Christians and evolution

Sometimes I wonder if there are not more important things for me to be concerning myself with than Darwinism vs ID vs Creationism vs whatever. Afterall, the core message of the Gospel is much more important than the physical processes of how we got here. The majority of my Christian friends are content to accept the perceived mainstream consensus of scientists that we have evolved from the first life forms over billions of years, with a vague assertion that God “started it all”, and often will tell me of their support for evolution with great pride – as if to say – “I’m enlightened too!” or “I’m not one of those fundamentalist Christians”.

What troubles me most about this, is that the definition of evolution they have accepted is profoundly different to the definition of evolution generally accepted by the scientific community – largely due to the fact that the word “evolution” can mean many different things – change over time, common ancestory, Darwinism etc. Evangelical Darwinists have often exploited this vagueness to give the perception that anyone who opposes evolution, opposes well substantiated and completely uncontroversial ideas such as biological change over time.

So what does evolution mean to most scientists? Darwinism. It means that all life on earth has evolved from a common ancestor, through the process of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations (RM+NS). Moreover, there is no element of design to the world around us and every attribute of a human being exists only because it aided our ancestors in reproducing and passing on their genes.

It should be obvious to a Christian that this definition of evolution is completely incompatible with any variant of our faith. Regardless of time scales or common ancestory, the idea that we are solely the result of chance, conflicts completely with the idea that we were made with purpose in the image of God. Put simply, if Darwinism is correct, Christianity is fundamentally wrong. However, for an athiest the reverse is true. If RM+NS cannot explain all of the life forms on earth, then atheism is in big trouble, because no-one has proposed a plausible alternative explanation. Dawkins once said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fufilled atheist – clearly if Darwinism fails, the “intellectual” argument for atheism is gone.

Without even looking at the evidence for or against Darwinism one can see how much is at stake in this argument. To question the creative power of RM+NS is to question a theory which has become a core doctrine of atheism. To truly accept Darwinism is to accept the implication that all design and purpose is an illusion. The credibilities of two competing worldviews hang in the balance.

So please lets not be naive. We might regularly hear people denouncing creationism and intelligent design, calling their adherents stupid, but those people are not being objective. Scientists may have a reverential position in our supposedly enlightened society, but they are just people, with pride, prejudices and beliefs just like everyone else. We need to ask ourselves why we believe what we believe about human origins. Is it because we’ve been taught since our school days that only crazy people believe in creationism? Have we studied the facts for ourselves or have we just accepted the ideas of people who refuse to believe in God?

For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear. They will reject the truth and chase after myths. –2 Timothy 4:3-4