“Life.” The word is so common — from cereal to expressions like “get a life,” from terms like “pro-life” to biology, the science of life. We talk a lot about various aspects of “life” as Christians. But we can sometimes forget that this last one — the science of life — is hugely important for a Lutheran’s view of self and of faith.
The origin of life is the most profound puzzle for any secular biologist. Perhaps the current Bio textbook still teaches that there are two main terms dealing with the origin of life. The first is “biogenesis,” which means that life comes only from pre-existing life. This fact is obvious to anyone. The second is “abiogenesis,” which is the idea that life came from non-life. In other words, it created itself.
Looking for a cause
Before we get any further, it should be noted that most biologists shun the idea that there was any kind of “guiding intelligence” that created life, much less God back in Genesis. This is mainly due to the fact that most secular biologists have materialism as their philosophy or worldview. To be fair, it is true that we no longer need Zeus to explain lightning — we know about the cumulonimbus clouds that make lightning occur.
But it is exactly that philosophy which paints them into a corner when it comes to the origin of life. If you are a teen, go to your Bio textbook (parents/grandparents: Ask to see your family member’s book!) and look up the cell diagram. Note the many parts. If you study the parts in detail, you will see that many texts will liken the cell to a factory or small city.
One part of this factory is my most favorite: the walking motor proteins. Please take the time to watch some videos on this wondrous work of God. These proteins are responsible, depending on the type, for several jobs. Some move organelles or vacuoles around the cell. Others move items like mRNA strands to the ribosomes, and then there are ones that pull the chromatids apart during anaphase of mitosis.
Now find the diagram showing how we “explain” how the first cell came to be. Usually, the first part shows random atoms, then an arrow. Next are molecules, another arrow, and finally macromolecules like proteins, lipids, etc. The next part will show a “blobular” circle with some nucleic acids inside, then the requisite arrow, followed by infoldings occurring. Another arrow, and the in next “cell” those infoldings have somehow becoming the endoplasmic reticulum and the nuclear membrane. After another arrow, two different types of bacteria are ingested (but miraculously not digested!) to end up as the mitochondria and chloroplasts in modern cells.
Pause to consider what you are looking at. Do these two diagrams actually show how these events occurred? No. This is why I called those arrows “magic arrows” when I taught abiogenesis. We are to assume that these parts just changed all by themselves into the next parts. Most evolutionists decry Biblical Creationists for using God to solve problems like this. But they have the god Nature doing the magic. What’s the difference?
Origin-of-life researchers are spending lots of money trying to make abiogenesis happen. While I am not against research into challenging questions, it is important to note that many of the experiments being done in this area are somewhat suspect. Getting into this is outside the scope of this article, but I would encourage you to look into this research, and Creationist responses, on your own.
When I taught this section to my students, I taught them evolution from a Creation apologetics format. In other words, I used my biblical worldview to shape the instruction of my students. Here I must stop the nay-sayers who say that I was not teaching evolution correctly or even teaching science at all.
I taught them there really are two types of evolution. There is “Evolution Right” and “Evolution Wrong.” Evolution Right is basically speciation and plants and animals reproducing after their kind, just like we see and as Genesis clearly teaches. Evolution Wrong is abiogenesis and mutations making pond scum into people.
Why does it matter?
It is here that I can leave the idea that you are the product of Evolution Wrong and instead move on to how important it is that you know, and never forget the fact, that you are a distinct creation of God’s hand. This fact greatly influences how you see yourself and those around you and, most importantly, will guard against you losing your faith in Jesus. Statistic researchers like the Barna Institute have warned that more than 50% of Christian teens give up their saving faith after graduating from public high schools and/or universities.
Why does this happen? Think about it. If your teacher/professor can convince you that Genesis is bogus and actually a Bronze Age myth, then why do you need Jesus? Sin’s origin is in Genesis. The idea that you are not just an animal is rooted in Genesis. So, if there is no such thing as sin, then the need of a Savior goes into the trash bin of archaic ideas. Besides, all Christianity really does is stop you from having fun, right?
Allow me to paint a picture of life’s and humanity’s origin as Genesis tells it. Were you to watch the DVD of the Creation days, you would see various items coming into existence after God speaks. You would never see an item’s process of being formed. So, on day three, you’d see the ground and trees! — fully grown with leaves or needles and reproductive organs present. There was no need for millions of years. When God speaks, nature listens!
You and I are different. Go read Genesis 2. Note that God does not say, “Let there be people.” He gets His fingernails dirty by making Adam from the ground. More importantly, He breathes into Adam the soul which makes us vastly different from the animal realm. Then He makes Eve from Adam’s rib. This has huge implications for how we view sex. God says that the two shall become one flesh (Gen. 2:24). Why? Because Eve came from Adam’s rib, and so the unity is recreated again. Not only is sex now viewed as sacred and part of God’s plan, but random sex before marriage is against what God had in mind. Besides, sex creates babies and every baby deserves a mom and a dad. It is time we see that with great gifts comes great responsibility. No other animal has that special restriction to its reproduction. Can you see now why believing Evolution Wrong will mess up one’s life in many ways?
Further, this flawed worldview distorts your view of yourself. If all you really are is mutated pond scum, then what value is there to your life? Read Ecclesiastes. Solomon clearly sees that outside of God, there is no purpose to one’s life. You live, you die, end of story. Who cares?
BUT! If you are a child of the King, things look a lot different. And get this: God is not just Father, but He is Abba, Father. See Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6. In English, we would translate “Abba” as something like “daddy.” God is not some distant entity who cares nothing for you. God is not some mystical force with whom we wish to achieve oneness. He is Daddy! This is not meant to diminish the honor or respect that He is fully due. Abba reveals an intimate relationship that is only found between a loving father and his child.
I now give you a homework assignment, much like I did as a teacher. Go to reliable Creationist websites and spend some time learning the truth about Evolution Wrong and why Genesis is truth. Learn the art of biblical apologetics. Practice with others dealing with skeptics and atheists. After all, if you play sports, isn’t scrimmaging a crucial part of practice? Why practice? So you can win? Well, not when it comes to discussing Jesus and Genesis with the unbeliever. It is so that you can effectively sow seeds (Matt. 13, Mark 4, Luke 6).
Perhaps you won’t be the first person that skeptic talks to. Maybe you will water what has been sown. Might you be the weeder of the garden? With the Spirit’s help and your preparation, more will come to knowledge of and saving faith in Jesus.
Cover image: “The Creation of Eve” by Heinrich Aldegrever, 1540.
I appreciate your urging readers to research the subject of evolution for themselves in this article and your reply to a comment.
Many scientific disciplines contribute to the current understanding of evolution: evolutionary biology, genetics, paleontology, molecular biology, embryology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, ecology and animal behavior, anthropology and archeology, geology and paleoclimatology for example. Each of these fields are highly specialized and require significant investments in time and education to fully understand. Scientists, whatever their religious leanings, often spend a lifetime studying and researching just one of these disciplines. Understanding the scientific terminology, let alone the specifics of each field, is beyond nearly all of us not trained in the sciences. Thus, researching the evidence for evolution proves to be a difficult task.
I’ve been looking at Creationist sites, as you suggested, and I’m wondering what the difference is between responsible Creationist sites and those which aren’t? Could you provide a list of the sites you recommend? In any event, in the mission statements of the sites I visited, each included statements affirming their organization’s firm commitment to the premise that the earth is young and was created in six days. For these organizations, Young Earth Creationism is the filter through which all evidence must be interpreted. You mentioned the bias of materialism through which “secular” scientists analyze data which renders their conclusions to be untrustworthy. If the scientific method is to be properly applied, shouldn’t science be allowed to lead wherever it leads, without insisting that all evidence fit one paradigm or the other? You mentioned not being opposed to research into difficult questions. Every discovery from creating fire to black holes and quantum mechanics was, of course, unknown at one time. At what point then should research into currently unknown subjects stop with the conclusion that they’re unanswerable and can only be attributed to God?
Speaking of “secular” scientists, I couldn’t find any data outside of Creationist sites supporting the idea that most “evolutionists” are atheists, if the term “evolutionist” describes anyone who accepts that evolution from common ancestry has occurred. It’s somewhat difficult to discern the beliefs of scientists as a lack of religious affiliation doesn’t exclude belief in a higher power or agnosticism but according to surveys by Pew Research, The Institute for Environmental Research and Education, Sage Journals and Live Science, just over half of all scientists believe in a God or a higher power with about 40% indicating that they lack belief in a deity, which again, doesn’t discount agnosticism. From what I could find, within religious groups, Catholicism, many Mainline Protestants, Sikhs, members of the Baha’i faith, many Hindus, depending on what branch they follow, most Buddhists and about 25% of Muslims all accept what is often referred to as “macro-evolution” within Creationist circles and that the Earth is ancient. Of course, individuals and smaller groups within may not agree with their denomination’s stand on the subject. Pew Research has a nice breakdown by country regarding the “nones” who have no religious affiliation but have a belief in some sort of higher power and a breakdown by country regarding acceptance levels of evolution at the bottom half of the article, “Biotechnology Research Viewed With Caution Globally, but Most Support Gene Editing for Babies to Treat Disease”. Wikipedia has some good information under “Level of Support for Evolution”. There’s also an article written by Joel W. Martin titled “Compatibility of Major U.S. Christian Denominations with Evolution” which speaks to the subject. To me, it appears that acceptance of evolution has little do with atheism and is more dependent on a person’s religious views. Of course, lacking a belief in God is not the same as denying that God exists, and most atheists seem to be agnostic on the issue. From what I could discover, most scientists and laymen believe that the theory of evolution provides the best model we have for explaining the diversity of life on Earth and does not preclude a belief in a God or higher power.
I visited two public High Schools and spoke with several of their biology instructors regarding the teaching of evolution. I realize I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know but they explained that High School science classes are intended to introduce students to the general principles of various disciplines, with a goal of providing general understanding and are not designed to dive too deeply into all the underlying and supporting evidence and methods. Those topics are examined in much more depth in collegiate and post-grad studies for those people specializing in fields which require a much more thorough degree of understanding. I did look at their textbooks and saw some diagrams similar to those you mentioned. They appeared to serve the purpose of the class in demonstrating the general principles involved without going deeply into the underlying methodology as the evidence supporting evolution is attributed involves so many disciplines and requires a great deal of specialized knowledge to which High School students would have little or no access. This was confirmed by the Concordia science dept. professors I spoke with next.
I know you recommended treating all non-YEC evidence with suspicion, but it seemed to me that to properly examine both sides of a subject, it’s helpful to have some resources to research, particularly for us non-scientists. Since I’m not yet certain what constitutes a responsible Creationist website, I’ll rely on you to provide that information and to recommend some books.
.
Here are a few good sites to visit: the Nature journal, Evolution 101 out of the University of CA in Berkely, Scientific American, the Woodrow Wilson Biology Institute, idmoz.org, the National Association of Biology Teachers, Evolution Sites, the Understanding Evolution site as well as the Talk Origins website.
A couple of good books for us laymen are: “Evolution Vs Creationism, An Introduction” by Eugenie Scott.as well as “How I Changed Ny Mind About Evolution: Evangelicals Reflect on Faith and Science” by J.B..Stump and Katherine Applegate. Kenneth Miller, a Catholic Biology Professor at Brown University recommends: “Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean B. Carroll, “The Devil at Dover” by Lauri Lebo, “Evolution” by Carl Zimmer, “Creationism’s Trojan Horse” by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross and “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins. You can read about why he recommends these five books at: Kenneth Miller recommends the webpage: Best Arguments Against Creationism by Kenneth Miller. A couple of others I found helpful are: “The Counter-Creationism Handbook” by Mark Isaak and “Scientists Confront Creationism, Intelligent Design and Beyond”, which is a series of essays compiled by Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey.
I’m wondering what you mean when you write that many of the experiments concerning abiogenesis are suspicious. Are you referring to the fact that many experiments don’t bring about the desired results? Most scientific experiments don’t, of course, but that’s a crucial element of the scientific method. Or do you mean something else? If the Earth is actually 4.5 billion years old, it’s not surprising that physical evidence for the beginning of life on Earth would be difficult, if not impossible, to find given tectonic movement and the formation and destruction of the Earth’s crust. As I understand it, Abiogenesis is life from non-life but not life magically forming from rocks but rather life forming from the organic compounds found in all life forms and recently found on an asteroid. As counter intuitive as this sounds, I lack the necessary education to analyze the claims of those insisting that evolution from common descent is as close to being a proven fact as science is able to determine. I would have about as much success evaluating the conclusions of Sub-Molecular Physicists at CERN on their theories regarding particle acceleration as I would correcting an Evolutionary Biologist on evolution, or frankly, a trained mechanic on how my car works.
The alternative to understanding, particularly to something as complex and specialized as evolution, is to stick with what we know and to fill in the blanks with assumptions, but that seems to me to present similar issues to those you mentioned regarding an ancient Earth. Is the sky a solid dome separating the waters above it from the waters below? Was man created on the sixth day as in Genesis one or before anything else had been created. as in Genesis 2? How should those passages be interpreted within a literal interpretation the Creation accounts? How do we interpret the account of God in Genesis 2:18-22, when he meets with failure after creating all the animals for the expressed purpose of finding a mate for Adam? How do we interpret the fact that Adam and Eve weren’t expelled from the Garden because they ate the fruit off the Tree of Knowledge but rather were cast out because God was afraid that if they ate from the Tree of Life, they would live forever, so is Paul correct in his interpretation that Adam and Eve were created to be immortal? Jumping about a bit, should we, like Luther, dismiss “that fool Copernicus” and insist that the Sun revolves around the Earth because that’s what we’re told in Joshua. How much science is required before we can alter our interpretations? If the Bible is God’s word, what exactly did Jesus mean he when said that it was Moses who allowed men to divorce their wives because of their stubbornness? It seems incongruous to think that the God who insists that holiness requires the Israelites to stone their daughters if they’re not virgins on their wedding night and who vows to kill them if they work on the Sabbath would be willing to compromise on a matter as important as the family unit simply because the people were stubborn.
I’ve often been told that God inspired the authors in the Bible but not mankind’s interpretations. With complete respect regarding the power of inductive reasoning, for my 2 cents, it seems dangerous to assume that a scientific framework with several centuries of research behind it, which no one has, thus far, been able to falsify, should be so vigorously dismissed primarily. if not solely, because it appears to run counter to previous interpretations of the Creation Account. Things are true or false on their own, not because of their relationship to anything else. Otherwise, we run the risk of making the belief itself the focus of worship rather than whatever the belief is meant to reveal. 6000 years and 4.5 billion years seems to me to be more than a difference in interpretation, but I look forward to your suggestions regarding evolution and evidence for a worldwide flood and a young Earth.
A question many children will inevitably ask is, “What about the dinosaurs?” They’re in there! (underneath the ground being dug up…the fossil record). God has given us our incredible minds. We can deploy logic, reasoning (sort of the same thing). We can use mathematics, think in terms of philosophy. We can examine world history. And archaeology. Etc, etc…
The complexity of even the simplest cells. Wow, absolutely! In fact, look up mainstream science sources outside Christianity. Google “bacteria”. Sources (secular science) will describe mind boggling complexity. The flagella, even, to scratch the surface (the tail, as you know of course). Sources go over much of that and concede “too complex for us to understand.” They admit they do not understand the intricate mechanisms. And they’re speaking of just the flagella!
God is a Being outside time. He created time as Titus 1:2 and 2 Timothy 1:9 say. The very first word in scripture ‘bereshit’ (in the beginning). The Gospel of John’s opening verses. It took science nearly 2,000 years to also come to the conclusion that time also had a beginning!
You are a very learned man, Mr. Gieschen. Good article! However,… do we really have to insist “the scriptures say our planet is ‘so and so years old’ (thousands of years old)? Is that assertion going to help a non-believer accept Christ’s saving grace and salvation? It’s a secondary issue (secondary doesn’t imply ‘not important’, it just means it is NOT a foundational tenet of our faith). Hence, it is not found in the Apostles Creed (or Nicene). The Hebrew word Yom (day) have several meanings. As of my post, is the ‘day of the Lord’ gonna happen tomorrow?
So, God is outside time. He created time (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him nothing was made that was made). Writings by the author of the Gospel of John, guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit. “Time” as we perceive it is not constrained with God. God made time when He created matter. ‘A day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day’ means our Creator does not ‘experience’ time like His creation does. We can’t even fathom ‘a million years ago’ or a billion years. Not with God! I love the book of Job when God questions him. Job gives up, “No, Lord, I cannot comprehend your awesome ways!” [paraphrase].
Now, I won’t go on much further. The bible was not written to us. Moses was not writing to us, he was writing to those living in 1400 BC (or appr. 1260 BC, a some purport). David’s psalms were written ‘to’ us. It was written ‘to’ those living in 1000 BC. Daniel ‘to’ the Babylonian exiles of the 6th century BC. The Gospels were written ‘to’ its 1st century AD audience. This is a key point and a valuable perspective when we are interpreting the scriptures. The bible was written “FOR” us! It transcends the past, present, and future. It is ‘for’ all generations. It is as much viable for us today and it was for all centuries prior.
So, could the Israelites living in 1400 BC understand the universe and our planet like we do today? (we still have tons to learn and can never fully understand creation in its totality). Did God perhaps create life’s DNA for the express purpose of ‘the earth (or land) brought forth (or produced) vegetation’ (Gen. 1:12) and ‘let the earth (or land…identical Hebrew word for both) produce living creatures’ (Gen. 1:24). <<Is this describing evolution? No, no one then would comprehend that thought! It was "to" them, and is it "for" us today. So, it that describing evolution? I don't know for sure, but it seems to be a hint. Does it "diminish God's awesome power in any way regardless?" No.
Do I believe our triune God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth? Of course! Do I understand how and when He created or even a full comprehension of the Trinity? Incarnation? No, none of us can ever fully grasp that. We accept it as the truth because it is clearly described to us in scripture. Our complete understanding is beyond our intellectual capacity and that's fine. All we need to fully understand is: (The Apostles Creed explains the necessities [foundations] of our faith as conveyed in the scriptures).
Of course dinosaurs were created on Day 6. And of course it was 6 literal days. The notion that yom can have several meanings is misleading. In Hebrew, when one uses a number or the words evening or morning, it was meant to be a 24 hour day.
Is that tangential to the the Gospel? Yes, and no. But that is like saying is the Small Catechism or the The entire book of Concord needed for one’s salvation? Of course not. Key example is the thief on the cross. But are they important? Most assuredly. So can one believe in an ancient earth and still be saved? Yep. But is causes difficulties with his testimony such as death and disease and extinction with God calling these things “good”.
As for who was so and so writing for? Be very careful here. I ask you to consider this: Are the writings Moses’ or David’s words or are they God’s Words? (Hint: Do you ever call the Bible “The Word of God”?) Not saying you are wrong, but just asking you to be careful.
As to understanding the HOW of creation events….I get it. But also be careful again in giving humans too much credit. You do realize that most evolutionists are atheists, so one is not to trust their interpretation of the data. Also know that there are very good evidences for a Young Earth as well as The Flood of Noah’s time.
God bless your further pursuit of His Truth as found in His Words to us, as you said, He is eternal and n eternal God will never write a book that goes out of date.
Your article assumes that people are either Christian creationists or atheist evolutionists. I am a Christian who accepts evolution. To me, either God made abiogenesis through natural means possible, or he created the first life through a miracle. Either way, it’s God’s doing. I don’t think people are “just pond scum” any more than a creationist thinks they are “just dirt.” I urge people to indeed “do their homework” and see what Christian scientists such as Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, or Joel Duff have to say about creationist “science.” You say there is very good evidence for a young earth. Why aren’t creationists getting this great evidence published in scientific journals? I have seen many in the LCMS respond to evidence of an old earth with “God created the earth to look old.” So evidence that supports creationism is valid, but evidence that contradicts it is waved away? Doesn’t seem very scientific to me! I also don’t think you are being fair to evolutionists by saying they can’t be trusted. I think both Christians and atheists can be intellectually honest or dishonest. You need to judge people as individuals and give their arguments a fair hearing.
With respect, I’m wondering who, other than Michael Behe, has ever said or written that the Flagella is too complex for us to understand. BioLogos, among many others, has written extensively about the purely natural evolution of the flagella and its tail.