to trust in the goodness and wisdom of God and
will not look to the Bible for answers with an open mind.
The suffering in this world may be the atheists' excuse for denying
God's existence. I do not think it is the real reason. I think the
idea that there is a God who has authority to tell them how to live
their lives is personally distasteful to them, and denying God's
existence helps them feel free of that authority.
The Bible reveals God's plan for mankind, and God helps those who
are willing to believe and obey Him to understand the Bible. Though
God allows us to suffer many evils in this life, that suffering will
work good in the end, to teach us lessons that will last for
eternity, and to test us. Paul writes in Romans 8:18-39 that the
suffering in this life is not worthy to be compared with the glory
will be revealed after this age. God permits us to suffer just as a
loving father disciplines his children for their long-term good.
The seven day week is a model of God's seven thousand year plan for
mankind (2 Peter 3:8). Just as the seventh day, the weekly Sabbath
of rest from the burdens of the work week, follows the six days of
labor, so a one thousand year period of peace and happiness will
follow six thousand years of war and suffering. God has allotted
mankind six thousand years to be cut off from His rule and to write
the lesson in human suffering that man's ways cut off from God only
leads to suffering and death. Then Christ will return to rule the
earth for one thousand years and teach mankind God's law and way of
life (Revelation 20:1-4), and God's rule will bring peace and
happiness to the earth. Then men can compare the history of the six
thousand years of man's self-rule with the one thousand years of
God's rule and see which way is best.
God says in His word that He is a God of love, mercy, righteousness,
justice, wisdom, and power, but the atheist is not willing to
believe that. It takes faith in God's righteousness and truthfulness
to believe Him and trust His plan for mankind, and the atheist is
not willing to trust that God knows what He doing and has mankind's
best interest at heart.
God has far more wisdom than man, and God requires that we trust Him
even when we do not understand every reason for God's judgments
There are answers to the question of why God allows suffering. But
science cannot examine that question because it limits itself to the
study of natural causes only and cannot look at questions about God
and His ways.
An atheist may conclude there is no God because of the suffering in
this world, and that conclusion may drive his decision to believe in
evolution. But that is not science. That reinforces my point, that
within the discipline of science, one cannot prove that there is no
God who intervenes in physical processes or that evolution is true.
Any reasoning a person might use about the existence of God goes
outside of science, into philosophy or theology. And since it is not
part of science, it is hidden from students in the science
classroom. Students are taught that evolution occurred through
natural forces only, but they are not told that the reason
evolutionists are certain of this is that they think God is
ridiculous or that the suffering of this world shows that God does
not exist. They are only told the conclusion, evolution, but not the
real reasons behind the conclusion.
So atheists and evolutionists use science and the scientific method
as a shield and a cover for the real reasons they believe in
My point is, you have to go outside the role of scientist and
outside the scientific method to even begin to explore the issues
involved here. Science has never explored the issue of God's
existence in light of the suffering that exists on earth. It can't.
It doesn't want to. It shouldn't.
Individual scientists can study this on their own and reach their
own private conclusions, but that is not part of their work and
teaching as scientists.
The problem is that science teaches evolution as fact without
examining the evidence that a believer in God might present for the
existence and intervention of God. Why is that wrong? The problem is
not that it doesn't examine theological issues of "why does God
allow suffering?" The problem is that science doesn't acknowledge
that such an examination is necessary to refute the evidence a
believer of God might present to show God exists and intervenes in
the physical universe.
Evolutionists can't counter the arguments of those who believe in
God within the bounds of science and the scientific method. You have
to step outside of science and talk about, "How can an all-powerful,
all-benevolent God allow so much suffering? Therefore, since there
is no answer, there must be no God." That may be philosophy, and
theology might offer an explanation, but it is not a science
The problem is that the unspoken reasoning of evolutionist writers
and teachers that the suffering in the world is evidence for them
that there is no God is never openly discussed or put on the table
for students to examine themselves. This is important, because many
of those students and their families have considered that same
issue, "why does God allow suffering," and reached a different
conclusion. They believe that suffering is not evidence against the
existence of God.
There are hidden reasons, having nothing to do with science, why
evolutionists believe in evolution, and these reasons are not openly
acknowledged to students in the classroom so they can decide for
themselves if they agree with them or not.
Teachers and advocates of evolution in public school classrooms
should acknowledge that their teaching of evolution through natural
causes only as definite fact is partially based on their belief that
there is no God who intervenes in physical processes. This would be
a way of laying the biases of science on the table, which now are
partially hidden. It would help to clarify in the minds of the
students the limitations of science and the scientific method.
Evolution as Taught in
the Public Schools Is Unconstitutional
Evolution is a
science issue, but it is also a religious issue and an issue of
The Constitution forbids government and its agencies from promoting
religious beliefs or interfering in the free exercise of religious
beliefs. In other words, as the courts have interpreted the First
Amendment, the government should be neutral in regards to particular
religions and religion in general. It should not take a stand for or
against any religious belief. But government supported schools are
certainly not neutral in the science classroom.
Evolution is taught as fact, as something that is definitely true,
as what actually happened to bring the species into existence. It is
not taught just as a possibility. It is taught as a fact in public
schools, whether the words "fact" or "proved" are actually used or
not. It is taught as if it is known to be true. Also, evolution as
taught in the public schools allows no possibility of supernatural
intervention by God to bring the species into existence. It is
strictly natural forces only.
In the minds of the students, this implies that science thinks it
has proved that evolution definitely happened. Yet to prove
evolution you have to show that it is the only reasonable
explanation that can account for the physical evidence. The
scientific method does not allow science to show this. The best it
can do is try to prove that evolution is possible. But to prove it
happened, it has to rule out the alternative, creation or
intervention by God.
In other words, if both evolution and creation can explain the
fossil and genetic evidence, then both are possible and neither is
proved or disproved. If that is the case, then it is dishonest for
science to teach students that they know it happened since they
cannot logically prove it.
Can science show that creation is impossible, that it is not
consistent with the evidence? Science has never proved that and
cannot prove it because the scientific method does not allow
examination and evaluation of supernatural explanations for
evidence. So it cannot look at both sides, which is logically
required for proof. The scientific method and the traditions
of the scientific community do not allow science to even consider
the possibility of creation as an explanation for the evidence long
enough to rule it out!
Evolution is taught in the public school classroom as fact even
though it cannot be proved. The reason it cannot be proved is that
science by its own traditions and rules cannot consider possible
supernatural explanations for evidence in order to examine both
sides of the evolution-vs.-creation controversy without bias, which
would be required for honest proof. You cannot prove something
rationally by only looking at one side of an argument, and the
scientific community does not allow itself to look at the
possibility of intelligent design or creation by God.
Evolution as taught in the public schools includes the belief that
all species came into existence through natural forces only. Yet it
is impossible to prove that God did not guide the process.
Evolutionists will agree that you cannot prove the non-existence or
non-intervention of God, but they will reply that you cannot prove
that "flying spaghetti monsters" do not exist either. What they are
really saying is that the idea of God is ridiculous and should not
be considered, just as the idea of a flying spaghetti monster is
That is how they view belief in God. To them, it is ridiculous. And
they can be very militant about this. I think that what is happening
is that deep down where they won't admit it to themselves they know
that their position cannot be supported by logic, but they don't
want to give up what they believe. So they attack with ridicule
those who challenge them. Their belief in evolution is a subjective,
chosen belief system not based on physical proof, but they won't
admit it. Probably, they do not want to believe in God because they
do not want to believe that they will be held accountable for what
they do by a God who has the authority to tell them how to live
And this is really the bottom line of evolution. The idea that
belief in God is ridiculous is the hidden assumption behind
evolutionary thinking that allows science to teach the belief that
species came into existence through natural forces only.
The real problem is that this assumption is not openly acknowledged
in the public school classroom.
Evolution is a faith. It is a belief based on subjective personal
choice, the choice to believe that God is ridiculous, but not on
proof based on physical evidence that can be seen and examined. It
has never been logically proved to have occurred, and cannot be
proved by science using the scientific method. It is not a religious
faith, but in a sense it is an anti-religious faith. It is a faith
that there is no creator God who has intervened in physical
processes to create species. As such, it is a faith that directly
contradicts the Bible and the religious beliefs of many students and
parents of students in public schools. Many parents teach their
children their family religious beliefs and traditions, and the
public, government supported schools teach a faith directly
contradictory to those family religious traditions. This is not the
neutrality in religious matters that the Constitution requires of
In effect, the way evolution is taught in public schools violates
the First Amendment rights of parents and students by seeking to
indoctrinate students in a faith contrary to their own religious
faith. This violates the clause that says that government cannot
prohibit the free exercise of religious beliefs.
