Dialogue with an Evolutionist Friend

(I apologize for the varying fonts in this post. I cannot get it to paste correctly).

Let me begin this dialogue with my friend Dr. Robert Pierce by saying that I hope you have read Robert’s comment in its entirety (see comment under "Evolution Weekend," Feb 14). Rob has some thought-provoking points that are worth considering, and if nothing else, it will give you a perspective from the side of a Darwinist who has put much thought into both sides of the creation/evolution debate. My plan is to respond to his various points in short segments over the following weeks, so stay tuned.

I have known Robert for about ten years now, and I believe him to be as honest as any man. I count it an honor to be his friend, and I am glad that our sons are friends as well. Interestingly enough, Rob and I have travelled similar paths through life, though we have ended up on opposite sides of a debate that has everything to do with origin, paths, and destination. Both of us grew up with a love for the game of hockey, and a love for wildlife. We both grew up east of the Mississippi and ended up in Idaho. We both majored in Wildlife Biology, receiving our Master’s degrees about the same year from sister universities a stone’s throw from one another—he at the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho, I at Washington State University eight miles away in Pullman, Washington. We both changed directions after receiving our Master’s, he only slightly to Veterinary School, I dramatically to preaching the gospel. We then both ended up in Sandpoint, Idaho, when our love for hockey brought us together for the first time ten years ago. Our sons have known each other from a very young age, and Robert and his wonderful wife Dawn have raised a fine young man whom we love to have in our home. As Robert says, it is ironic that our sons share so many common values, considering the different worldviews with which they were raised. If the evolution/creation debate has such moral implications (as I suggested in my Monday Morning Musings article that initiated this dialogue), to what do we attribute this ironic state of affairs? I will deal specifically with this question in a future blog. For now, let me briefly address the issue of worldview.

With such similar backgrounds, what accounts for the vastly different way that Rob and I view the world? Why do creationists see the theory of evolution as a ridiculous and absurd (and unscientific) explanation for the world around us and for our origins, while evolutionists see creationism as ignorant and unscientific superstition? In spite of claims made by anti-creationists, it cannot be that creationists are ignorant throwbacks to an alleged “flat-earth” mindset. There are thousands—and the number continues to grow—of highly educated scientists and engineers who believe the world was created by a supernatural Designer. Some of the greatest minds of our time, not to mention some of the greatest scientists in history, have been creationists (see http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html for a short list). In fact, it can be easily shown that it was the Christian worldview (which includes the belief that the universe was created according to orderly laws) that gave rise to the true scientific method we so take for granted today. And as for scientists today, in 1979, Science Digest wrote:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science" (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special (Winter 1979), pp. 94-96.; quoted in (http://www.christiananswers, ibid).

For example, Allen Rex Sandage, perhaps the “greatest observational cosmologist in the world” (Strobel), one-time protégé of legendary astronomer Edwin Hubble, and dubbed by New York Times “the Grand Old Man of Cosmology,” converted to theism and Christianity due to his studies in cosmology: “It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence” (Sharon Begley, “Science Finds God”, Newseek, July 20, 1998).

I could multiply such examples. So the debate really isn’t about who is the most intelligent or educated. Nor do I think that the different worldviews have anything to do with one’s honesty. It really comes down to a pre-conceived notion about the world. Both sides see the world from a different standpoint simply because of the presuppositions with which they begin. One looks at the order and complexity of the world and sees a Designer, while the other sees a random accident. How can that be? The evolutionist begins with the presupposition that all explanations must be made solely from a materialistic/naturalistic standpoint. The super-natural (pre-defined by the evolutionist as anything beyond observable phenomena) is forbidden from the formula at the outset. Thus, a priori, a Designer-God cannot enter into the picture. That being the case, there is only one possible explanation remaining: naturalism. And since there is only one possible explanation—though that explanation may take a variety of forms (gradualism, punctuated equilibrium, etc.)—that single “theory” is by default raised to the level of fact. Consider for example the two following quotations from leading evolutionists:

Dr. D.M.S. Watson of Univ. of London: "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur...or can be proved by logically coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible" ("Adaptation", in Nature, 1929, p.233)

Sir Arthur Keith, a British evolutionist: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable" (Quoted in: Evolution or Creation , H. Ecoch. Evangelical Press, Grand Rapids, Mi, 1967, p.71)

But is it scientific to discount possible conclusions from the outset? Doesn’t that force the inquirer into a particular interpretation of the evidence, even if there is a better alternative? Granted, creationists likewise begin with certain presuppositions. The real issue, however, is whose presuppositions are most reasonable and scientific: A worldview that discounts the consideration of a Designer at the outset, or a worldview that will let the evidence lead where it may? You be the judge.