To the Darwinian, I Became a Darwinian?

There is an article that came out a couple of weeks ago from Time Magazine, called “God vs. Science” (you can access it at Time.com). This article features a debate involving Richard Dawkins, probably the most well-known scientist-atheist in the world, who recently came out with a New York Times best seller called The God Delusion. It also includes Frances Collins, the director of the National Genome Research Institute since 1993, who is a theistic evolutionist, who has been praised by President Clinton for his monumental work in genetics. To his credit, Dawkins is a brilliant scientist who unfortunately talks down to his opponents, as if there is no intelligent person out there who believes in both God and science. Collins is an able defender of the Christian faith, who is a former atheist who was converted at the age of 27, and is no stranger to the naturalistic claims of many scientists. Collins does a good job of engaging Dawkins on the basis of philosophy, design, and moral presence within humanity.

What is also interesting is the fact that the New York Times ran a poll back in April of this year, asking people if they found fossil evidence of evolution more credible or the creation story as told in the Bible? The results were 56% in favor of fossil evidence, and 44% in favor of the creation story as told in the bible. The poll, to me, is not surprising, because it is worded in such a way as to reveal that there are a lot of people who accept evolution as fact, and yet believe that God originally created our universe.

The issue that needs to be discussed among Christians is how we reach people in this highly secular world who wholeheartedly buy into the claims of science, and yet are still interested in spiritual things. The Barna Research Institute has actually discovered that people are more spiritual now than they have ever been. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they are interested in the God of Christianity, but it does mean that they are searching for answers. One of the telling things about this debate is the fact that Dawkins, as well as many other Darwinians who reject God, fails to deliver in the realm of our everyday existence. While science should be pursued and can answer many questions about the how, only faith deals with the why. That is not to say that faith is blinded by wishful thinking or empty headed assumptions. Faith that is strong is built on reason and revelation (as Collins points out). The cold logic of Dawkins, again, makes sense from a non-God perspective, but is not complete in terms of answering bigger questions that every human wants to know. Here are some observations from the debate that I think are worth considering:

1. Science is incomplete (not futile) in answering the question of whether God exists.
This is not to say that studying science can not tell us anything about God, because that would contradict the Scriptures, which tells us that “the heavens declare the glory of God and the sky shows us his handiwork.” That certainly doesn’t mean that you have to be a scientist in order to discern the splendor of the constellations, any more than you have to be an architect in order to discern the grandeur of the Eiffel Tower. What it does mean is that the basic scientific tool of observation reveals to us the beauty of God. Nevertheless, science is not the final frontier, in terms of discovering who God is. On the contrary, it is actually the beginning point on the journey for many people. The Scriptures also tell us that “what may be known about God is plain to them (those who suppress the truth about God), because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” In summary, nature reveals to us a Creator. It can’t reveal to us the message of that Creator; only a special revelation from him to us, but if we don’t accept that truth, we can’t go on in the journey of faith to find out who he is and what he desires.

2. Evolution is considered “scientific” on the same grounds that God is considered unscientific.
Evolution is accepted, because it (as science) can be observed. The only problem is that evolution has never been observed. There are evidences of it that give us insight into its existence, but there is no hard, fast trace that we can currently look at in a laboratory. On the other hand, God’s existence is denied on the basis of not having been observed, either. Nevertheless, in the same way that the traces of evolution have been researched, the traces of God have also been discerned, such as design, nature, and moral presence.

3. The likelihood of God existing is greater than the likelihood that he didn’t.
One of Collins’ best sellers, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief, cites the fact that there are six universal characteristics, or constants, of our universe, and if they were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur. Dawkins argues the counter point that this universe is one of a zillion other universes, and that most of these will not have the right conditions for life, but as the number rises, the probability increases that one of them will contain the right recipe. This actually is very faith-filled for Dawkins to purport, since there are no known, observable, other universes. It seems more likely, as Collins argues, that there was someone planning the infinitesimally exact components to coincide for life to exist.

4. The acceptance of biblical miracles does not betray science, but only gives credence to a real creator.
Miracles are that which defy the normal laws of nature. It is not implausible to believe that if there is a creator, then that same creator is able to invade our world, and transcend the very rules he established. His doing that would be, interestingly enough, more plausible if he wanted to demonstrate his love and power to us by interacting with us through Jesus Christ by his incarnation, death, and resurrection.

5. Human beings acting out moral laws within this world is a good indicator of a Creator who put that in us.
This evidence is seen in those who do not have any knowledge of God’s revelation, acting on the law of their conscience. Speaking of the non-Jewish nations (or Gentiles), the Scriptures tell us that those “who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them).” How is it that people will sacrifice their DNA existence within the gene pool for those outside of the gene pool if we are only trying to survive and look out for number one (C.S. Lewis talks about this power in his masterpiece Mere Christianity)? I think this is more plausible than Dawkins’ thought that we (now in a much bigger world) are merely acting out our ancestors’ drive to help those within their own gene pool, so that we can survive.

6. Whatever our Christian position of how creation came about, our main goal should be to demonstrate the fact of creation.
There is a big controversy that has been going on for quite a few years within Christian circles about whether the creation came about literally in six days, or whether it came about over the course of eons and eons by evolution. The fact is God created the heavens and the earth, and humanity, and all that is. We must respect the findings of science, but we must also seek to communicate the gospel of God. That is not done by narrowly repudiating everything that comes from science, but by seeking to find common ground between that and our faith, and seeking to become Christ (not a Darwinist) to all those we seek to reach.