I Believe In Evolution

"I believe in evolution."

Gagh! I never thought that I would say that but here I am. Back in high school, I became fascinated with the Creation vs. Evolution debate. The Big Bang, the age of the universe, radiometric dating, irreducible complexity, the whole bit. I devoured any article that I could find in a science magazine and I systematically copied all related articles from a catalogue of back issues from the school library. I still have all of those photocopied articles in my room to this day.

I thought that I had learned what I needed to know about the topic. I knew that I was no expert in this subject but I certainly knew more than most people about it. Internet chat rooms and message boards became my forum for debates. Mike and I enjoyed tackling an unsuspecting room online and baiting people into these conversations.

As time went on, I lost my interest in this topic and in the debates and it all fell by the wayside as a fad. I do however, still eagerly read any article related to this topic whenever I come across one but rarely do I find anything new and exciting. The Creation vs. Evolution debate has changed only slightly by using the label "Intelligent Design." The scientists still bicker back and forth about the exact age of the universe, which changes with each new experiment. Ho hum.

Last month, I accidentally came across a new book at the public library called "The Language of God" (link). It's written by a guy named Fransic S. Collins, who also happens to be the head of the Human Genome project that finally disciphered the human DNA sequence. Hey, I like this topic so I thought that I would hear what he had to say.

The goal of his book is to look for the union between faith and science. More than most people, he is an expert in biochemistry and is a firm believer in the mechanism of evolution. He is also a Christian and thinks that both aspects can be joined neatly and logically. In this book, he succinctly dissects the position of Young Earth Creationists (YEC), atheism and agnosticism, and Intelligent Design. He tackles these areas with arguments from many different realms of thought but it was his scientific explanations that got me.

In the first half of the book, he focuses on supporting the common concepts of evolution. He presents various examples from his field of expertise and makes them easily to digest. Never mind the second half of the book in which he ably weighs the pros and cons of various positions in a whirlwind tour. This first half was enough for me and *poof* Just like that, I believe that evolution works.

I'm sure you're looking for the catch. If you know me at all, you know that I would never trade my faith in Jesus Christ and God for anything. That's as real to me as breathing is to you.

I'm serious, though. With some hesitation due to my own lack of knowledge, I now accept that higher life forms and different species can evolve from lower life forms. I used to differentiate between macroevolution and microevolution but he blew that argument out of the water in a single page, showing that there is no actual line between the two concepts. I accept that cells can evolve and natural selection works, period.

So where does that leave me? Let me first answer by indicating where the evidence and his personal experience left him. His book promotes the position of theistic evolution or, as he calls it, BioLogos ("Life + Word"). He agrees with the concept of a universe that is 14 billion years old, give or take a year. He thinks that God set the whole Big Bang thing in motion, maybe had a hand in creating the first few cellular life forms, and certainly creates this thing in us called a soul. From there, he expands on the concepts but that's enough.

As for me, I'm, uh...actually, I'm still a Young Earther. Six 24-hour days to create everything, a literal Garden of Eden, Adam was the first man, the whole deal. I think the Hebrew geneologies that trace back to Adam are accurate. So there.

Where I differ from the author is sort of crucial, natch. I now believe that the rules of evolution work, I just don't think they're the source of diverse life on earth. I say that God created everything really quick, he just created everything old. The author does acknowledge this argument briefly but blows past it since it makes science useless in analyzing ancient earth stuff. I agree that it invalidates certain aspects of scientific reasoning since it's too easy to say "God made it that way just because." Mike has expounded the same counterpoint in recent years.

Let me break it down, though. If the six days of the creation story are true, then God would have created a tree. If you sawed that tree down one minute after it came into existance, you would see tree rings showing it to be many years old already. Take it further and consider mountains that He may have created. If some types of mountains are created by tectonic movement, and tectonic movement relates to continental drift, and continental drift...it all fits, to have that nice mountain range sitting there instantly. Throw in Adam being created as an adult man (without a belly button?), animals being created in their adult form, the Oxygen/CO2 cycle already being in place...hey, it works for me.

We can go ahead and analyze the layout and laws of nature. It all fits in a neat little package and much of it can point to really old stuff, millions and billions of years ago. Sure, I guess that works. I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, though. There is scientific evidence out there for the earth only having been here for between six and ten thousand years. I do still think that the dinosaurs that are mentioned in Job Chapters 39 and 40 in the Bible were real. So there.

Personally, I was astounded at how easily I was persuaded by this man. Knowing his credentials and his accomplishments, I was willing to take his scientific arguments at face value. Knowing up front that he believed in God allowed me to be be comfortable that this wasn't an anti-theistic brand of evolution merely looking to crush anything that can not be scientifically tested. Granted, I didn't agree with some of his arguments or conclusions. The book was definitely written in easy-to-read layman's terms but what he gave up in details he returned in pacing. I'm just as shocked as anyone that this book made any impression on me at all, let alone turned me around with such ease.

I doubt that others will find this book to be as interesting as I have. I have no intention of converting anyone to this brand of thinking. Like I said, it's just an old hobby of mine. My primary concern in life is in helping people find a purpose, to find a reason, to discover that God loves them and that Jesus died for them. Those are the things that change us and make life worth living. I just blew my mind a little with this book, that's all.