Blogs

About Brooke Cooney

Brooke Cooney is a pastor's wife, mother of two, and foster-mom of one. To capture the eternal in the everyday, she blogs about family, faith, and lessons along the journey at ThisTemporaryHome.com.

Questioning Evolution

Brooke Cooney
RSS this blog Archives Contributors

Brooke Cooney is a pastor's wife, mother of two, and foster-mom of one. To capture the eternal in the everyday, she blogs about family, faith, and lessons along the journey at ThisTemporaryHome.com.

Complexity Speaks to a Creator

They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. (Romans 1:25)

You may or may not be familiar with the term, worldview. Your worldview is the lens through which you view life. Your worldview constitutes all that you believe about the origin of the cosmos and man, moral right and wrong, the purpose and end aim of life, and what happens to man after he dies.

I have studied worldviews for the past three years. There are debatable divisions of worldview, but I have come to believe that we can narrow these divisions down to two umbrella groupings: Christian and naturalism.

A Christian worldview postulates that the world is created by God to be ruled by man. Further, that man should live within the boundaries of God's laws and moral standards in order to bring God glory and live in freedom from sin. Finally, that man will die and face the judgment of God. Those who trusted in Jesus Christ as Lord will live eternally in Heaven and those who rejected Him will live in eternal separation from God in Hell.

Naturalism proposes that the earth and all life within happened by chance. It is a molecules-to-man mystery. In essence, everything evolved from simple amino acids that appeared out of nowhere and were created by no one. Further, that they became more complex organisms over time. Finally, after death man is no more. We live, we die and then we are gone—there is no eternity or none which we know of with any certainty.

Many scientists and Ph.D.’s with far greater knowledge of the workings of microbiology, zoology, biology, botany, and genetics than I possess, lean toward the naturalistic or evolutionary worldview. However, it seems that the naturalistic worldview goes against the observable laws that science holds to today. Even someone with an elementary grasp of science knows that something cannot be created from nothing and that the world tends toward chaos and away from order. Therefore, it seems that not only Christians profess belief requiring an amount of faith, but naturalists require a great deal of faith to explain the origin of life as well.

Naturalists and Christians/Creationists possess the same scientific and observational data; yet we interpret the data differently due to our worldview and presuppositions. However, modern science testifies that the complexity of observable life speaks to a Creator. Further, the microbiological workings of man, which can now be observed by modern technology, resound with the news: Chance and time cannot explain the specificity and complexity which abound within the workings of the cells of man.

So, without reading a scientific publication, or skipping over to Amazon to buy an expensive coffee table accessory, I invite you today to consider a few complex functions of everyday life that I propose point to a Creator rather than a natural notion to worship the created. Those who reject God in the name of science are really rejecting God in the name of worshiping the Universe which demands no account to a higher moral law. Naturalism is more palatable to sinful man.

No one is neutral. People know instinctively that if Christianity is true they will lose control and not be able to live any way they wish. (Timothy Keller via Twitter: @timkellernyc 3/3/2014)

Let's consider the implications of evolution on the following everyday tasks:

  • Language: If today's complex and diverse languages evolved over time--rather than were given to us by God at the Tower of Babel-- why did man not retain one language to the next as the languages evolved over time?  Why is language study necessary? Why is there no one language? Does this mean that we can distinguish one language as better as or more viable than the next?
  • Pollination: If evolution explains the vast creatures that we see today then how do we account for plant-life reproduction prior to the evolution of bees? Plants would not be able to reproduce without pollination and most animals require vegetation to survive--if not vegetation then meat from animals that are plant eaters. How does evolution account for this?
  • Reproduction: If evolution explains the origins of animals and man, then how would reproduction change from animals over time (e.g. animals that lay eggs as opposed to live-birthing mammals)? How can evolution support this change in kind in an observable manner? Where is the evidence to support such claims in the fossil record or within the animal kingdom we observe today?

Creation, as outlined in the book of Genesis (creation and a worldwide flood), explains the world we see today. The creation account provides the Who, where, when, why, and how to the questions of the origins of man, the created world, and the topography we observe post-flood. Likewise, creationism functions within the findings and observations of modern day science in a manner that does not require going against the laws of science. Conversely, naturalism is a worldview which does not offer an answer to who, where, why, how, and when man came to be. The claims of evolution and naturalism cannot be tested and verified but must be accepted on faith.

Those who worship God and hold a biblical worldview have the responsibility to question the claims—taunted as fact--of naturalists rampant in the academic and social circles of our day. Further, we must be ready with a logical defense to the questions of skeptics.

What questions do you have to ask of evolution? In what ways are you prepared to give an account for the worldview that you adhere to?

signature

Comments