Conclusion

By Merle Hertzler

It's been over a week since my last response, and Pastor Al has not responded. And so I draw this debate to a conclusion. I don't find any support for Pastor Al's claim that his creationism is based on evidence, nor for his claim that evolution is based on faith. It seems to me that he ignored a lot of evidence.

The claims that Pastor Al presented were mainly claims of problems with evolution. He concluded that the evolution of the eye or DNA were too complex for evolution, so therefore his view of creation must be true. But even if he had shown convincingly that evolution's problems were insurmountable, that would not prove that creation happened the way he claims. There are many other views on how creation happened. Simply poking holes in the dominant view does not prove any one of the challengers is correct. Yet Pastor Al presented no evidence for his view. In fact, he was even vague on what his view is. If he is going to show that another view better explains the evidence than evolution, then, at a minimum, he must tell us what that view is, and what the evidence is for that view. Telling us he believes Genesis 1 is not sufficient. For Christians believe Genesis 1, and support many views of creation such as 6-day creation, progressive creation, and theistic evolution. Different people interpret the chapter differently.

So even if Pastor Al would have presented a stronger case for the genetic problems with evolution, he would not have proven his view of creation was correct, nor disproven evolution. Mainstream scientists are well aware that there are gaps in our understanding of evolution. After all, we have not yet identified all of the living species, let alone identify all past species and their genetic heritage. There is legitimate debate on the history of particular features or species. That is because we do not have all of the evidence, but we are piecing together what we can. However, the evidence we do have makes the case for evolution strong.

Let's look at some of the alternatives presented for evolution:

Young Earth Creation

This is the view that the earth was created in 6 days about 6000 to 10,000 years ago. As I point out at my site, this view is contradicted by the clear evidence that the earth is very old, and that creatures have existed for a long time. Further, the fossil record shows that creatures have advanced with time.

Progressive Creation

This view acknowledges the fossil record, and the advance of life, but claims that each new species was made independently. But I wonder why God would begin the horse series with Hyracatherium, then scrap that design for another design, then scrap that design for the next model, and repeatedly change horse models until we come to today's horse. What is the purpose in all of those intermediates? And if God started from scratch each time, why doesn't the genetic code show that? Why does it appear that the horse inherited the same junk DNA that its ancestors had?

Computer programs that change with time are often stuck with inefficient code that had been there from the beginning. But it works, so the code is left alone. But when a program is rewritten from scratch, it is not necessary to recreate the inefficient code. Somehow we are asked to believe that God started from scratch with each horse, but did not choose to clean up the code.

Progressive Creation with Some Evolution

This modification of the progressive creation view would allow that animals can evolve once the first of a species is created. And so it will allow that some of the horses in that series may have evolved from the previous step. But one still runs into the same problems wherever a creation from scratch is proposed in the series. Why doesn't the code show the gap? Why doesn't the code for some related creatures show that one or the other was built from scratch, and is clearly not a modification of a common ancestor? And why wouldn't God just modify a similar species that was already evolving in the new direction, rather than occasionally starting from scratch (while making it look like he modified the old code)?

Evolution with Gaps

This would be an extension of the previous view, except the periods of evolution are much larger, and God is thought to intervene to start over only at certain intervals. Creatures could have evolved, for instance, until they needed an eye, and then God could have started over with a new creature with a fully-formed eye. Then the evolution process could have continued from there. This is the God-of-the-gaps view. This view accepts the evidence of nature until we come to a point where nature is not clear. Then God is inserted into the gap. The problem is that the gaps keep growing smaller. If God is confined only to the gaps, than one is left with a constantly diminishing view of God, for the gaps are slowly being explained by science.

Theistic Evolution

Other Christians will acknowledge evolution of all creatures from a common single-celled ancestor, but will tell us that God was directing every step of the way. But if this is so, why are there so many side branches? Most of the dinosaurs have died out with no descendants. Why did God guide evolution in that direction, only to let the dinos die? Why are there so many side branches in the horse series, if God was guiding in one particular direction?

God-initiated Evolution

Other Christians will agree with evolution, but they assert that God created the first life. This view agrees with mainstream science on biological evolution.

------------------------

Looking at the various views, I find that the closer a view is to the mainstream science view, the less problems there are with that view. And so I find that no credible challenge has been made to the Theory of Evolution. If one wants to challenge evolution, he must come up with an alternative, such as one of those listed above, and must demonstrate that his alternative is as likely as evolution. If one cannot find an alternative that explains the data nearly as well as evolution, then one cannot suggest that his alternative should be included in science books.

See also the following debates:  Defending Evolution and Answers in Genesis?