When a bird alights on your windowsill, you may get the strange feeling of being confronted with the product of millions of years of evolution. Or you may have the assurance of knowing that this bird, too, is part of the great creation which God called into being through the power of His Word, and through which He still sustains the universe and all that it contains. One way in which we can see the sustaining power of God is in the structural laws by which He operates the universe.
Amid all the changes in nature there is a constancy, a uniformity observable which man in many cases can express in a scientific law. Such a scientific law is only a partial explanation of particular, observed phenomena, which are manifestations of the structural laws, holding for that segment of created reality. In many cases such a stated law may also help to predict what will happen under similar circumstances in the future.
For example, because of the law of gravity we can predict that an object will fall until it hits the floor. Incidentally, the use of the term scientific law is preferred here, to prevent confusion with the pagan concept of natural law, which refers to something innate in the structure of the cosmos, making it work autonomously, and which denies that God constantly upholds the world and all of life.
Challenge for Christian Scientists
The gathering of knowledge and the building up of a body of explanations, ti1eories, laws, and so forth, is an activity in which Christians may, and must, engage, in obedience to the mandate to subdue the earth. In studying the created world-structure, man is limited to this structure and to the structural laws by which it operates, whether this be in physics or in biology. The fact that man has sinned, and that therefore both man and the rest of creation are under the curse of God, is a further limitation, so that man is not able to see the created world-structure and its laws clearly.
In an attempt to clarify the overall picture, which surely in our age is becoming extremely complex, we make use of theories by means of which to explain certain groups of phenomena more clearly and more coherently, and in a more unified manner. An outstanding example from the field of biology is the “cell theory,” which explains a multitude of observations and phenomena related to the organizational structure of nearly all living organisms, and which at the same time serves as a working model for much of the biological research presently being conducted. Another theory in biology is that of “homology,” which deals with the structural and developmental similarities of different species, and which to a large extent is shaping the development and direction in modern comparative anatomy and in taxonomy. These theories are based on a body of knowledge dealing with phenomena which are closely related, and usually are restricted, at least to a large extent, to the “objective” data.
Man, however, is not content to have a conglomerate of small fragments, but wants to put the many small parts into a larger, and more meaningful, picture. For this he needs a unifying concept which will lend perspective both to his work and to the subject of his study.
Antithetic Concepts
In biology there are at least two major unifying concepts: 1) the theory of organic evolution by chance from ameba to man; and 2) the theory of a basic plan by a common Designer. These theories are not of the same nature as the cell theory, which grew out of factual data discovered in the laboratory, but are different in this respect, that they are attempts to interpret the observable data in the light of a framework of reference.
Whereas the theory of organic evolution is an integral part of a world-and-life view called evolutionism (which is a religiously based confession about the world of reality and its meaning, rather than the result of scientific investigation), the theory of a basic plan by a common Designer is an indispensable part of the Christian confession that Jehovah God is the Creator and Sustainer of all that is.
Each of these theories is a pillar on which its respective world-and-life view rests, and has its own peculiar value for that view. That these two world-and-life views are antithetically opposed to and mutually exclusive of each other will be evident from the premises upon which each rests. In its attempt to account for the observed phenomena, evolutionism would see matter as being eternal and by chance evolving from inorganic to organic, from ameba to man, over a period of billions of years, and without the direction or interference of God. Christianity, on the other hand, starts with the confession that there is one God, Who has revealed in the Scriptures that only He is eternal and that He created the universe, including all life on earth.
Since only God is eternal, we know that matter is not eternal. God called matter into being, not from any preexisting source, but simply by the power of His Word. Similarly, we know that God called into being the heavenly bodies, the plants, the animals, and man. The question whether God used existing material to create the living organisms cannot be answered, in principle, since it is not revealed to us in Scripture, and it is impossible to resolve by scientific investigation. The “how” of their creation in specifics cannot be subjected to analysis and therefore lies forever beyond laboratory research or theoretic scrutiny.
The command “Let the earth bring forth” should not be construed to mean that the soil is the source of life, but is to be understood in the same sense that a cornfield “brings forth” a crop of corn. The only exception given us in Scripture concerns the creation of man, in which God does indicate specifically the use of “dust” in the formation of Adam and the use of Adam’s rib in creating Eve. Parenthetically, the theistic evolutionistic position that “dust” could mean organic dust, i.e., a monkey or some other primate, becomes quite untenable in the light of Genesis 3:19, where God tells Adam that he will return to the ground out of which he was taken.
All creatures were created “after their kind,” and made according to a basic plan, which is evident in a number of similarities and variations based on the structural laws which hold for the proper functioning of each creature and of each part of creation. Certain laws will make an individual organism to develop, for example, into a polar bear; but each law which is operative in its embryonic process may be found operative in a similar way in the development of different organisms.
World-and-life View Is Critical
Because these two world-and-life views are diametrically opposed to each other, evolutionism and Christian thinking cannot be mixed. Any attempt to synthesize the two must result in a number of conflicts within the Christian community, as is presently very evidently the case with “theistic evolutionism” (which is a theory, or position, not based on Scripture and general revelation, but on Scripture and the apostate interpretation of general revelation).
Whereas the Christian position is held in a positive response to God’s Revelation and in obedience to Him, evolutionism is a form of humanism which rejects God, makes man autonomous, and claims that he not only can control his own fate, but that he can also discover from his present-day studies the ultimate origin of the universe, life, and man. These views are direct consequences of the answers to the most basic question, “Is there a God?” The Christian accepts in faith the basic answers to the questions of mankind, whereas the evolutionist must, after rejecting God, seek the answer in man’s reason. Each of these two world-and-life views has a number of corollaries, of which the above-mentioned theories of organic evolution and of common design are clear examples.
The created world order which we all observe will remain a chaotic series of isolated facts unless it is seen in a larger framework. And it is only in the larger framework or perspective that the isolated facts become meaningful. Since our perspective is determined by our basic beliefs, i.e., by our world-and-life view, the theories which we can accept must be in agreement with both the observed phenomena and our basic commitments.
The theories presented in current publications, either textbooks or journal articles, are, however, not always in agreement with either the facts or with our basic commitments. The concept of homology is a good example of how the natural phenomena, i.e., of the similarity between certain organisms, are worked out in terms of basic presuppositions and are used for the building lip of new concepts. When we observe the bones in the wing of a bat, the front leg of a dog, the wing of a pigeon, and the arm of man, it becomes at once apparent that a number of striking structural similarities are present. Not only are these bones arranged in a similar pattern, but even the bones which are in corresponding positions show much likeness in contour and functional detail. Furthermore, when we study the development of these bones embryologically, they are seen to go through the same type of developmental stages and processes.
It is on the basis of this structural and developmental similarity that wings, arms, and front legs are said to be homologous. The modern evolutionist’s definition, however, besides recognizing these created similarities, also has come to force upon this concept of homology the a priori that there must be a genetic relationship between these organisms. The Christian, however, basing his work on both Scriptural revelation and the created structure, cannot accept this view, but recognizes that certain processes and designs are involved which make up part of the overall design of God for His creation. Although in both theories the similarity is recognized, the significance of the homology is not at all the same, but shows the inherently antithetical nature of the two basic views involved.
Evolution Needs No God
Many of the working models and theories used in biology are based solidly on the natural givens and are to a large extent in agreement with what is actually there. Tl1e concept of evolution, however, is not of this character. On the contrary, it arose out of the need to account for the orderly structure of the cosmos, starting with the limiting premise that “there is no God.” The evolutionist is thus forced to select certain of the natural phenomena and arrange them in accordance with that basic premise, so that he may obtain an at-least-partly-satisfactory answer.
The recognition that there can be, and is, another explanation, viz., the Christian position, is generally suppressed in modern literature where, by majority vote, it is relegated to unscientific status. The majority, however, is known not always to be right, and certainly not on the basis of numerical preponderance. The evolution concept can only be used by the creationist if he either changes the essence of the concept of evolution, as is often done by reducing it to the phenomena of change, development, and variability (an evasion of the real issue), or if he changes his basic commitments—unless he is willing to live with inconsistencies and contradictions. One cannot hold both that Jehovah God alone is eternal, and that matter is eternal; neither can one maintain the antinomy that God created life, and that life evolved spontaneously by chance.
Three Basic Terms
To get a clearer understanding of the true nature of the position of theistic evolution, it is necessary first to take a hard look at the following three related terms: evolutionism, organic evolution, and micro-evolution.
1. As stated above, evolutionism is a world-and-life-view. Encompassing every part and aspect of life, it attempts to explain the structural order in the world and to give meaning to life. It is committed to an explanation which leaves out God entirely, and views man as the natural product of eons of chance development, where “natural selection” led to the “survival of the fittest,” on the basis of physical and chemical processes only.
Evolutionism’s consequences are seen not only in biology, but also in areas such as psychology, religion, politics, war, education, and so forth, as is evident, for example, from German National Socialism, which strove to build a super race of humans, and where in the concentration camps only the fittest were to survive. Evolutionism is, therefore, a way of life, a commitment to a perspective on what life and the world is all about.
2. The second term concerns the theory of organic evolution. This theory posits that matter is eternal and that by chance, without direction or interference of any divine Being, primitive organic matter evolved from inorganic substance, and thence, through atmospheric changes and activity produced a primordial soup that eventuated in the appearance of the simplest forms of life, such as possibly the viruses.
These simple forms of life gave rise to single-celled organisms, such as algae and protozoans, which eventually formed colonies in which differentiation and division of labor occurred, giving rise to simple multi-cellular organisms. These would have evolved, over millions of years, into increasingly complex organisms, ultimately arriving at the simplest vertebrate animals. The story then goes from the cartilaginous fish, to the bony fish, to the amphibians, to the reptiles, which differentiated into the birds on the one hand and the mammals on the other.
The mammals gave rise to the primates in due time, and one offshoot of an early primate stock Jed to primitive man, who in the last several million years has climbed to his present position, and who is now in the process of stepping into the next phase of his evolution.
This theory of organic evolution is a construct of the human mind, a result of theoretic activity, and is modified continually by the interpretation of obtained data, with the aim of correlating meaningfully the observed phenomena. Both the interpretation and the correlation of the “objective” data, however, are always determined by the commitment to evolutionism, of which this theory is, at the same time, an indispensable foundation.
3. The third term to be considered is micro-evolution, which differs from both the world-and-life view of evolutionism and the theory of organic evolution in this respect, that it deals with observable phenomena of change and variation. It must immediately be pointed out, however, that this term is a misnomer, because it causes an immediate mental association with the theory of organic evolution, and this association is unwarranted and misleading.
We are here, then, dealing with phenomena of change and variability, but only with those of a particular kind. Excluded are those changes which occur in ontogeny, i.e., the development of an individual from fertilization to birth, to adulthood and on into old age, as well as those variations which show up from parents to offspring because of a normal rearrangement of the hereditary material located in the parental chromosomes.
The changes we are concerned with in micro-evolution are those which occur in the genes themselves so that a mutation occurs and a change in enzyme production results. Although such mutations are usually deleterious or lethal, so that the offspring cannot survive, this drastic result does not always occur. It has been shown recently that many of the non-lethal mutations are neutral, i.e., they do not confer any favorable new trait upon the organism. It is only in the exceptional instance, then, that mutations are beneficial, and therefore they can never outweigh the effect of the deleterious ones.
One of the classical examples of a series of mutations involves the domesticated rabbit. The fur of the wild rabbit has black and yellow segments (agouti). The production of color in the fur is dependent on genes regulating the development of pigments. In the past, however, a mutation changed one of these genes so that the yellow pigment can no longer be produced and, therefore, the fur of this rabbit now has black and white segments (“chinchilla”). Thus, two varieties of rabbits are seen: the wild (agouti) and the mutation “chinchilla.” At other times similar mutations occurred, resulting in “himalayan” rabbits, in which the color is restricted to the ears and the feet, and in “albino” rabbits, in which all pigments are lacking and which, therefore, have white fur and pink eyes. These mutations thus gave rise to different varieties or breeds of rabbits.
