You might be wondering why I would say that evolution and creation aren’t enemies, I know that is the popular view especially with the growing number of websites, book, and video online that show the debate between the two. Scientifically and philosophically the points for either side are argued and most the time just as in a sporting event there are those cheering for their favorite. Here however is the issue with it.
Creationism, as suggested by its name is an explanation for creation. In other words, no matter how much further this a person takes it in their debating, creationism is the term given to the theological view that God created life. Evolution on the other hand has specifically to do with what happens once there is life. In other words, these two ideas don’t exactly cross one another, sure they both have to do with life on our planet and possibly even other planets but the fact is one is about how it came to be and the other is about what happened once it already was.
It might surprise you to know that there are evolutionists whom are also Christians. They believe God created the life and the biological mechanism for evolution as well and that once he created life this mechanism took over shaped the future of that organism. There are evolutionary scientists whom while they may not be Christians do recognize in writings that there is a missing element and even Charles Darwin himself has made comments about his own theory that show that he himself knew that there was a big gap between the creation of life and its evolution.
Most people have heard of the “primordial soup” theory. This is the theory that before there was life there where pools of various chemicals on earth in the extreme ancient past. The theory suggests that the chemicals needed to produce the building blocks of life were present and in similar to the way we believe stars’ form, some spark of energy triggered a chemical reaction resulting in simple life. Some theorize it was lightning, some say it may have been geothermal or radiation and I’m sure there are even more theories about it out there. In the 1950s a famous experiment was conducted by 2 scientists named Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. They took the chemical conditions they believed to be present at the time that scientists theorized this evolutionary process to have begun, and did just as the theory suggested and introduced an energy source in this case electricity. As the atmospheric chemicals traveled through the apparatus they were hit with the electricity and then the resulting resin was collected in the trap at the bottom of the apparatus. This was meant to test whether or not the building blocks of life could be produced by such a process and if so could it be the origin of the evolutionary process.
The results of this experiment is kind of a mixed bag. It wasn’t realized at first but this experiment did produce, not exactly the building block of life but something similar. That seemed like a win for this theory but there’s more to it. For this one positive there were two negatives, one being that the product though similar would have never produced viable life. It was chemically incorrect and unstable. The second issue being that they chemical compounds used to simulate early atmosphere where also found to be incorrect and used in incorrect measure so what was produced, even though it was already insufficient to prove the theory, was also in correctly produced that whole experiment was pretty much a loss.
When I first read about this my thought was, “sure maybe it wasn’t all the way correct but if they refine the experiment and try again maybe they could get it right” I mean this was the process I was familiar with, when you have a partially successful method you refine the viable elements of the process and remove the inviable and each time you do so you move closer to a fully viable process. To that end I researched this experiment and scientist who had worked on the results of the miller Urey experiment and those whom had taken it father and refined it just as I thought should have been done and what I eventually learned is that the results were changing yes but not really getting any closer to actually producing viable material.
I bring this up for a couple reasons. First of all, there have been a few big scientific breakthroughs in my lifetime that have cause people to assume that science had in fact disproved Gods existence. Evolution is a theory that gets more and more popular every day, I have the privilege of being able to speak with people both adept and novice in this area quite often. I know it’s a stereotype that Christians thing evolution is evil and Godless but I don’t hold that view. As I have outlined in this paper I don’t see that evolution and creation can coexist. Sure there are elements where these two world views will collide and I’m not saying that I myself believe in evolution, I am however saying that there is no need for the hostility in this discussion. Evolution doesn’t eliminate God just like creationism doesn’t eliminate I said at the end of part one…
Evolution and Creation aren’t enemies.