he controversy between the theory of evolution and creationism has raged on with no sign of abating. Scientists who believe in the improbability of God are using science to justify what is by definition their belief, while creationists dismiss valid scientific evidence because of its misuse and misinterpretation. There is therefore need for clarity so that facts can be separated from opinion which is the only way to find the truth. In order to put things in perspective, the scientific facts have to be separated from the conclusions and the conclusions examined to see if they are supported by scientific facts before it can gain any validity. This is what the proponents of the theory of evolution have failed to do.
One of the main problems with natural history is its insistence that the evidence that informs its belief in evolution is at par with evidence that underpin some physical and biological laws like the germ theory, atomic theory and the law of gravity. This is not completely true. This may also be one of the reasons why creationism remains appealing to some equally intelligent scientists who have examined the evidence they cite for their position. Evolution is based on Natural science which itself is phenomenological. Therefore, Evolution cannot claim to be a completely solidly established scientific fact as many of its vocal proponents claim. It is essentially a descriptive (study of nature) science which seeks to use its observations to validate a belief in exactly similar way creationists use scientific facts to validate their believe in God as the author of life. In essence, the science of evolution ends with its phenomenology which is the description of things as they are perceived. Its conclusion, which is what it thinks it means or confirms is informed by its prior belief in the improbability of God and therefore subjective and debatable.
This ability to anchor conclusion on a prior belief does not exist in physical science. For instance, there is no scope for ‘belief’ in germ theory because it explains a concept that can be demonstrated empirically without any contradiction. The same can be said for the atomic theory but not for evolution. There is no doubt that gravity pull things down to the earth but the conclusion that similarity confirms common origin when common creation can also account for similarities is a fact evolutionist cannot continue to ignore. If one looks at a fossil, one can only see the skeleton but not the live organism and or the environment it lived in.
Natural science view of the ‘organism whose skeleton it studies and the environment it lived is nothing but speculation no matter how it is qualified. Its claim cannot be of a solid scientific validity as evolutionists posit because it is based on conjecture and not on facts that can be validated by experiment. Computer generated animations of what may have been is not reality. It may improve our imagination, but to treat it as reality is simply self-deception. It substitutes imagination for scientific facts. Until there is conclusive evidence, which satisfies scientific scrutiny that such similarities cannot be accounted for by common origin in a different way other than atheist evolutionists wants to believe, evolutionist cannot honestly claim that its theory is true. Another reason for the improbability of the conclusion of evolution about our origin is its instance that complex and intricate systems are product of chance even though that they can also be the end product of creation. This is like saying that the IPhone suddenly appeared without any input from Steve Jobs. This assertion puts evolutionist in the same category with people who believe in hell fire purgatory or any form of existence after death, things which there are no evidence to prove their plausibility or existence.
In addition, the explanation of the nature of the animal that is preserved in the fossil is not at par with the breaking of atom, for the simple reason that all the knowledge that account for our understanding of atom can be accounted for by the evidence made available by the splitting; while part of the knowledge that informs the conclusion about the fossils depends to a large extent on what the scientist thinks happened in the past. This is the Achilles hill of natural science which it cannot continue to glossed over in its attempt to impose an interpretation of evolutionary theory that has no room for God as we understand and believe it.
Furthermore, the assumption by evolutionist that species that cannot inter-breed explains common origin by natural selection is not convincing. It is intriguing that organisms that have common origin can suddenly lose their ability to inter-breed while retaining all the other features that confirm their common origin by natural selection when there is a theory that has a plausible explanation for this inability to inter-breed which is that God commanded each to only bring forth its kind as stated in genesis. This is why it is impossible to inter-breed a chicken with a horse even though they have a common origin. All these and more make evolution to look like one of those fanciful ideas, which the world runs with only to realise that it has been wrong because it was too eager to see what it believed. The theory of evolution is not like someone discovering that the spider is an insect with eight legs after hundreds of years of believing the claim of Aristotle that it is an insect with six legs. It is like someone telling you that actually spiders used to have six legs at the time Aristotle said so and that the additional two legs grew in the last one hundred years. Evolution continues to make scientific claim which it fills with speculations and herein lies its weakness.
Evolutionists attempt to ridicule faith and yet employ it to fill the gap in its knowledge of the past. If evolution has thought us anything about our origin, it has confirmed what men of God have said over the years that we are like animals because the same God created us. In Ecclesiastes 3:18, Solomon concluded ‘ I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts: even one thing befalleth them: as one dieth, so the other: yea, they have all one breath: so that a man hath no pre-eminence above beasts: for all is vanity’. This was long before Charles Darwin saw the similarities between organisms and human and Watson and Crick found out where God hid the alphabet with which he wrote life, the DNA.
The idea that animals are similar to humans did not originate with Charles Darwin. Similarities between animals and human have been a constant theme in the Christian religion which evolutionists criticise for believing in creation. What science has done is discover the biological basis of this similarity. Its origin or how it all began is impossible to prove by empiricism. As knowledge increased, men knew more and decided to change how they think it all began to suit the desires of their sinful hearts instead of the expressed will of their maker. The idea of God not creating man was not evoked by Darwin’s findings, rather he realised it would give credence to his prior belief that there is no God. The real challenge was to seek reconciliation with existing facts; instead, atheists in the field of natural science proposed a new theory that attempts to discredit the author of the knowledge that made its discovery possible. This is simply arrogance to say the least. Theory of evolution, as atheists would like to believe it flourishes because of the fragmentation of knowledge. If all knowledge is integrated, the falsity of atheistic evolution would become apparent.
