Argument # 28:  “Since Evolution and natural selection are sufficient to explain the origins of life, there is no need for God to fit into the equation.”

 

Although evolution and natural selection may explain how life evolved on earth with random mutations resulting in beneficial characteristics more suitable for survival, there are many missing links in this theory.  Any Creationist website or article can point some of these out.  While I personally do believe in Evolution, I do not believe that it explains everything nor do I believe that it rules out the existence of God.  Greg Stone, from my discussion list, put it eloquently when he said:

 

“Not only is there a residue of feeling, but there is a sound argument that Darwinian evolution is not big enough. It is not. Darwinian evolution deals with the specific nature of the evolution of biological forms on this planet. And it fails to account entirely even for that realm. It does not account for the overall evolution of complexity within the universe, which then leads to the "special case" of Darwinian evolution.  It does not account for the origin of life forms, and most importantly it in no way accounts for the existence of the spirit and the spirit's effect upon the evolution of forms. Thus, Darwinian Evolution is incomplete when it comes to explaining life. And those, like Dawkins, Blackmore, Pinker, etc. who try to make Darwinian Evolution do more than it can will be seen in the long run to have been quite foolish.”

 

Furthermore, it has been computed as impossible for life to evolve by chance on its own because of the astronomical impossibility of the conditions for life being set up by chance.  Theist J.P. Moreland presented the arguments for this, using math and science, in his debate against Atheist Kai Neilsen, described in the book Does God Exist?: The Debate Between Theists & Atheists. In his debate with Atheist Kai Neilsen, Moreland explains with math and science why chance alone could not explain how the conditions for life evolved.  While this field is not my expertise, one can find plenty of literature on the Creation vs. Evolution debate in libraries and bookstores, as well as on the internet. The Evolution/Creation debate is a vast and complicated subject, but one thing the Atheists can never explain is “Who set up the vastly improbable default conditions for life to evolve in the FIRST PLACE?  Where did the matter to create the universe and life come from?  Why isn’t the universe a giant void of nothing instead?”  It’s kind of like this.  We know the mechanics behind how and why a pot boils, but that doesn’t tell us about the person who put the pot on the stove.  Some Atheists also like to point out that the need for belief in God can also be explained by Evolution.  However, David Marshall, a Christian missionary and philosopher rebuts that point well when he stated on my email discussion list:

 

“To make the jump from "evolution can explain belief in God" to "there is no God" without involved argument would be the generic fallacy, again.  To repeat my earlier example, even if you can explain the human ability to do math by evolution, that does not prove math is invalid.  In theory, it should be possible (given your presuppositions) to show how the human faculty for mathematics arose through natural processes.  That does not mean E=MC2 does not accurately describe real events in the real universe.  The fact that evolution may have created an awareness of dependency on one's mother on a child's part, does not mean real mothers do not exist and do not care for their children.  In the same way, even if you were able to describe the evolution of faith in God, it would still remain an entirely separate argument, whether God exists in fact or not.”

Previous Page                      Back to Table of Contents                        Next Page