If evolution could be logically proved as true, then it might be
constitutional to teach it as truth in the public schools. But
science cannot prove evolution to be true, and therefore evolution
is a faith, something believed by the choice of the believer without
physical proof. And it is a faith that is directly contradictory to
the faith of the parents of students and the students themselves who
believe in the God of the Bible, and that is prohibited by the
The best science can say, if it is honest, is that evolution is
science's best explanation for how life might have arisen naturally
if God did not create life supernaturally. But science cannot prove
that evolution actually happened.
If the theory of evolution was taught in public schools only as a
possible way the species of life could have arisen, it might be
constitutional. But when evolution is taught as the way species
definitely did arise and that supernatural intervention never
occurred, it becomes a faith and unconstitutional. And that is
exactly the way it is taught in science classes in all or almost all
public schools. Students are taught that evolution happened.
Students need to clearly be told the limitations and biases of
science and the unproven assumptions that evolution is based on.
They need to be told that evolution is only science's best
explanation for the evidence assuming there has been no supernatural
intervention in physical processes by God. Evolution is based partly
on that assumption, and that should be made clear in the classroom.
If students were told that the teachings of science about the
origins of life are limited to consideration of natural causes only,
and that science cannot consider, evaluate, or disprove
supernatural explanations for life, that might help to make it
constitutional. But to the best of my knowledge, that is seldom if
ever the practice in public schools.
The origin of species is not just an issue of science. It is an
issue of religion, and it is an issue of constitutional law which
guarantees freedom of religious beliefs in this country. In teaching
that species came about through natural causes only, science is
indirectly trying to establish a monopoly on the exploration of the
origin of species, and it does it by denying the validity of God and
the supernatural. Science limits itself, which is fine, but tries to
impose that limitation on the whole question of the origin of
species, which is not fine. Religion can also study that issue, and
science does not have the legal right to say that only science's
conclusions are correct. Natural explanations are not the only
explanations that can be true, and the scientific method is not the
only valid means for discovering truth.
Science can rightly limit itself to the study of natural causes
only. Studying natural processes is science's rightful specialty,
and it is what science is equipped for. Science can rightly qualify
what they teach in the schools by teaching evolution as science's
best explanation for life IF there are no supernatural causes.
Science doesn't do that. Science says, "Species evolved through
natural causes only." Period.
The teaching of evolution as fact in the public school classroom is
based on the unspoken belief of hard-core evolutionists that belief
in creation by God is ridiculous and therefore does not need to be
disproved in order to prove that species evolved through natural
forces only. But millions of Americans do not think belief in God is
ridiculous, and they rely on the Constitution to protect their
rights to practice their beliefs and pass their beliefs on to their
children. And science is not up front about this in the classroom or
in public discussion about evolution, unless backed into a corner.
When science teaches students that life came through natural causes
only, students are not told that supernatural causes need not be
considered because belief in God is ridiculous. They are shown the
conclusion without being clearly shown the biased premise that is
part of the foundation for that conclusion.
I am not a
scientist. I understand the concepts and general principles of
science, but I lack the detailed knowledge of biology and
paleontology. I know that the scientific community has a culture of
bias against consideration of God's creative design. I know that
science cannot rationally prove that such intelligent design did not
occur, no matter what the details are in the fossil and genetic
record. The bias of science is made obvious by its claim that
species came into existence through natural forces only in spite of
the fact that science cannot disprove creation or guidance from God.
It is also made obvious to anyone who has tried to debate the issue
with evolutionists by the emotional hostility and ridicule
evolutionists use to block rational discussion.
I know that a minority of scientists do not believe in evolution and
claim that the fossil record actually disproves
evolution by the absence of transitional forms. These scientists
claim that, rather than show the gradual transition from one species
to another, fossils show the sudden appearance and long periods of
stability of species. Transitional fossils, which should appear if
evolution is true, simply are missing, they say.
