From Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary…
“
theory 1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : SPECULATION
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances – often used in the phrase
in theory 5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle of body of principles offered to expain phenomena
6: an unproved assumption”
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with the notion that Evolution is a fact. Evolution is a theory (and a theory is not a fact) that happens to fit the available facts as interpreted by humans with incomplete, imperfect knowledge. Many biologists may “accept” Evolution as fact, but that does not make it so. Deciding something is true by consensus does not make it irrefutable fact. The problem with proving or disproving Evolution is that we have not been able to observe it in action. Recorded human history simply is not long enough. We have not been able to observe the spontaneous transformation of a glob of primordial sludge into a simple life form, and from there into a slightly more complex one, and then into an even more complex one, and so forth. Unless you can observe the opening process of Evolution, it’s all just theory. We have probably observed mutation and adaptation of species, and we’ve certainly observed extinction; however, not the creation of a new type of life form from a radically different precursor. Neither can you prove or disprove Creationism. Creationism can also fit the facts, depending on how that theory is presented. Now understand, that I am an educated, scientific-type person. I hold a master’s in EE, and yet do not have a difficult time reconciling my scientific training with my belief in God.
There are some assumptions that go with any theory, and Creationism is no different. First, you have to assume that God (who for the sake of argument we’ll assume is the architect of Creation) has an understanding of science and the universe that far exceeds what humans have managed thus far. Here’s an analogy for you: I am not a mineralogist. Hence, I could not tell a manufactured diamond from one that was dug out of the earth and cut and polished to match it. Why? I lack the knowledge necessary to do so. Since we (human beings) are continuously learning new things about the natural universe, it is a safe assumption that we do not understand everything (not even close). So, when we determine the age of some object in geological terms as 1,000,000 years, how do we know we’re correct? Perhaps the artist who created that object simply used process we cannot comprehend, which our primitive (by His standards) scientific methods simply cannot account for.
Why all the earlier (by our reckoning, anyway) species like dinosaurs, Cro-Magnon man, and prehistoric horses and such littering the natural history museums? Well, one could hypothesize that even God follows natural rules when creating. The Bible only tells us that “God created the heavens and the earth,” not how he managed it. Perhaps all those earlier species are the leftovers from the processes God used to make the species here on Earth today. A sculptor (or an engineer for that matter) often goes from an idea in his/her head to a sketch, then to a wooden carving or clay model, then to the finished product of sculpted stone. Think of them as shavings from God’s workbench, or prototypes of the more refined finished product. God, the ultimate artist and engineer!
Scientists have put the age of the Earth at something like 4 billion years (or something like that...I can never remember), but how can they be sure? I work with satellites (yes, Momma did in fact raise at least one rocket scientist
), and we often pre-age components before sending them into space. We do this to insure stable and predictable performance once on-orbit, and to insure reliability (we call that “getting beyond the bathtub curve). The very fact that species all fit so well into the natural balance argues for a guiding intelligence. If you want to set up a complex system to run with minimal operator input, why wouldn’t you design something like adaptation into it? Then there’s the natural tendency for things to go break down, rather than build up. Entropy and Chaos theory may not eliminate Evolution as a possible mechanism, but it certainly makes it less likely. Natural processes tend to go from the more complex to the less complex (like erosion and decomposition for example), and are certainly more typical and widespread then ones moving in the opposite direction.
In the final analysis, you can accept and believe Evolution, trusting in mankind’s limited and woefully incomplete understanding of the universe; or you can ask God. The promise that He made was that if you seek knowledge and wisdom, and ask him with pure and sincere intent, that he will answer. Now before any of the atheists call me gullible and naive, let me pose a final question to you. If you are so willing to accept the opinions of fallible human scientists you’ve never met, am I then any more gullible and naïve to accept the promptings and inspiration of a God I’ve never met? Just food for thought.