Now it is contended by the evolutionist that, given enough time, enough small changes of this nature may have occurred because of mutations, so that eventually new species developed, and that thus man’s descent from the protozoans could he accounted for. It is known, however, that mutations always modify or eliminate already existing features of an organism, as for example in rabbit fur color, but that they do not create new structures. Furthermore, if enough mutations occur in a given organism, the limit of viability is reached beyond which the organism cannot survive any further mutations. This is sufficient evidence to show that mutations could not possibly explain evolution from one type of animal to another.
To make it still more unlikely that mutations could account for evolution, the genes, which regulate the expression of characters, do not start to have effect in the embryogony (early development) of an organism until after the cortical factors have determined what type of organism is to develop from a particular fertilized egg—that is, for example, a rabbit, or a raccoon.
It is thus evident that, whatever changes may occur in a species because of mutation, it will always remain that same species, and not become a new one, even though the external features may be altered. Thus, what we observe on a small scale (at the molecular level) is not an indication of what could have happened on a large scale in billions of years.
In summary, we can say, then, that micro-evolution is a misnomer for the observable phenomenon of mutations, which are limited to modifications of existing characters, and thus cannot account for the postulated evolution from one kind to another.
Theistic Evolution
Now we must answer the question of what the position of theistic evolutionism is, and how it fits in with the above terms. In essence theistic evolutionism is a compromise view which quite uncritically accepts the apostate, mechanistic interpretation of the facts, but is forced, by a prior commitment, to pull God back in through the backdoor by asserting that God did create all things, but that He must have used evolution to make things come about.
The question then arises whether this is not another form of deism in which God winds the clock initially and then sits back to let evolution do the work for Him. It surely does not resemble the Biblical position that God called into being all things by the power of His Word, that God spoke and it was. I suspect that one of the main reasons which leads men to the theistic evolutionistic position is the fear, which seems ubiquitous among educated Christians, of being caught in another “Galileo situation” and thus once more being branded as not up to date, with the subsequent loss of scientific respectability.
Ironically, the theistic evolutionist may eventually lead the church to the unenviable position where it has “acceptably” synthesized the theory of evolution with the Christian beliefs just at the time that the unbelieving scientists are discarding that same theory because scientifically it is found to be wanting. This is not entirely hypothetical, as is evident from the fact that, presently, outstanding scientists in the United States are becoming increasingly critical of many facets of the evolution theory, and in a number of instances are questioning its validity altogether. That for a Bible-believing Christian it should be unacceptable to limit God in his theorizing to so questionable a human construct as the evolution theory seems incontrovertibly evident.
Conclusion
What choice is there left, then, for the Christian to take as his position? There is no need for him to accept evolution as an actual phenomenon, either for the sake of continued ability to contribute meaningfully to modern research and development, or for the sake of preserving his scientific respectability. Our starting point must be the Creation-Fall-Redemption motive derived from the Scriptures.
We must confess Jehovah God as Creator and as the One Who upholds the universe from moment to moment; we must acknowledge that m:m is in a fallen state, through disobedience; and we must confess Christ as our Redeemer and as the One in Whom all things cohere. We must acknowledge, too, that Scripture alone can reveal to us the true meaning of what the world is all about, and that this perspective is foundational to everything we do in life, and will therefore also mold everything we do in biology.
If we, in the Christian community of scholars, stand firmly in our confession and work it out consistently in each academic sphere, we will not only stand united in the Lord in presenting a Christian biology, a Christian psychology, and so forth, but we will also be able to present a much more powerful confrontation to the apostate world, thus testifying in each academic field to the redemptive power of Christ. The Christian position is every bit as respectable as evolutionism, and it explains the natural phenomena equally well; and, above all, it is rooted in God’s infallible Word.
