Thoughts on Evolution & Creation

1.I've always felt that had Charles Darwin read Gregor Mendel's(1822-1884) work on genetics he may well have reconsidered publishing The Origins of the Species. What Darwin felt was proof of (macro)evolution in the Galapagos with finches, tortoises, etc. changing color etc. over time was in fact clearly explained in Mendel's work. What is now called micro-evolution is essentially the inherent variation within the gene code of that created entity which is what Darwin in fact observed-not the creation of new life forms-after all they were still finches and tortoises (and will forever remain finches & tortoises).

The issue at hand in the end is the question of how much variability exists and where do you draw the lines to create species, orders & the like. The fact that dogs, cats, horses,etc,may range within a population of true fertilization(progeny capable of reproducing) it's a fact that no evidence exists that any creature came from any other creature. In spite of wide physiological variations- limits or fixity within the gene code (and pool) is obvious as anyone can tell people are people and cats are cats-though sabertooth tigers and domestic kittens may be related...wolves aren't.Nor is there evidence of any common ancestors to the various life forms inhabiting this world.

The primary difficulties of evolution being lack of fossil evidence, impossibility of abiogenesis, and fixity in genetic variability remain from Darwin's day. Mutation & natural selection were Darwin's 'magic wand' of evolution but in effect are insufficient to explain variation & fixity in nature. Something else has to explain the genetic programming that leads to the variety we see in the natural order and creates the limits of genetic 'drift' toward macro-evolution.

I agree with Dr. Wilder-Smith that the science of Information Systems provides a better answer.

1-a.The other issue is that just because some creationists in Darwins day felt that God created very specific 'kinds' that couldn't really change over time Darwin felt he had disproved the Bible & God's act in creation. In fact many leading creationists of his time & now believe that God programmed large degrees of variation within the gene code(created 'kinds') which can extend through to the gene pool- though there are ultimate limits observation of population groups in horses for example can show. Regardless of the variation there is also an inherent fixity to nature that separates these from other creatures. Morphologic & physiological observation can classify essential divisions in nature though definition of "species" is a subject still open to debate.

1-b.When one considers the massive amounts of information in the basic building blocks of living systems it comes as no surprise that nature has large degrees of latitude for change. On the other hand the chemistry of the cell is a limiting factor & even over vast reaches of time it is unthinkable that large categories of biology could ever cross these major divides through even Darwin's speculations. I find it untenable with neither fossil evidence nor observation supporting the view that this type of change is possible through mutation(genetic defects) & natural selection or survival of the fittest. Darwin thought in time his theory would be supported by further evidence in paleontology but the reality is there are as many gaps in the fossil record as there ever was. In the end macro-evolution is a leap of faith & not true science and neither propositions are testable hypothesis. One requires the act of God, the other vast reaches of time, and in fact neither are subject to the scientific method or observable & repeatable.

2. The issue of the cosmos and it's age is an interesting one. Of course no one but God alone truly knows the age of the universe. Well to me the issue is a simple one ...if God created Adam & Eve supernaturally & 1 millisecond after their creation you had seen them you would say they were whatever age they appeared to be...20, 30, 40 etc. when in fact they were not at all what they appeared to be but in fact were just created. In the same way I believe God created the universe and we as creatures are sitting here looking at starlight from billions of lightyears away thinking it might be that age when in fact it was- according to God's revelation created far far sooner. Is that dishonest of God? Hardly as everything He creates by fiat & ex nihilo is in fact a functioning system which naturally would have the appearance of age in a universe subject to entropy & decay.

3. Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith was in my opinion one of the greatest minds I ever met and a dear friend. He had 3 earned Ph.d's in science and yet was a truly humble and wonderfully gracious human being. He personally took on the evolutionary establishment at a time when there were few voices willing to do so. I wish the same character could be said about the man he debated at Oxford in 1986 on evolution- Richard Dawkins who recently published his book "The God Delusion"(Dawkins seems intent on maintaining his posture as an arrogant & egocentric ideologue). Dr. Wilder-Smith has written a number of fairly technical books on Natural Science & evolution the chemical impossibility of evolution as well as Information Systems,& the video series "Origins". I'd recommend his works regardless of your views on the subject as his science is solid and should make you think a bit about the whole premise of the origination of life chemically as well as macroevolution. He held his own very well against Dawkin's in the Huxley centennial debate at Oxford & actually got almost half the votes at the end of the debate(even though Dawkin's pleaded that one vote for Wilder-Smith & intelligent design would disgrace the school forever). Remarkable achievement considering Oxford's a bastion of evolution and liberalism. Sadly Dr. Wilder-Smith died of a brain tumor..I for one will miss the old one student said" he didn't just make us better students... but better men".

4. For atheists like Carl Sagan & Richard Dawkins their position that God doesn't exist is in my opinion virtually untenable. It requires infinite knowledge to disprove the existence of an infinite self existing spirit. On the other hand to prove the existence of an infinite personal God (at least subjectively) is fairly easy- one real experience of the supernatural in the history of the world and it's a done deal. While it may in fact be difficult to test the hypothesis of God's existence in a laboratory as dealing with a sentient, invisible, spirit being is not in fact something likely to be subject to such mechanical criteria the reality is there is extensive testimony of experiencing such a being-not to mention the evidence of creation itself. In fact tens of millions of people over the ages have encountered the supernatural in some form whether divine or demonic and to me that stands as a serious argument. I personally worked with Dumitru Duduman who claimed to have encountered angelic beings on several occassions as well as having his life spared by one during torture in Romania by the securitate. I also had a call one night from a woman who claimed to be Joseph Smith's great great grand daughter. She told me Dumitru had spoken at a Mormon tabernacle in Utah & that hundreds of people saw two 20 foot high angels behind him (while he was telling the audience to forget the book of Mormon & to just believe the Bible!). I personally have heard God's still small voice and as a result of obeying it-things have happened beyond rational explanation. Of course some people dismiss such things as nonsense - at least until you experience them yourselves. People like Richard Dawkins, David Hume, Voltaire & others in history try to define away the reality of God but I'm afraid long after their bones are turned to dust people are still having their lives changed by encountering this great & glorious being.


Email Us

Chip Rohlke, President CICM

Christ is Creator Ministries PO Box 34117 Indialantic Fl 32903 & Shuttle Products Int'l

*note-Please forgive me if you believe an image of God is forbidden-images only used artistically not representally art(c)Ron DiCianni