Search this blog

The Discovery Institute identifies five areas of science that pose serious problems for neo-Darwinianism:

1. Genetics

MutationMutations cause harm and do not build complexity.

Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by a blind, unguided process of natural selection that has no goals.  Such a random and undirected process tends to harm organisms and does not improve them or build complexity.  As National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis has said, “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.” Similarly, past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, contended that “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity'” because “[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”

2. Biochemistry

behe-cellUnguided and random processes cannot produce cellular complexity.

Our cells contain incredible complexity, like miniature factories using machine technology but dwarfing the complexity and efficiency of anything produced by humans. Cells use miniature circuits, motors, feedback loops, encoded language, and even error-checking machinery to decode and repair our DNA.  Darwinian evolution struggles to build this type of integrated complexity.  As biochemist Franklin Harold admits: “there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

 3. Paleontology

cambrianThe fossil record lacks intermediate fossils. 

The fossil record’s overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, and possible candidates for evolutionary transitions are the exception, not the rule.  This has been recognized by many paleontologists such as Ernst Mayr who explained in 2000 that “[n]ew species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.” Similarly, a zoology textbook observed that “Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group.”

4. Taxonomy

darwin_evolution_treeBiologists have failed to construct Darwin’s “Tree of Life.”

Biologists hoped that DNA evidence would reveal a grand tree of life where all organisms are clearly related. It hasn’t. Trees describing the alleged ancestral relationships between organisms based upon one gene or biological characteristic very commonly conflict with trees based upon a different gene or characteristic.  As the journal New Scientist put it, “different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories.” The eminent microbiologist Carl Woese explained that such “[p]hylogenetic” conflicts “can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, form its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.” This implies a breakdown in common descent, the hypothesis that all organisms share a common ancestor.

5. Chemistry

primoThe chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery.

The mystery of the origin of life is unsolved and all existing theories of chemical evolution face major problems. Basic deficiencies in chemical evolution include a lack of explanation for how a primordial soup could arise on the early earth’s hostile environment, or how the information required for life could be generated by blind chemical reactions. As evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci has admitted, “we really don’t have a clue how life originated on Earth by natural means.”

For competent books making the case for design and showing scientific problems with neo-Darwinianism, see Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (2009) and Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (2013).

For an introduction, Kenneth Keathley and Mark Rooker’s 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution (2014) now looks like the best entryway into this debate as it relates to biblical authority and interpretation.

View Comments


47 thoughts on “5 Scientific Problems with Current Theories of Biological and Chemical Evolution”

  1. When I saw the title, I thought, “Only five?” There are certainly other areas, but these are perhaps the five biggies and account for much of the truly scientific work. I would note that while these points are completely ignored, the material propagated in their stead is not the primary selling point for evolution. That is to say that while people might claim that “geology proves evolution” or “genetics proves evolution” they came to their belief not based on the evidence they were told actually proves it. They came to the belief because they were told by someone who seems to them to know what they are talking about. The purveyor of Darwinism has all the right credentials, knows how to make detractors look stupid, and the individual hearing them hasn’t the education or the discernment to weigh the evidence accurately for themselves. If the person already has a bias against theistic explanations, that is only further reason for them to take up the cause of naturalistic Darwinian evolution.

    1. Cody Arrington says:

      Directly from my good friend who is a double major in biology and religion:

      Mutations arent harmful, random processes can produce complexity to a degree, we do have intermediate fossils, darwins tree of life is real, we know what chemicals can be used to create life.

      These are all outdated and well-refuted apologetic arguments.

      1. Justin Taylor says:

        Seems like that settles it Cody! :)

        1. Matthew Dodd says:

          ^ Gold!

      2. Welp! If an authority like your “good friend” is allowed to “settle” issues… At the risk of sounding like I’m boasting, I’m a medical student with scientific research experience including a paper though not (yet?) published and presentations, and in the past I have worked with a Nobel Prize nominee in molecular and cell biology at the University of California-Berkeley, which is also where I did my undergraduate work. I subsequently taught mathematics for Teach for America, and worked for IBM for a few years before med school. I also happen to be a (Reformed) Christian. I’d strongly disagree with your good friend. If it comes down to arguments from authority, then I don’t know whose authority trumps whose here! But I’m happy to not rely on arguments from authority. Or at least cite the arguments of both non-religious as well as religious experts who dissent from the current reigning neo-Darwinian paradigm.

  2. The biggest one is missing here (though it’s related to #2). The major point is, “It takes DNA to make DNA” (Frank Sherwin, ICR). So DNA cannot be developed by natural selection, since DNA cannot be developed or built over slow processes (or even by fairly quick ones!) as DNA is fully-developed and self-replicating. DNA cannot replicate itself unless ALL its constituent parts and processes are present and functioning. Therefore, evolution could not have happened before the DNA replication, since cell structures without the fully- developed DNA process cannot reproduce. Therefore, the organism must be CREATED by Someone else, with the DNA given and fully functioning all at once (as Genesis says, “after its kind”…). Evolution will not happen after the DNA replication because of what Calvin Beisner calls, “The Mutation Protection Paradox”.

    1. Dr. Niles Lehmen hypothesizes and shows evidence in various experiments that once we have polymerized RNA molecules (which have been shown to spontaneously appear) can become self-replicating ribozymes, as a proto-biochemical life.

  3. Caleb G. says:

    1 – False. While mutations are often harmful, they can also be neutral or beneficial. Bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics is one example of beneficial mutations. Quoting Lynn Margulis to undermine evolution is like quoting John Calvin to undermine Calvinism. Sure you can take a quote out of context, but seen in the context of all their writings, they are not saying what you think they are saying.
    2 – Misleading. See Ken Miller’s books and lectures to see examples of how natural selection can produce complicated and complex structures. And one can see God as behind these processes, so while many scientists who accept evolution would use the words unguided, others would not. Natural selection is not random. It selects for fitness, not at random.
    3 – False. There are many. See here: and here:
    4 – False. See here:
    5 – Red Herring. Evolution deals with development of organisms once we have self-replicating life. It does not say how this life originated. A mystery does not undermine other well-supported aspects of a theory. The theory of evolution will continue to develop as more data comes in and as more discoveries are made.

    1. 1. It’s true that some mutations carry some benefit to the population. But you missed the point that mutations don’t make new species. They don’t change the genome. A bacteria that had a beneficial mutation is still a bacteria. What most of these cases have is actually a bout of genetic diversity within their genome. Those that have genuine mutations with some benefit, like the one for sickle cell anemia, typically have an accompanying drawback.

      2. Ken Miller’s work is unobserved speculation.

      3. You have a point about there being a few examples of apparent intermediate forms. The problem I see for anyone who wants to speculate on intermediate forms is that no one can know for sure because we can only speculate based on morphology. We can’t evaluate the genome of the fossils. But if uniformitarian presuppositions are true, which we use to evaluate the containing strata, and Darwinian evolution is true, then we should observe far, far more apparently transitional forms than we do.

      4. What the site you linked to doesn’t do is answer the charge that stands, namely that the genomic evidence contradicts any straightforward tree. There are supposedly unrelated families that have identical genomes that their supposed ancestors didn’t have. The only way they could have the same genome is if they incredibly evolved it independently. That’s not likely given the level of complexity and the assumption that new genetic material could be randomly mutated in the first place. Actually, it’s debatable enough that many evolutionary biologists are speculating that the tree of life is actually more like a bush. They can’t account for some forms such that they have to think that there were multiple genomes.

      5. It’s apparently not a problem for theistic evolutionists, but non-theistic naturalists have a problem. It’s a big enough problem that some have speculated that the first DNA was planted here by extra-terrestrials. Apparently, they are so against any kind of theism that they would rather bring in ET as a more likely source.

      1. Gary says:

        #1 no evolutionist argues that mutations create new species, so I think Caleb is correct. Mutation creates the diversity and then selection pushes the species in different directions depending on the (usually environmental) selective pressure.

        #3 actually is an issue — look up the debate between classical (phyletic gradualism) evolution and punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium was developed as a model specifically to deal with the overall lack of transitional fossils. It is of note that both the proponents of phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium both believe in evolution, they just disagree on how it works.

        #4 isn’t really that much of a problem. Genes can be transferred not just vertically (e.g., parents to offspring), but also in some cases horizontally — from species to species. You have genes in you now that likely came from bacteria or viruses. It’s even more common with more simple organisms. So, no, a single tree will never describe all the different lineages of all your different genes, but there’s no reason to expect that it would.

        1. #1 The problem with that claim is that we are typically offered up instances of speciation as examples of mutation. You can see where it could sound like an argument for mutation. The other side of it is that speciation itself isn’t the issue. Nobody disputes speciation. What we don’t have is an observation of speciation resulting in a new genome, which is what evolutionists do teach. The question is where the new information comes from. Normal speciation is a limiting of the possible information in a genome, not an expanding of the genome into something else.

        2. Jon says:

          #1 So you are saying that selection selects from the various mutations AND mutations don’t create. Therefore nothing new gets created. How then do you explain new species?

          1. Constantin says:

            The theory of evolution demands that mutations lead to speciation but since it doesn’t, I repeat it does NOT reflect what is observed in the fossil records, nor in the observable sciences an increase in new functional DNA (and not merely the doubling, inverting or disrupting of an existing gene that leads to resistance or sensitivity) the logical out working is to conclude that the theory is bankrupt. A new paradigm needs to be considered that explains the evidence. The constants from the evolutionary theory cannot be borrowed into the new paradigm.

          2. Different species within the same genus have the same genome. Speciation occurs when a population encounters an environmental change that makes some genetic possibilities within that genome unable to compete for survival. Those possibilities either become rare within the population or are removed entirely. But since the genome remains the same, different species within a genus can reproduce and add whatever possibilities they have lost. Breeding animals is a kind of controlled speciation, but anyone who breeds dogs can tell you that purebreds often develop known problems because too many genetic possibilities have been removed. Many genes control parts of multiple characteristics and when one possibility is removed, it affects others, like the tradeoff between deafness in Dalmatians, for example. So there isn’t a big change from one genus into a different genome.

          3. Gary says:

            Re #1: I’m saying the evolutionary model needs both mutation and selective pressure to lead to speciation. And to be clear, you need DIFFERENT selective pressure pushing species in different directions for them to diverge.

            Actually, that’s not exactly 100% accurate — small populations that are genetically isolated will also diverge due to random sampling. This is why groups like the Amish are genetically distinct relative to other populations. In theory the same process could lead to speciation, regardless of selective pressure.

            1. That would be fine IF mutation were actually observed as necessarily contributing to speciation. Since it’s not…

              1. Gary says:

                I’m not following… under the evolutionary model mutations contribute to variability (genetic and phenotypic) and then selection acts on the different phenotypes, leading to a change in the genetic make-up of the population. If the mutation doesn’t affect phenotype there is no differential selection and no change in the genetics. Evolutionary theory doesn’t deny the existence of neutral mutations, it’s just primarily concerned with the non-neutral.

              2. I’m trying to reconcile these two comments you have made so I can understand where you are coming from:

                “no evolutionist argues that mutations create new species”
                “I’m saying the evolutionary model needs both mutation and selective pressure to lead to speciation.”

                But your comment to roscuro as well as what you just told me following “under the evolutionary model…” lets me know that you are judging criticisms of the evolutionary model by the evolutionary model.

                The problem I think is that we are making distinctions that you don’t recognize. I for one am making a distinction between genetic diversity built into each genotype and accidental changes that constitute errors in the normal reproduction of DNA, especially in genes. For the sake of observing this distinction, the latter constitutes mutation and the former does not. An example of a mutation is sickle cell anemia. An example of genetic diversity is the color of someone’s eyes. Neither one actually changes a genome.

                In fact, I don’t know of an example where a genome has ever been observed to change from one kind into another. That’s the point that I’m making. The only reason to speculate how it could happen is that you already assume that it happens and now you have to figure out how. That’s not how science is done.

              3. Gary says:

                What do you mean by “one kind to another”? I’m assuming speciation, where the two formerly similar, now divergent species can no longer mate with one another? Is that what you mean? If that’s what you mean, then sure. To my knowledge it’s not happened — #3 is probably related to that.

                Regarding diversity — from a genetic standpoint, once a mutation enters into the population it becomes part of the genetic diversity of the population — it doesn’t matter the source, could be migration, horizontal gene transfer, replication mistake, or whatever. It also doesn’t matter if it’s beneficial or detrimental — if there is genetic variation it is variation. And just because something is now considered natural doesn’t mean it always will be or always ways. Maybe the “blue hair” gene was selected against and has been removed from the population so we no longer consider blue hair natural. When a crazy dictator with a thing against gingers rises to power there will then be a selective pressure against genes that confer light skin and red hair. I recognize that conceptually that variation can come from different sources and there are times when that distinction is useful. But, in terms of describing evolution it only makes sense if the environment is static (e.g., negative/purifying selection).

        3. Karl Carleson says:

          #1 – Bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics is actually the bacteria losing genetic traits that those antibiotics attack. The resulting “new” bacteria is the same as the old bacteria, except with a trait missing. This leads to a loss of information in the genetic information of the bacteria. The genetic information in the original bacteria is a superset of the genetic information in the new bacteria.
          The resulting bacteria is actually less complex than the original bacteria. This is actually supports the author’s point that genetic mutation never increases the complexity of the organism.

          1. Gary says:

            that’s incorrect. The mutation increases information. The selective pressure removes it in most cases.

            1. Constantin says:

              There is not one, not one example of increased information due to mutations. Plasmids moving genes from one bacterium to another is using existing information and if it is inserted into the genome at the site of a functional gene it has turned off a gene. Given bacteria replicates extremely fast, if mutations increase the genetic information to create say a cilium or flagellum on a bacterial cell that does not have existing cilium on its membrane nor in its genome, we should be able to do that in real time. Hiding behind billions of replication cycles does nothing to the increase of information. One still has to account for why there is a genome in the first place because they don’t arise in a cell spontaneously. It is by design that the first cell must contain all components and the nucleus if it is to replicate.

              1. Gary says:

                “There is not one, not one example of increased information due to mutations.” This statement is just false. If a mutation influences a trait at all then it is adding information. I largely agree the rest of your statement (aside, potentially, from the “real time” comment). But, the rest of the statement is really about origin, not information.

    2. Geoff says:

      4) when they try to build trees based on different molecules they conflict. Your website provides no refutation.

  4. Bill says:

    The contention that mutations only harm and never improve organisms seems inaccurate to me. In the agricultural world we are dealing with intestinal parasites in farm that are resistant to anti-biotics because (as I understand it) they have mutated to adapt to that threat. The same situation is occuring with weeds that are now herbicide-resistant. It seems that these are mutations that have been beneficial to the organisms and suggest that natural selection is at work. Those that can’t survive the threat die out, making it easier for those that can to reproduce. Just a thought, for what it’s worth.

    1. Gary says:

      It is inaccurate. The current theory is that most mutations will have a very slightly negative effect on fitness (nearly neutral); the rest will typically be slightly positive, slightly negative, or outright fatal. Basically, once a system is in place, it’s easier to mess it up than it is to make it better, hence the presence of fatal mutations, but only somewhat beneficial mutations in the other direction.

  5. Sam Hendrickson says:

    When using terms of “Intelligent Design” see the titles referenced at end of article, does this always refer to “Intelligent Design” as a system, or to the overall idea?

  6. Constantin says:

    I see that the point I was going to make has already been addressed namely what about DNA/RNA but the rebuttal misses the point completely. It assumes that DNA is present and mutations evolved the initial cell.

    If you were by sheer chance able to produce the first cell with all its correct organelles, membranes and proportions it would unfortunately not have the genetic information for it to reproduce. DNA/RNA and its team of processes do not arise from the cell organically, it is an entirely separate system that not only needs to arise but needs to arise to produce the contents of the cell, run the cell and reproduce the cell, and if need be kill the cell such as in apoptosis.

    It’s the old which came first the cell or the genome. Chicken or the egg

    This to me is so powerful of proof that cells were created that nothing comes close to it.

    In simpler terms, you need the instructions to make the cell and its contents but at the very same time the cell and its contents can only exist if there is a preexisting instructional code.

    Assuming a primordial nucleus existed in the first cell based on existing

  7. Constantin says:

    Last paragraph was cut off

    Assuming a primordial nucleus existed in the first cell based on existing cells today is circular reasoning. It doesn’t explain the origin of the genome in its engineering and insertion into an assumed existing functional cell that occurred organically or rather by chance.

    1. Stephen Houghton says:

      So by necessity the chicken came 1st.
      To make a single protein requires a highly complex machine (ribosome) made of the proteins it is making. Hmm. Then consider the number of ribosme that have to be simultaneously present in a fully functional cell to build and maintain the myriad of activities within that cell. Do we have a mathematician in the house?

      1. Constantin says:

        I agree, in fact I’ve heard it said that each individual cell has so many processes within it that it was likened to the number of processes in New York City. Let’s just consider the taxi drivers… Mind boggling

  8. Mark Stevens says:

    Why is a discussion about this on a site that is suposed to be dedicated to promoting the gospel. I supose the assumption is that one could not be a bible believing Chirstian AND believe in theories like evolution. This then leaves us in a state where Christians need to attack ‘Science’ as they see it as a direct contridiction of biblical history and the character of God.

    1. Constantin says:

      The Bible and Science are not in contradiction. The Bible may not be a book on science but where it touches upon science it is absolutely true. And since the Bible addresses science this discussion is relevant to the gospel.

  9. Erica says:

    I’d encourage people to visit to see a rebuttal of these kind of “problems”. Christianity and science are not enemies. We only harm the Gospel when we attempt to make them that false dichotomy.

  10. roscuro says:

    In reference to the claims that mutations can be beneficial, using the typical examples of sickle cell anemia and anti-biotic resistance, two points:
    1. The sickle cell anemia giving resistance to malaria is bordering on an urban myth. I spent over a year testing and treating patients in an area endemic to malaria (falciparum). I also encountered several sickle cell patients and I learned from my more experienced team members that sickle cell patients must be given regular malaria prophylaxis, since if they contract the malaria, it will probably be fatal. Having grown up hearing the sickle cell provides resistance to malaria, I was surprised. So I looked it up and discovered there are about several different types of sickle cell disease or trait (I’m typing from memory) and only one of those types may provide partial resistance to malaria. So it is very doubtful that the mutation is beneficial – to say nothing of the painful and debilitating symptoms of a sickle cell crisis.

    2. In my student days, I wrote a research paper on MRSA, one of the most feared of the antibiotic resistant infections. I discovered, reading microbiological textbooks, that the majority of resistance is derived not from mutation, but from the ability of bacteria to drop and pick up DNA, even between species. For example, the genes that provide resistance to antibiotics in the Streptomycin family originated in the soil bacteria from which Streptomycin was originally derived. Overuse of antibiotics does not cause mutations to occur, but rather kills off the vulnerable bacteria and allows the bacteria which has picked up resistance to flourish.

    1. Gary says:

      I think your definition of “mutation” is a bit too narrow. Selection acts on any genetic variation that influences phenotype. This could be a rare or novel mutation that drastically alters function (e.g., the sickle cell mutations) or more subtle changes that slightly influence more quantitative traits like height, intelligence, cardiovascular health, etc. The “big” mutations (e.g., sickle cell) tend to be very bad. The smaller mutations also tend to be bad, but there’s also a higher rate of beneficial mutations among the “smaller” mutations. “Big” beneficial mutations are thought to be very rare — only thing I can think of for humans is the lactase gene that allows adults to properly digest milk. This theory is called the geometric model of mutation:'s_geometric_model

      1. roscuro says:

        Actually, I was not attempting to define a mutation at all; just pointing out that the two classic examples of beneficial mutations which I always see brought up in such discussions are not accurately portrayed.

  11. Haze says:

    Number 1 looks dodgy to me. Even if only one out of every ten billion mutations or something was positive, I think this would still be enough for organisms to become better suited to their environments – remember we are talking about vast timescales here.

    I don’t know enough about the others to comment.

  12. Daniel Smith says:

    I disappointed that TGC, an organization I would consider thoughtful and rational, would spread such poor science. These arguments, which are easily refuted by real science represent serious lapses in understanding of modern research. I surprised TGC would publish the work the Discovery Institute because of their harshly ingrained scientific and political biases. I can’t even begin to go though the many scientific and logical fallacies these arguments include. Much of the “science” behind these arguments is driven by incredibly biased research and thought of the Discovery Institute and AIG. TGC, in my opinion has done a very good job in the past of staying level headed and effectively countered some of the more liberal theological arguments regarding the Bible. Many of the kinds of thinking you critique in those articles is present in these scientific arguments. If you want to study the effects on arguments of confirmation and institutional biases, study these arguments made by the discovery institute. I would offer specific rebuttals to these points but some other commentators have already started and few things are ever decided on a message board so I don’t think it’s worth it to even bother. I still think the best place to start in Francis Collins’ book The Language of God. Its a smart man dealing with the ways his faith and collide then intertwine. It’s really the gold standard here. The Biologos Institute also does great work. And I’ll leave you with this, the reason The Discovery Institute does not garner any academic respect is not because there is some giant conspiracy against them bc of their religion, it’s simply because they are wrong and peddle ideas that don’t have credible scientific backing. No reason more complicated than that.

    1. Constantin says:

      You sound like an arts student im guessing political science, which isn’t a science, nope not even remotely. Good try

  13. I have significant problems with these reductionist (and probably more accurately, myopic) views of science, but I will post only one reference for #5. is the lab of Dr. Niles Lehman who hypothesizes self-replicating RNA molecules (ribozymes) as early biochemical life. Every other one of these science “problems” are only problems if you satisfy yourself with superficial answers that acquiesce to superficial interpretations of scripture. God is powerful and big enough to work through evolution and biological or chemical processes to accomplish his will. We don’t need to bend ourselves like kindergartners with our understanding with unnecessarily literal interpretations of clearly poetic accounts of God’s creation. God’s creation is beautiful and powerful and beyond our understanding, but that doesn’t mean we HAD to appear like magic. Couldn’t life appear through his will, carving through epochs and epochs of time to refine life over billions of years into eventually us humans? Isn’t that just as glorifying and honoring to God (and scripture) of an account? You may no, but only because you falsely believe Genesis 1 and 2 must be interpreted in your own biased way. Genesis 1 and 2 are genuinely different literary styles then the rest of the bible. I just think there is room for GOOD science and Jesus as King; not just wackabilly cherry picking of arbitrary gaps in science’s complete understanding of the universe and the origin of life versus a narrow view of the beginning section of Genesis’ poetry.