I have heard many reports, as many of you have, that the scientific
community is very harsh towards scientists who do not accept the
doctrine of evolution, that scientists, educators, and journalists
who speak against evolution are persecuted and their careers
sometimes damaged or destroyed by evolutionists for disagreeing with
the majority opinion. Based on my own experience in blogs and forums
trying to hold rational discussions of these issues with
evolutionists, I believe these reports. The hostility and bias is
Public schools teach that all species, including the human race,
came into existence through natural forces only. But this has never
been proved, nor can it be proved by science. If God intervened to
create the species or guide their development, then evolution as
taught in public schools is not true. Science has never proved, nor
can it prove, that God has not intervened supernaturally to produce
the species that exist.
Evolutionists often say that evolution is a fact and that the
physical evidence points to evolution, not creation. But evidence,
without human interpretation of the evidence, points to nothing.
Evidence must be interpreted before it points to any conclusion, and
if the person doing the interpreting is biased in his
interpretation, then his conclusions cannot be trusted. When science
interprets evidence, it does so from the worldview that there is no
God who intervenes in physical processes. Under those circumstances,
the scientist will always interpret the evidence to point to
evolution through natural causes only. But that interpretation is
not necessarily valid.
Science cannot prove evolution occurred because the scientific
method, as practiced by science, does not allow consideration of
supernatural causes, so the alternative to evolution, creation, can
never be examined by science to see if it is consistent with the
evidence. Science cannot prove or disprove creation because it
cannot consider creation. It limits itself to consideration of
natural causes only when examining evidence. It cannot rule out
creation, and it cannot look at both sides without bias, which is a
condition for honest, rational proof.
To prove that the species of life came into existence only through
natural forces only, which is exactly what evolution claims, you
have to prove that God did not create the species and there was no
supernatural, intelligent intervention in the design of species.
Science has never done that and cannot do that. The scientific
method does not allow science to examine honestly and without bias
the creationist point of view, and thus science cannot disprove it.
When evidence is interpreted without bias and the person doing the
interpreting is willing to consider both evolution and intelligent
design without bias, the evidence does NOT point to evolution more
than to creation or intelligent design.
There is no inconsistency between the physical evidence and the
Bible account of creation. According to a literal understanding of
Genesis, the earth existed before the six days of creation and could
have existed, filled with life, for hundreds of millions of years.
There are reasons why God may have developed the design of the
species over millions of years consistent with the fossil record and
the genetic code.
At some point after that, a disaster came to the earth, destroying
the surface of the earth and putting the earth into darkness. Then
in six days God renewed and refreshed the surface of the earth,
repairing the damage, and restoring the species that had existed
Evolution as taught in public schools is a kind of faith. It is a
faith in the sense that it is a belief system chosen for subjective
reasons not subject to physical proof. Those who believe it do so
because they choose to believe it, not because they are able to
prove it logically. It is a theory based on the belief, unproved,
that there is no God who intervenes in physical processes and who
has created the earth, the universe, life on this earth, and our
human minds. That is their choice. But the educational system has
adopted that choice and faith and tries to impose it on those who
pass through the educational system, and to do this it has to
package evolution, not as faith, but as science and as proven fact.
This issue is bigger than science. It is a scientific issue, but it
is a religious issue and a legal issue as well. Science does not
have a monopoly on the study of the origin of species, and science
does not have the right to impose its "natural causes only"
limitation on the study of this issue.
Students who are seeking truth about the origin of species should
examine both sides without prejudice and make their own decision
about what to believe, even if their science teachers are not
willing to do the same thing.
HOW TO DOWNLOAD THIS
is available in .pdf file format for download. To download
this article, click on the link below with the
right button on your mouse, then click on "Save Target As..." in the
menu that appears and specify the location in your hard drive where
you want to save the .pdf file:
Most computers have Adobe Reader for
reading .pdf (Acrobat) files, but if you need to download the free
Adobe Acrobat Reader software, click here to access Adobe's web
Adobe Acrobat Reader
CONTACT INFO AND
As author of
this article, I have placed it in the public domain. It may be
freely copied and distributed.
Comments are welcome and may be sent to
This is version 1.02, published April 2011.
LINKS OF INTEREST
for this article is:
This site will always contain the latest version of this article.
Gospel and the Ezekiel Warning is a full-length book
that explains what the true gospel is and what the Bible teaches
about major religious doctrines. This book also explains the
identity of the United States and other English-speaking nations in
Bible prophecy and it shows what prophecy says is just ahead. It
also discusses the evolution vs. creation controversy and shows how
God views our materialistic society. This book, like this article,
is free and in the public domain. You can read it online or download
a copy in .pdf format. You can browse this book online or download