Aaldert Mennega is chairman of and associate professor in the department of biology at Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa.
Amid all the changes in nature there is a constancy, a uniformity observable which man in many cases can express in a scientific law. Such a scientific law is only a partial explanation of particular, observed phenomena, which are manifestations of the structural laws, holding for that segment of created reality. In many cases such a stated law may also help to predict what will happen under similar circumstances in the future.
For example, because of the law of gravity we can predict that an object will fall until it hits the floor. Incidentally, the use of the term scientific law is preferred here, to prevent confusion with the pagan concept of natural law, which refers to something innate in the structure of the cosmos, making it work autonomously, and which denies that God constantly upholds the world and all of life.
Challenge for Christian Scientists
The gathering of knowledge and the building up of a body of explanations, ti1eories, laws, and so forth, is an activity in which Christians may, and must, engage, in obedience to the mandate to subdue the earth. In studying the created world-structure, man is limited to this structure and to the structural laws by which it operates, whether this be in physics or in biology. The fact that man has sinned, and that therefore both man and the rest of creation are under the curse of God, is a further limitation, so that man is not able to see the created world-structure and its laws clearly.
In an attempt to clarify the overall picture, which surely in our age is becoming extremely complex, we make use of theories by means of which to explain certain groups of phenomena more clearly and more coherently, and in a more unified manner. An outstanding example from the field of biology is the “cell theory,” which explains a multitude of observations and phenomena related to the organizational structure of nearly all living organisms, and which at the same time serves as a working model for much of the biological research presently being conducted. Another theory in biology is that of “homology,” which deals with the structural and developmental similarities of different species, and which to a large extent is shaping the development and direction in modern comparative anatomy and in taxonomy. These theories are based on a body of knowledge dealing with phenomena which are closely related, and usually are restricted, at least to a large extent, to the “objective” data.
Man, however, is not content to have a conglomerate of small fragments, but wants to put the many small parts into a larger, and more meaningful, picture. For this he needs a unifying concept which will lend perspective both to his work and to the subject of his study.
Antithetic Concepts
In biology there are at least two major unifying concepts: 1) the theory of organic evolution by chance from ameba to man; and 2) the theory of a basic plan by a common Designer. These theories are not of the same nature as the cell theory, which grew out of factual data discovered in the laboratory, but are different in this respect, that they are attempts to interpret the observable data in the light of a framework of reference.
Whereas the theory of organic evolution is an integral part of a world-and-life view called evolutionism (which is a religiously based confession about the world of reality and its meaning, rather than the result of scientific investigation), the theory of a basic plan by a common Designer is an indispensable part of the Christian confession that Jehovah God is the Creator and Sustainer of all that is.
Each of these theories is a pillar on which its respective world-and-life view rests, and has its own peculiar value for that view. That these two world-and-life views are antithetically opposed to and mutually exclusive of each other will be evident from the premises upon which each rests. In its attempt to account for the observed phenomena, evolutionism would see matter as being eternal and by chance evolving from inorganic to organic, from ameba to man, over a period of billions of years, and without the direction or interference of God. Christianity, on the other hand, starts with the confession that there is one God, Who has revealed in the Scriptures that only He is eternal and that He created the universe, including all life on earth.
Since only God is eternal, we know that matter is not eternal. God called matter into being, not from any preexisting source, but simply by the power of His Word. Similarly, we know that God called into being the heavenly bodies, the plants, the animals, and man. The question whether God used existing material to create the living organisms cannot be answered, in principle, since it is not revealed to us in Scripture, and it is impossible to resolve by scientific investigation. The “how” of their creation in specifics cannot be subjected to analysis and therefore lies forever beyond laboratory research or theoretic scrutiny.
