Christianity and Evolution: Differing Worldviews

by Robert Driskell · Print Print · Email Email

Your worldview is how you think about the world. The Christian worldview (or Biblical worldview) does not embrace the theory of evolution. In fact, Christianity and evolution have differing worldviews as discussed below.

Evolution is based more on faith than on fact

Christians believe that God created the universe, the world, you and me, and every other good thing that exists. Evolutionists disagree; they believe that God had nothing to do with it. How they think they know that remains a mystery. Many simply say that there is no evidence for the existence of God and consider the matter settled. However, is it really that there is no evidence for God; or is it that they interpret the evidence in a manner that does not allow for the possibility that God exists?

christianity and evolution differing worldviews

Evidence does not ‘speak for itself’

Evidence does not speak for itself; it must be interpreted. When scientists, secular or otherwise, discover something, they often do not immediately know what it is, where it came from, how old it is, etc. More research must be done in order to determine these particulars. Both secular scientists and creation scientist have the same evidence; the same physical, material universe of objects and functions, to observe. Nevertheless, the creation scientist allows for the possibility of God’s involvement in the universe. Creation scientists believe that God is the Source behind our origins, while the secular scientist attributes our existence to other, non-personal forces. The differing conclusions they each reach are the result of their respective presuppositions. The creation scientist allows for (often depends on) the reality of God’s existence to factor into his or her findings, while the secular naturalist will only allow answers that do not involve God or the supernatural.

However, naturalistic scientist do allow for the existence of the unseen, the immaterial, and/or the untestable in their research. Bodie Hodge writes, “Logic, truth, integrity, concepts, thought…are not material and have no mass; so those holding to naturalism as a worldview must reject logic, truth, and all immaterial concepts if they wish to be consistent since these are not material or physical parts of nature” [2]. However, we know that logic, truth, mathematics, etc. are necessary to perform the functions required in scientific research, hypothesizing, and testing.

Adaptation, not evolution

Often, secular scientists present Darwin’s scientific observation of the changes in beaks of Galapagos finches as proof for the evolution of one animal kind into another. The creation scientist readily admits that there indeed exist differences between Finch beaks; and therefore, he or she agrees with adaptation, or variation, within a species. However, to extrapolate that this observed variation translates into proof of evolution, or common descent, is an example of stretching an observed fact to the breaking point in order to support a preconceived theory. The micro-evolution that occurs with these Finch beaks does not prove the macro-evolution necessary to change one species into another species.

The difference between observational science and historical science

The origins of man cannot be scientifically tested or verified. None of us were there. The reason that evolution cannot be proven is (beside the biblical view that it didn’t happen) that true science is based on observation and testing. Our origins cannot be observed nor tested. How then can secular scientists claim that they ‘know’ evolution occurred? Much of the confusion stems from the differences, and limitations, between operational science and historical science.

Operational science is science where evidence can be observed and tested in the present. This type of science is characterized by experimentation that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. This involves the type of experiments that can be done in present time. Conversely, historical science concerns itself with the past. It is a philosophy; a theory about what might, or could have, happened in the past based on what we see in the present. Historical science is unobservable and unrepeatable. The theory of evolution is based on historical science.

No operational, observable proof of evolution

It is commonly accepted, by both creation scientists and evolutionary scientists, that science is based on the observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Therefore, by definition, the theory of evolution (whether chemical, biological, astronomical, or geological) is far from scientific. Consider the following:

  • No one has been able to observe or repeat the making of life from non-life (matter giving rise to life or chemical evolution).
  • No one has been able to observe or repeat the changing of a single-celled life-form like an amoeba into a cow or goat over billions of years (biological evolution).
  • No one has been able to observe or repeat the big bang (astronomical evolution).
  • No one has observed millions of years of time progressing in geological layers (geological evolution). [1]

In light of these facts, the theory of evolution should be considered to be a philosophy, not a ‘scientific’ theory? Granted, the belief that God created everything cannot be tested either; however, creation scientists readily acknowledge this fact. Nevertheless, the theory of evolution, which is based on unobserved, untestable ideas, is no more reasonable than the creationist’s belief in God. Evolutionists attribute our existence to blind unguided chance, while creation scientists attribute our existence to an all-powerful loving Creator. Neither belief can be proven with a test tube.

Secular science posits that the processes we see today at work in nature have always worked the same way at the same speed with the same results since the beginning of time. Of course, this is unprovable; therefore, it will always be a theory. Granted, it is the best theory that naturalistic science, the discipline of science that only allows for material answers to their questions (no supernatural, or anything else other than the material universe) can come up with.

This is not to say that secular scientists are not genuinely seeking answers; the problem is that, due to the fact that they refuse to recognize God’s rightful place as Creator and Sovereign, they are not in a position to recognize truth when they see it.

If you disallow God as answer for your questions, it is a given that you must attribute any answer to something other than Him. This philosophy leaves humanity without hope of an answer for what truly ails us.

More reading: How Do Christians Explain Evolution?

Resources:  [1] https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/is-science-secular/. [2] https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/is-science-secular/





Previous post:

Next post: