Re: The Genesis Factor

David Campbell (
Mon, 31 May 1999 16:44:48 -0400

>As I have pointed out to others, the Bible - and, I suggest, our own
>experiences of life - make it abundantly clear that man's natural bent
>is to oppose God, and line up with the forces of darkness. I say this
>because it is particularly germane to our present discussion. What
>Genesis 1 describes is a sequence of miraculous events; by definition, a
>miracle defies scientific analysis, yet you and others appear to
>recognize no truth unless it is 'scientific truth'! Your version of the
>latter includes macroevolution - which, because no one has actually
>observed it to occur, and because it is based upon evidence that is
>equivocal, is clearly being accepted as an article of faith. So much for
>'scientific truth'! In preferring the conclusions of men to the
>Scriptures you are merely confirming our Creator's words through
>Jeremiah, 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately
>wicked...' (Jer.17:9). Christians have no excuse for neglecting to take
>account of these truths - which filter through into every aspect of our

How are you defining macroevolution? The evidence for common descent is
not equivocal. In a biological context, macroevolution is defined as
evolution that occurs at or above the species level that is different from
what occurs at the everyday level of individuals and populations. Some
believe that such ordinary evolution is adequate to explain the evolution
of all organisms from a common ancestor, and so do not believe in
macroevolution but believe in common descent. Macroevolution has also
gained popularity in young earth, intelligent design, etc. circles as a
term for "evolution I do not believe in", usually with a vaguely to
specifically defined taxonomic level at which it is claimed that things
were specially created. Creation of new species and genera has been
observed to happen, and there are transitional fossils between different
classes of organisms (possibly between phyla, depending on how narrowly or
broadly you define phyla) and molecular and anatomical features connecting
different phyla, kingdoms, and urkingdoms.

By definition, miracles defy scientific analysis. Although one could have
sampled the water before and the wine after the miracle at Cana to do more
sophisticated chemical analyses than tasting, it would not have shown how
the change was effected. However, the creation of organisms does not defy
scientific analysis. Scientific analysis yields lots of evidence as to the
processes involved. The revealed truth of Scripture does not seem to me to
be very explicit in Gen. 1 as to how God did these, specifically whether
miraculously or not. Thus, I see no reason to doubt whatever findings may
turn up through the study of creation. I do see reason to doubt some
explanations, such as "steady-state" models of cosmology that explicitly
deny a beginning. Christians do not have much excuse for neglecting to
take into account the truths of science or of Scripture. The latter is
vastly more important, but if they are making claims about the former, it
is necessary to find out what the claims of science really are, what the
evidence really is, and what explanations are compatible with the evidence.

> It is hardly
>reasonable, then, to accept an unproven notion - essential to atheists -
>which actively questions and clouds our understanding of God's

Evolutionary ideas are not essential to atheists. However, they do fit the
observations of biology and paleontology. Anti-evolutionary ideas are not
essential to the Bible, and they do not fit the observations of biology and

We should be actively questioning (not skepticism but testing) our
understanding of God's Word in order to detect and avoid or disperse the

David C.