The command “Let the earth bring forth” should not be construed to mean that the soil is the source of life, but is to be understood in the same sense that a cornfield “brings forth” a crop of corn. The only exception given us in Scripture concerns the creation of man, in which God does indicate specifically the use of “dust” in the formation of Adam and the use of Adam’s rib in creating Eve. Parenthetically, the theistic evolutionistic position that “dust” could mean organic dust, i.e., a monkey or some other primate, becomes quite untenable in the light of Genesis 3:19, where God tells Adam that he will return to the ground out of which he was taken.
All creatures were created “after their kind,” and made according to a basic plan, which is evident in a number of similarities and variations based on the structural laws which hold for the proper functioning of each creature and of each part of creation. Certain laws will make an individual organism to develop, for example, into a polar bear; but each law which is operative in its embryonic process may be found operative in a similar way in the development of different organisms.
World-and-life View Is Critical
Because these two world-and-life views are diametrically opposed to each other, evolutionism and Christian thinking cannot be mixed. Any attempt to synthesize the two must result in a number of conflicts within the Christian community, as is presently very evidently the case with “theistic evolutionism” (which is a theory, or position, not based on Scripture and general revelation, but on Scripture and the apostate interpretation of general revelation).
Whereas the Christian position is held in a positive response to God’s Revelation and in obedience to Him, evolutionism is a form of humanism which rejects God, makes man autonomous, and claims that he not only can control his own fate, but that he can also discover from his present-day studies the ultimate origin of the universe, life, and man. These views are direct consequences of the answers to the most basic question, “Is there a God?” The Christian accepts in faith the basic answers to the questions of mankind, whereas the evolutionist must, after rejecting God, seek the answer in man’s reason. Each of these two world-and-life views has a number of corollaries, of which the above-mentioned theories of organic evolution and of common design are clear examples.
The created world order which we all observe will remain a chaotic series of isolated facts unless it is seen in a larger framework. And it is only in the larger framework or perspective that the isolated facts become meaningful. Since our perspective is determined by our basic beliefs, i.e., by our world-and-life view, the theories which we can accept must be in agreement with both the observed phenomena and our basic commitments.
The theories presented in current publications, either textbooks or journal articles, are, however, not always in agreement with either the facts or with our basic commitments. The concept of homology is a good example of how the natural phenomena, i.e., of the similarity between certain organisms, are worked out in terms of basic presuppositions and are used for the building lip of new concepts. When we observe the bones in the wing of a bat, the front leg of a dog, the wing of a pigeon, and the arm of man, it becomes at once apparent that a number of striking structural similarities are present. Not only are these bones arranged in a similar pattern, but even the bones which are in corresponding positions show much likeness in contour and functional detail. Furthermore, when we study the development of these bones embryologically, they are seen to go through the same type of developmental stages and processes.
It is on the basis of this structural and developmental similarity that wings, arms, and front legs are said to be homologous. The modern evolutionist’s definition, however, besides recognizing these created similarities, also has come to force upon this concept of homology the a priori that there must be a genetic relationship between these organisms. The Christian, however, basing his work on both Scriptural revelation and the created structure, cannot accept this view, but recognizes that certain processes and designs are involved which make up part of the overall design of God for His creation. Although in both theories the similarity is recognized, the significance of the homology is not at all the same, but shows the inherently antithetical nature of the two basic views involved.
Evolution Needs No God
Many of the working models and theories used in biology are based solidly on the natural givens and are to a large extent in agreement with what is actually there. Tl1e concept of evolution, however, is not of this character. On the contrary, it arose out of the need to account for the orderly structure of the cosmos, starting with the limiting premise that “there is no God.” The evolutionist is thus forced to select certain of the natural phenomena and arrange them in accordance with that basic premise, so that he may obtain an at-least-partly-satisfactory answer.
The recognition that there can be, and is, another explanation, viz., the Christian position, is generally suppressed in modern literature where, by majority vote, it is relegated to unscientific status. The majority, however, is known not always to be right, and certainly not on the basis of numerical preponderance. The evolution concept can only be used by the creationist if he either changes the essence of the concept of evolution, as is often done by reducing it to the phenomena of change, development, and variability (an evasion of the real issue), or if he changes his basic commitments—unless he is willing to live with inconsistencies and contradictions. One cannot hold both that Jehovah God alone is eternal, and that matter is eternal; neither can one maintain the antinomy that God created life, and that life evolved spontaneously by chance.