    1. Constantin says:

      The hypothesis proposed is very fascinating, my only problem is that it involves so much intelligent input and corrections that it is no longer an organic system. Frankly I would be more interested in the research paper to study the processes used in conducting this experiment.

      As for your rant about G d being so big he should have a problem using minuscule man’s intelligence theory of evolution to create is conflicting. What’s greater creating in six days or in 35 billion years? Furthermore those first two chapters you easily discard are intricately connected to other parts of Scripture, so when you get rid of those you get rid of a massive portion of Scripture too. Which really leaves you with discarding the whole of Scripture. Thank you for sharing and appropriating your wacky cherry picking and “homogenization” of bad Science with G d’s word. I’ll say it again, the Bible is not primarily a book on science but when it touches upon science it is absolutely true. This in my humble opinion means that when we discount Scripture as our guide we can’t make the natural progressions in science and medicine because we are too busy trying to fit the evidence into evolutionary templates rather than template the science after the Bible.

      1. Gary says:

        The biggest problem to me is that if you throw out Gen 1 & 2 you almost by necessity have to throw out Gen 3. If you throw out Gen 3 you have to throw out Romans 5. If you throw out Romans 5 you might as well toss the whole Book.

      2. Spenser Smith says:

        I don’t discard Genesis 1 and 2 at all. I believe they are incredibly important and vital to our understanding of the universe and the rest of scripture. I think God is more nuanced and intricate in the way he created the universe than the miracle of speaking it and it was so (though he is more than capable of that, he is omnipotent), like how he created music or the taste of food. The body of understanding of science is not at odds with scripture or God, because all science does is merely reveal more and more about God’s nature and the way he created the universe. When we discovered the astronomy and the movement of heavenly bodies, we adjusted our naive (and frankly Aristotelian) understanding of the position of the sun, moon, stars, and the earth even though some thought the Bible forbade this understanding under their interpretations. A Ken Hammian understanding of Genesis 1 and 2, and therefore the dismissal of evolution as a process, product, and fact of the universe, is not Biblical nor honoring to God, because, firstly, the Bible does not forbid a robust theory of evolution for the origin of life or man, and secondly, we fail to taste the fine aspects of creation that God has given us, like someone who refuses to taste sushi because they think raw fish is gross. They can’t understand the possibility that there are more complex flavors and realities than their bland mid-western diet would allow(in this metaphor, basal and limiting interpretations of scripture is the mid-westerner’s taste, just to be clear). There is beauty in how God designed the universe, especially in the process of evolution on the earth over billions of years. How beautiful is that? How incompatible is evolution with atheism, not theism or Christianity, I say. Do we bury our heads in the sand and insist that the sun rotates around the earth, or do we open our eyes and glory at the fingers that placed the stars in the sky, the God who created the universe to be intelligible and understandable to some extent through science.

  14. Never mind the complete inability to even begin to explain the immaterial data stored in the DNA. It is just one giant herd of elephants evolutionists just want ignored.

  15. hahahaha says:

    So a book that was written from memory, passed down from generation to generation, and rewritten by hand countless times, with multiple versions is more believable?

    Darwin isnt perfect, origination of life will never be 100% discovered.

    Why is it so hard to believe that life came from basic chemistry, law of attraction accompanied with lowering potential energy, along with basic kinetics, and the 0.00000000000001%’odds of having the right conditions. No one says that chance of lifes origination was a high one.

    Science without religion is boring, Religion without science is foolish.

    Believe in a god, dont believe in what flawful men can right. The greatest thing I hate, and I hate with a passion, is a hyprocritical religious person.

    1. Constantin says:

      Ignorance must be bliss. Clearly you know nothing of Scripture and throwing mud on “religious” people does add credibility to your ignorant comment.

Comments are closed.

Search this blog


Justin Taylor photo

Justin Taylor, PhD

Justin Taylor is executive vice president of book publishing and book publisher for Crossway and blogs at Between Two Worlds. You can follow him on Twitter.

Justin Taylor's Books