Some Responses to Evolutionary Thought

Nam brought up the topic of evolution for discussion on his site. I decided it would be an appropriate thing to have here.

I agree completely that micro-evolution is an accepted phenomenon, and that is not worth discussing. I'm glad we can begin with this distinction in mind. I have actually heard a fair amount of information regarding support for creationism vs. support for evolution. I would recommend reading through the chapters found at this website: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ I wouldn't call it a final answer, but it's a good start.

As a general rule, I would not recommend using televangelists as a standard of measure for Christian thought on science, or even a standard for Christian doctrine.

I’ve been told a few times that carbon-dating has been applied to objects which we can date by its historical context. The numbers are usually off significantly, but on a granularity that’s still reasonable for the time scale being proposed. I have this story to add to that, but I must first qualify it. I do not remember who told it to me, but it was a peer of mine, not a scientific authority (of course, he was telling me as having heard from some other source, and supposedly the original source of information was someone reputable). I’ve only heard it once, so it’s not well substantiated. The details of the story have escaped me, so all I can relate is the basic idea. In short, take this with a grain of salt. I heard that someone carbon-dated the remains of a house cat which was caught in the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. The actual time of the death of the cat would obviously be well-known, but the results of the dating were inconsistent--on a scale that is unacceptable for the present applications of carbon-dating. The reason suggested is that something about the way in which it was buried changed the characteristics of the corpse.

Radiometric dating rests upon two assumptions, really. The first is that the process of radioactive decay occurs at a rate which is a consistent function--exponential—and has always been this way. This is what Nathan Walker challenged. It is unreasonable to assume that carbon, or any other natural process, would just suddenly "be different" permanently. However, there may be external conditions which affect radioactive decay which are not eternally consistent. The second assumption is the make-up of the fossil being dated when it was first fossilized. Perhaps the make-up of the creature was different than expected, or perhaps something traumatic happened to alter its make-up, as in the case of the buried cat. These are hypotheticals which may be unlikely and only serve to cast doubt on a method regarded as absolutely reliable. It disproves nothing.

There are some who would say that it doesn’t much matter to the Christian faith whether the world was created or evolved; many others make cases for macro-evolution as part of God’s direction. I noticed this verse in the Bible once: "But a witless man can no more become wise than a wild donkey’s colt can be born a man." (Job 11:12) I know that evolutionists would never suggest such a radical jump in a single generation, but it seems to treat the notion that a creature can bear anything other than its own kind as ridiculous. My observation is extremely incidental to the point of the passage, but you can still glean a general attitude toward the matter. This, of course, is in addition to the direct commands by God in Genesis 1 for plants to multiply "according to their kinds" and a repeated insistence on the creation of all other living creatures according to their kinds.

Furthermore, I was made aware of another important point. I’m a fan of the ApologetiX, a sort of Christian version of Weird Al Yankovich. In one of their songs "The Real Sin Savior" (after Eminem’s "The Real Slim Shady"), some lines go: "And if we're monkeys you might as well forget original sin!" Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden cannot be thought of as a single, historical event within the context of evolutionary origins. At best, it is a symbolic metaphor describing human nature as it inherently is. One’s view of original sin has radical consequences on how one interprets a lot of other doctrine as well. It does matter what you think.