Three Basic Terms
To get a clearer understanding of the true nature of the position of theistic evolution, it is necessary first to take a hard look at the following three related terms: evolutionism, organic evolution, and micro-evolution.
1. As stated above, evolutionism is a world-and-life-view. Encompassing every part and aspect of life, it attempts to explain the structural order in the world and to give meaning to life. It is committed to an explanation which leaves out God entirely, and views man as the natural product of eons of chance development, where “natural selection” led to the “survival of the fittest,” on the basis of physical and chemical processes only.
Evolutionism’s consequences are seen not only in biology, but also in areas such as psychology, religion, politics, war, education, and so forth, as is evident, for example, from German National Socialism, which strove to build a super race of humans, and where in the concentration camps only the fittest were to survive. Evolutionism is, therefore, a way of life, a commitment to a perspective on what life and the world is all about.
2. The second term concerns the theory of organic evolution. This theory posits that matter is eternal and that by chance, without direction or interference of any divine Being, primitive organic matter evolved from inorganic substance, and thence, through atmospheric changes and activity produced a primordial soup that eventuated in the appearance of the simplest forms of life, such as possibly the viruses.
These simple forms of life gave rise to single-celled organisms, such as algae and protozoans, which eventually formed colonies in which differentiation and division of labor occurred, giving rise to simple multi-cellular organisms. These would have evolved, over millions of years, into increasingly complex organisms, ultimately arriving at the simplest vertebrate animals. The story then goes from the cartilaginous fish, to the bony fish, to the amphibians, to the reptiles, which differentiated into the birds on the one hand and the mammals on the other.
The mammals gave rise to the primates in due time, and one offshoot of an early primate stock Jed to primitive man, who in the last several million years has climbed to his present position, and who is now in the process of stepping into the next phase of his evolution.
This theory of organic evolution is a construct of the human mind, a result of theoretic activity, and is modified continually by the interpretation of obtained data, with the aim of correlating meaningfully the observed phenomena. Both the interpretation and the correlation of the “objective” data, however, are always determined by the commitment to evolutionism, of which this theory is, at the same time, an indispensable foundation.
3. The third term to be considered is micro-evolution, which differs from both the world-and-life view of evolutionism and the theory of organic evolution in this respect, that it deals with observable phenomena of change and variation. It must immediately be pointed out, however, that this term is a misnomer, because it causes an immediate mental association with the theory of organic evolution, and this association is unwarranted and misleading.
We are here, then, dealing with phenomena of change and variability, but only with those of a particular kind. Excluded are those changes which occur in ontogeny, i.e., the development of an individual from fertilization to birth, to adulthood and on into old age, as well as those variations which show up from parents to offspring because of a normal rearrangement of the hereditary material located in the parental chromosomes.
The changes we are concerned with in micro-evolution are those which occur in the genes themselves so that a mutation occurs and a change in enzyme production results. Although such mutations are usually deleterious or lethal, so that the offspring cannot survive, this drastic result does not always occur. It has been shown recently that many of the non-lethal mutations are neutral, i.e., they do not confer any favorable new trait upon the organism. It is only in the exceptional instance, then, that mutations are beneficial, and therefore they can never outweigh the effect of the deleterious ones.
One of the classical examples of a series of mutations involves the domesticated rabbit. The fur of the wild rabbit has black and yellow segments (agouti). The production of color in the fur is dependent on genes regulating the development of pigments. In the past, however, a mutation changed one of these genes so that the yellow pigment can no longer be produced and, therefore, the fur of this rabbit now has black and white segments (“chinchilla”). Thus, two varieties of rabbits are seen: the wild (agouti) and the mutation “chinchilla.” At other times similar mutations occurred, resulting in “himalayan” rabbits, in which the color is restricted to the ears and the feet, and in “albino” rabbits, in which all pigments are lacking and which, therefore, have white fur and pink eyes. These mutations thus gave rise to different varieties or breeds of rabbits.
