A constantly moving train

Scientific theory is a matter of the highest degree of probability based on the data available. There are no absolutes in it. Further­more, science is a train that is constantly moving. Yesterday’s generalization is today’s discarded hypothesis. This is one reason for being somewhat tentative about accepting any form of evolu­tionary theory as the final explanation of biology. It is also why it is dangerous to try to prove the Bible by science. If the Bible becomes wedded to today’s scientific theories, what will happen to it when science, ten years from now, has shifted?

Theologian W. A. Criswell cites: "In 1861 … the French Acade­my of Science published a little brochure in which they stated fifty ­one scientific facts that controverted the Word of God. Today there is not a scientist in the world who believes a single one of those fifty-one so-called scientific facts that in 1861 were published as controverting the Word of God. Not a one!""

Thoughtful evolutionists concede that the matter is not an open-and-shut case, but they feel the theory must be accepted despite some seeming contradictions and unexplained factors.

The following is of such interest that I quote it at length to illustrate this point. After discussing how pathetically theology students at Cambridge, in a former century, accepted dogma and teachings they did not fully understand or personally investigate, G. A. Kerkut, an evolutionist, points out that many present-day undergraduates have succumbed to the same unthinking tenden­cies in their studies in general, and in accepting evolution in biology in particular. He writes:

For some years now I have tutored undergraduates on various aspects of biology. It is quite common, during the course of conversation, to ask the student if he knows the evidence for evolution. This usually evokes a faintly superior smile….

"Well, sir, there is the evidence from paleontology, comparative anatomy, embryology, systematics and geographical distributions," the student would say in a nursery-rhyme jargon….

"Do you think that the evolutionary theory is the best expla­nation yet advanced to explain animal interrelationships?" I would ask.

"Why, of course, sir," would be the reply. "There is nothing else, except for the religious explanation held by some funda­mentalist Christians, and I gather, sir, that these views are no longer held by the more up-to-date churchmen."

"So you believe in evolution because there is no other the­ory?"

"Oh, no, sir, I believe in it because of the evidence I just mentioned."

"Have you read any book on the evidence for evolution?" I would ask.

"Yes, sir." And here he would mention the names of authors of a popular school textbook. "And of course, sir, there is that book by Darwin, The Origin of Species."

"Have you read this book?" I would ask.

"Well, not all through, sir."

"The first fifty pages?"

"Yes, sir, about that much; maybe a bit less."

"I see. And that has given you your firm understanding of evolution?"

"Yes, sir."

"Well, now, if you really understand an argument you will be able to indicate to me not only the points in favor of the argu­ment, but also the most telling points against it."

"I suppose so, sir."

"Good. Please tell me, then, some of the evidence against the theory of evolution."

"But there isn’t any, sir."

Here the conversation would take on a more strained atmos­phere. The student would look at me as if I were playing a very unfair game. He would take it rather badly when I suggested that he was not being very scientific in his outlook if he swal­lowed the latest scientific dogma and, when questioned, just repeated parrot-fashion the views of the current Archbishop of Evolution. In fact he would be behaving like certain of those religious students he affected to despise. He would be taking on faith what he could not intellectually understand and, when questioned, would appeal to authority of a "good book," which in this case was The Origin of Species. (It is interesting to note that many of these widely quoted books are read by title only. Three of such that come to mind are the Bible, The Origin of Species, and Das Kapital.)

I would suggest that the student should go away and read the evidence for and against evolution and present it as an essay. A week would pass and the same student would appear armed with an essay on the evidence for evolution. The essay would usually be well done, since the student might have realized that I should be rough to convince. When the essay had been read and the question concerning the evidence against evolution came up, the student would give a rather pained smile. "Well, sir, I looked up various books but could not find anything in the scientific books against evolution. I did not think you would want a religious argument."

"No, you were quite correct. I want a scientific argument against evolution."

"Well, sir, there does not seem to be one, and that in itself is a piece of evidence in favor of the evolutionary theory."

I would then indicate to him that the theory of evolution was of considerable antiquity, and would mention that he might have looked at the book by Radi, The History of Biological Theories. Having made sure the student had noted the book down for future reference I would proceed as follows:

Before one can decide that the theory of evolution is the best explanation of the present-day range of forms of living material, one should examine all the implications that such a theory may hold. Too often the theory is applied to, say, the development of the horse, and then, because it is held to be applicable there, it is extended to the rest of the animal kingdom with little or no further evidence.

There are, however, seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of evolution. Many evolution­ists ignore the first six assumptions and consider only the sev­enth.

The first assumption is that nonliving things gave rise to living material, i.e., that spontaneous generation occurred.

The second assumption is that spontaneous generation oc­curred only once.

The third … is that viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all interrelated.

The fourth … is that the protozoa gave rise to the metazoa. The fifth … is that the various invertebrate phyla are interre­lated.

The sixth … is that the invertebrates gave rise to the ver­tebrates.

The seventh .., is that the vertebrates and fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e., that the modem amphibia and reptiles had a com­mon ancestral stock and so on.

For the initial purposes of this discussion on evolution I shall consider that the supporters of the theory of evolution hold that all these seven assumptions are valid, and that these assump­tions form the general theory of evolution.

The first point that I should like to make is that the seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification [italics mine]. They assume that a certain series of events has occurred in the past. Thus, though it may be possible to mimic some of these events under present-day conditions, this does not mean that these events must therefore have taken place in the past. All that it shows is that it is possible for such a change to take place. Thus, to change a present-day reptile into a mammal, though of great interest, would not show the way in which the mammals did arise. Unfortunately, we cannot bring about even this change; instead we have to depend upon limited circumstantial evidence for our assumptions."

Here we must remember that it is useless to get into a discussion of evolution with a non-Christian. Rather, when the subject comes up, I first ask the evolutionist whether he is concluding from his position that there is no God and that everything happened by chance, or whether he concedes God is the initiator of life. If he accepts, the latter, I confront him directly with Jesus Christ. He is the real issue in salvation, not one’s view of evolution. When the issue of Christ is settled, other less important ones settle them­selves in due course.

Two extremes must be avoided. First is the assumption that evolution has been proved without doubt and that anyone with a brain in his head must accept it. The second is the notion that evolution is "only a theory," with little evidence for it.

We reiterate that the so-called conflicts of science and the Bible are often conflicts between interpretations of the facts.

The presupposition one brings to the facts, rather than the facts themselves, determines one’s conclusion. For instance, one might be told that his wife was seen riding around town with another man. Knowing his wife, he draws a different conclusion from this fact than does the town gossip. The different conclusions result, not from different facts, but from different presuppositions brought to the fact.

In everything we read and in everything we hear we must ask, "What is this person’s presupposition?" so that we may interpret conclusions in this light. There is no such thing as total objectivity.

The Christian can never forget that God can act in miraculous ways and in the past he often chose to. The Bible discloses that he was involved in his original creation and continues in a wise and purposeful relationship with it. While there are problems for which there is as yet no explanation, there is no fundamental conflict between science and Scripture.

Extracted from Know Why You Believe by Paul Little