It would therefore appear that Atheists belief that there is no reconciliation between available scientific findings and religion is false. It would seem that it was informed by the rejection of the idea of God which informs such conclusion and belief and not scientific facts. God is the author of science and had ordained that as human beings continue to live on earth that knowledge would increase. Religion and science agree on the incontrovertible evidence of the similarities between organisms and that it suggest common origin. Where they differ is on the reason or source of the similarities. Evolution has not produced robust scientific evidence to prove its claim that human beings developed from earlier species in a random and spontaneous manner. What they have done very well is use the knowledge God has given to support their belief in the non-existence of God and this is not a new phenomenon.
Contrary to the falsehood of atheists, The Christian religion is not anti-science for science simply means knowledge. The bible extols the value, virtue and pre-eminence of learning, knowledge and understanding and enjoins believers to seek knowledge and understanding. In proverbs Solomon discussed the pre-eminence of knowledge. He opened his discuss in verse one of chapter one by these words’ the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; but fools despise wisdom and instruction. This makes it clear that religion (the teaching of the fear of God and morality) is simply the beginning of knowledge. He enjoined people to get wisdom and understanding. In chapter 4 verses 5 he says, get wisdom, get understanding…..love her and it will she shall keep thee. He continued wisdom is the principle thing: therefore get wisdom; and with all thy getting get understanding. Elsewhere, in the book of Daniel chapter 1: 4, the prophet prophesied that’ But Oh Daniel, shut up the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall be increased. These are just few examples to dismiss the false assertion and impression created by atheist evolutionist that religion, the Christian religion in particular, is anti-science.
How can it be, when it is its major preoccupation? Therefore the controversies which stoke up the apparent conflict that exists between science and religion is false, for no conflict can exist between what one is in existence to pursue and what he finds, except he interprets the findings to justify what cannot be reconciled with the original aims. For evolution, as atheists choose to misuse it to be true, it has to dispense with the idea that man has always existed in his present form and this it has finally done. What evolutionist regard as new organism may well be species they know very little about but choose to classify in a way to sustain a prior belief. It is therefore the misuse of science by unbelievers to prove the non-existence of the author of science that is the real reason for the conflict. This is what everybody involved in this controversy should know.
Evolutionists peddle falsehood about believers and religion in other to justify their atheistic world view and science without a place for God. For instance, jerry A Coyne, in his book why evolution is true, said ‘If humans are just one of the many outcomes of natural selections may be they aren’t so special at all. This statement is not a scientific fact but an opinion of an atheist who believes that there is no God. Now, contrast this with the conclusion of David in Psalm 139:14, after examining the same evidence Charles Darwin studied in more details, ‘I will praise thee: for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. Also in chapter 14:1 he said, the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God’. Why should the views of jerry Coyne take precedence over that of David and Daniel whose insight about the transident was obviously deeper than Mr Coyne’s?
Natural science has been making up the science of evolution as it goes along. Instead of allowing the evidence to suggest the possible conclusions, it continuously attempts to use it to confirm what it believes. They make general statement which can be explained by alternative theory and then use it as evidence for their conclusion. For instance, the statement by Coyne in ‘why evolution is true,’ for a start, fish, amphibians, mammals and reptiles all have backbones-they are vertebrates-so they must have descended from a common ancestor that also had vertebrae’ assumes that there is no other way to account for the presence of vertebrae in these animals. This assumption is not a fact. How can they be so sure in the presence of other plausible alternatives, if they do not have a prior belief? How did they know that these creatures are not sharing back bone because their maker knew that that there is no other way of making them to survive in the environment he would put them? Just because all cars share have chips does not mean that all cars come from a single care or all chips come from the same manufacture. Again a common feature is assumed to mean common evolutionary origin by natural selection. This is the hidden bias in the conclusion of evolutionary theory.
One can therefore see why the idea that human beings came into existence in any other way apart from natural selection would not sit well with atheists. They do not believe in the existence of God and it would be simply illogical to credit what you do not believe exist with your origin. This is how they misrepresent the facts. Believers do not believe that human beings came into existence in a different way from other species. They believe that a single creator created them and this accounts for their similarities and that their variation are not accidents of nature or product of natural selection. Looking at both theories, both are a single origin hypothesis of human beings. The only difference is what or who the single origin is attributed. The atheists claim it is natural selection while creationists believe it is God. It is this this minute non-scientific difference that separates the atheists and believers in the theory of evolution.
Nevertheless, the controversy between evolutionist and creationist is a serious matter. It strikes at the heart of our reason for existence, morality, and allegiance. Those who say it does not matter are not telling the truth. Whether a man believes in God or not makes a difference to what he would or would not support, the legislations he would approve, his attribution system, the nature and manner of his sense of justice, tolerance, perspective on equality and what is right or wrong. Unfortunately, because of ignorance and prejudice, religion has given itself a bad name with the result that today it is synonymous with discrimination, division and intolerance. These have undermined its position in the debate about our origin. When the same group of people who show intolerance of people who are different from them, engage in Jihad and crusades , kill blasphemers and deny women their fundamental human rights; also argue for creationism: they weaken their position even though the evidence support their perspective more their opponents. the result is that When one mentions religion, atheist are more likely to think about the Taliban, sharia laws, persecutions of people who are different, the inquisitions, burning of witches at stakes, genocides committed in the name of God, the crusades, jihads and the many other things religion did at the time of ignorance. These are the reason why atheists tend to take a higher moral ground in its controversy with the religious.
The challenge is for religion to re-examine its orthodoxies with the view to reconciling its contradiction and improving its understanding with the knowledge God has given in science and other areas of study. Will religion make the change that will decide its relevance or will it succumb to faith without knowledge and allow the falsehood of evolution to triumph. The future will tell.