Now it is contended by the evolutionist that, given enough time, enough small changes of this nature may have occurred because of mutations, so that eventually new species developed, and that thus man’s descent from the protozoans could he accounted for. It is known, however, that mutations always modify or eliminate already existing features of an organism, as for example in rabbit fur color, but that they do not create new structures. Furthermore, if enough mutations occur in a given organism, the limit of viability is reached beyond which the organism cannot survive any further mutations. This is sufficient evidence to show that mutations could not possibly explain evolution from one type of animal to another.
To make it still more unlikely that mutations could account for evolution, the genes, which regulate the expression of characters, do not start to have effect in the embryogony (early development) of an organism until after the cortical factors have determined what type of organism is to develop from a particular fertilized egg—that is, for example, a rabbit, or a raccoon.
It is thus evident that, whatever changes may occur in a species because of mutation, it will always remain that same species, and not become a new one, even though the external features may be altered. Thus, what we observe on a small scale (at the molecular level) is not an indication of what could have happened on a large scale in billions of years.
In summary, we can say, then, that micro-evolution is a misnomer for the observable phenomenon of mutations, which are limited to modifications of existing characters, and thus cannot account for the postulated evolution from one kind to another.
Theistic Evolution
Now we must answer the question of what the position of theistic evolutionism is, and how it fits in with the above terms. In essence theistic evolutionism is a compromise view which quite uncritically accepts the apostate, mechanistic interpretation of the facts, but is forced, by a prior commitment, to pull God back in through the backdoor by asserting that God did create all things, but that He must have used evolution to make things come about.
The question then arises whether this is not another form of deism in which God winds the clock initially and then sits back to let evolution do the work for Him. It surely does not resemble the Biblical position that God called into being all things by the power of His Word, that God spoke and it was. I suspect that one of the main reasons which leads men to the theistic evolutionistic position is the fear, which seems ubiquitous among educated Christians, of being caught in another “Galileo situation” and thus once more being branded as not up to date, with the subsequent loss of scientific respectability.
Ironically, the theistic evolutionist may eventually lead the church to the unenviable position where it has “acceptably” synthesized the theory of evolution with the Christian beliefs just at the time that the unbelieving scientists are discarding that same theory because scientifically it is found to be wanting. This is not entirely hypothetical, as is evident from the fact that, presently, outstanding scientists in the United States are becoming increasingly critical of many facets of the evolution theory, and in a number of instances are questioning its validity altogether. That for a Bible-believing Christian it should be unacceptable to limit God in his theorizing to so questionable a human construct as the evolution theory seems incontrovertibly evident.
Conclusion
What choice is there left, then, for the Christian to take as his position? There is no need for him to accept evolution as an actual phenomenon, either for the sake of continued ability to contribute meaningfully to modern research and development, or for the sake of preserving his scientific respectability. Our starting point must be the Creation-Fall-Redemption motive derived from the Scriptures.
We must confess Jehovah God as Creator and as the One Who upholds the universe from moment to moment; we must acknowledge that m:m is in a fallen state, through disobedience; and we must confess Christ as our Redeemer and as the One in Whom all things cohere. We must acknowledge, too, that Scripture alone can reveal to us the true meaning of what the world is all about, and that this perspective is foundational to everything we do in life, and will therefore also mold everything we do in biology.
If we, in the Christian community of scholars, stand firmly in our confession and work it out consistently in each academic sphere, we will not only stand united in the Lord in presenting a Christian biology, a Christian psychology, and so forth, but we will also be able to present a much more powerful confrontation to the apostate world, thus testifying in each academic field to the redemptive power of Christ. The Christian position is every bit as respectable as evolutionism, and it explains the natural phenomena equally well; and, above all, it is rooted in God’s infallible Word.
Aaldert Mennega is chairman of and associate professor in the department of biology at Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa.