“Evidence for Creation” (Review) - Chapter 1 “Evidence for What?”
As discussed, here is a reminder of my ground rules: “Evidence for Creation” (Review) - Ground Rules for the Review
Because I believe DeRosa’s opening paragraphs exclude discussion of any viable form of Theistic Evolution…
- I will weigh DeRosa’s anti-Evolution arguments as they pertain to Darwinian Evolution, separately from a (for lack of a better term) Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
- I will be weighing DeRosa’s pro-Creationist arguments as they pertain to Creationist theories in general, and specifically Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
- I am knowingly excluding all other specific Creationist and Evolutionary theories, though I realize there are other theories that are worthy of discussion.
“Why does the Same Evidence Lead to Opposite Conclusions?”
DeRosa’s premise is that Darwinian Evolutionists and Creationists come to different conclusions because they have different world views. He does not acknowledge the possibility that Darwinian Evolution is a conclusion of the evidence; he believes it is a premise. I sense some projection here, as Creationists most certainly interpret the evidence based on their world view (the Word of God), as they should. In my opinion, people accept Darwinian Evolution because they are looking for a world view, not because they have one.
DeRosa goes on to list the presuppositions of Creationists versus Evolutions. The list for each is as follows:
Creation
- Predetermined Order
- Outside Intelligence
- Time Not Important
- Catastrophic Events
Darwinian Evolution
- Chaos
- Internal Self Ordering
- Time Important
- Slow Gradual Change
In my opinion, these lists by themselves betray DeRosa’s own biases. Here is how the list would look for Geocreationist Theistic Evolution:
Geocreationism
- Predetermined Order
- Outside Intelligence + Internal Self Ordering
- Time Not Important
- Slow Gradual Change, alternating with Catastrophic Events
To be honest, I found DeRosa’s lists a little outrageous, as if Young Earth Creationists have cornered the market on a biblical world view. I agree that Darwinian Evolutionists, by excluding God, cannot call the resulting order predetermined. However, Theistic Evolutionists can. By the same token, Darwinian Evolutionists do not believe in an outside intelligence, but Theistic Evolutionists do. It is also true that time is necessary for Darwinian Evolution, but it is not important for Geocreationism. Think about it. If a God who could create the earth in a snap decides to take His time, then clearly time was not important to Him. Finally, listing Catastrophic Events under Creation and not Darwinian Evolution is either disingenuous or ignorant. After all, YECs do not actually believe in catastrophic events plural, but in one catastrophic event, the flood. Darwinian Evolution however acknowledges several catastrophic events, in particular a huge one 65 million years ago that killed off the majority of life at one time. I have never understood how a Creationist can say that evidence of a catastrophic event is evidence against evolution.
Worldviews at War
The main takeaway is that any acceptance of Evolution, in any form, is an acceptance of an atheistic worldview. I agree that is often true, but it is not universal. He states:
Churches accept evolution because it comes dressed in the garb of scientific authority but, in fact, it is a movement whose main thrust is to do away with God.
I have no dispute that Evolutionists by and large have a position that naturally relegates God to the sidelines. However, those people misunderstand what God did. DeRosa would agree, but comes to the wrong conclusion. The problem is not that Evolution is a worldview that excludes God however, but that those who exclude God are freed from archaic restraints that prevent someone from accepting Evolution. If God in fact used Evolution, then how will the two worldviews described by DeRosa react? One will accept God as actor but reject Evolution; the other will accept Evolution but reject God as actor. The real problem is that both worldviews are inadequate. Here is DeRosa’s summary of the two world views:
Creationist Worldview
- Based on God’s Word
- Creator/Outside Intelligence
- Absolutes
- Accountability to God
Creation
- Based on Man’s Word
- Unknown Internal Process
- Relativism
- Accountability to Man
Here is a my own world view:
Geocreationism
- Based on God’s Word
- Creator/Outside Intelligence
- Absolutes
- Accountability to God
Yet, I believe in Evolution. The way this works is that because of my worldview, I do not look for scientific proof of God’s existence. Instead, I assume God was intimately involved in the Creation, and believe that Evolution describes what God was intimately involved in. Because of my world view, I believe Evolution to be too fantastic to have worked without Him. Therefore, because Evolution is accountable to God, I can remain accountable to God.
I think the point that DeRosa misses about his own worldview is the concept of morality in creation. Man is moral. God is moral. Physical processes are amoral. So, if physical processes do indeed speak to morality, then either Evolution is immoral or God doesn’t exist. There are no other options, and they are accordingly the very options DeRosa has reduced the playing field to. I would therefore add a bullet to the list of worldview points reflecting ones perspective on the morality of physical processes.
Is Evolution a Scientific Fact?
DeRosa states:
Along with evolutionists, the creationist agrees on the importance of peer review and self correction by means of the scientific process detailed above. However, the two camps differ, because the creationist brings to his scientific endeavor a belief in the absolute truth of the Word of God.
This is not a true representation of a Theistic Evolutionist. As I see it, there are two kinds of scientists: those who see a worldview reflected in physical processes and those who do not. A Christian who does not look for a worldview in the physical processes he studies will conclude Evolution; one who does look for his worldview in physical processes will either reject Evolution or reject God. If he rejects Evolution, he will accept Creation Science; if he rejects God, he will become an atheist or a deist. This is the pattern that must be stopped. DeRosa himself even states:
Science’s reality is the material world only. It is not competent to reach conclusions about realms beyond.
As an isolated statement, it is true. However, by including morality in his discussion of worldviews above, DeRosa is saying that theology is competent to reach conclusions about science. This is self-contradictory in DeRosa’s framework, because if theology tells us that Evolution is essentially sinful, then he is forcing a scientist who sees evolution in the science to conclude that God does not exist.
DeRosa then discusses Naturalism, and I agree with him that Naturalism is inherently atheistic. However, he gets the relationship to science wrong. Where Evolution is indeed the scientific underpinning to Naturalism, DeRosa believes that “Naturalism is the philosophical underpinning of evolution.” It is through this backwards understanding that DeRosa can say that science is not competent to teach ”about realms beyond,” and so therefore evolution is not true. After all, science (i.e., Evolution) that depends on philosophy (i.e., Naturalism) isn’t really science. Ironically, that is that very kind of science that DeRosa is pushing (i.e., Flood geology depends on Creationism).
Is Science Compatible with the Bible?
I was actually enjoying this section, as DeRosa cleanly laid out the rightful place of science in our faith. To a large extent, we are on the same page. But then, while listing several of the great Christian scientists in history (Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Ray, Newton, and Linnaeus), DeRosa quotes Boyle, who was “famous for his lectures in which he promoted creation as God’s finely tuned clock, ‘where all things are so skillfully contrived that the engine being once set a-moving, all things proceed according to the Artificer’s first design.’ “ Argh. That quote is the perfect description of Theistic Evolution, and yet he implies that Theistic Evolutionists have bought into a Naturalistic worldview. No. They haven’t. They simply believe that God wound up the watch a little (okay, a lot) sooner than DeRosa does.
Follow the Evidence with an Open Mind
I largely agree with this section, as written. Naturalism is devoid of God and is wrong. The universe is Intelligently Designed. Freeing oneself from “the bondage of Naturalism” does free you to see God in the Creation. The “Word” is the Creator and Jesus is the Word made flesh. He is our light. Finally, this closing quote is right on the money:
The examination of the evidence for creation should not just bring one to recognize God as Maker, but also bring the honest inquirer to a personal relationship with Christ his Savior, the life and light of the world.
NOTE: I don’t know how well I stayed within my self-imposed ground rules. I’ll try again on Chapter 2!