Evolution and God

The issue of evolution and God is very controversial, and many of my students ask me about it because they know by the way I dress that I believe in God while showing a love for science during our sessions.

Some of the questions I'm asked are:

- Do atheists have a monopoly over science?
- Is the belief in God contrary to science?
- Does evolution disprove God's existence?

So, dear seeking science student, here are some things you should always keep in mind:

First, you must understand what "evolution" really is. There are two kinds of evolution, and only one of them has been accepted worldwide. Here they are:

- Micro-evolution: Remember, micro means small. This term refers to the idea that, over time, a species will change genetically in order to adapt to its surroundings. For example, why are cats that originate from cold climates fluffy and pretty, and cats that are native to, for example, Florida (where I was born and raised), short-furred? Cats, like all other species, develop certain traits over long periods of time to help them survive in their environments. I don't know a scientist on any continent in this world who would deny this, and, interestingly enough, it's compatible with religion as well (in fact, it's even mentioned in the Quran!).

- Macro-evolution: This is the controversial one. This is the "theory" that every single living species on earth at one point originated from one single, underdeveloped life source. Then, this tiny particle developed and multiplied and divided over bajillions of years into all the different life forms we see today (trees, ripe tomatoes, people, whatever). This idea was based on a few pieces of evidence. For example, one human DNA chromosome contains a concentrated amount of genes that are found on several spaced-out chromosomes in mice. This implies that, over time, the human was able to "evolve" from mice by simply collecting all the "good genes" and putting them on the same chromosome. Another supporting argument for macro-evolution is that a bunch of monkeys have most of the same genetic makeup as human beings, so scientists drew the conclusion that we must therefore have evolved from the same line.

Some downfalls in the "Macro-evolution" argument are:

1. No science can contradict another science. So, the rules of biology must comply with the rules of chemistry and physics, and math, and you can re-arrange the subjects in any which way but the same rule stands. I'll get back to this in a second.

2. There are other explanations for why humans have similar genetic makeup to monkeys and why one of our chromosomes contains the same valuable genes from generations of mice. I hate to break it to you, but your genetic makeup is actually made up of the same chemical elements as your dining room table, the air you breathe, and even the computer screen you're looking at right now. Everything as we know it is simply a re-arrangement of the few hundred elements on the Periodic Table. And in chemistry, we learn how even the tiniest variation of bonds or arrangements or structures can have unbelievably drastic effects on our lives. So, the "evidence" behind macro-evolution really doesn't have to mean more than the fact that the tiniest of differences at the molecular level translate into the most drastic alterations in real life. Unless, of course, evolutionists want to explain how my laptop evolved from me because we share some of the same atomic makeup, not to mention the air I'm breathing right now.

3. Returning to point #1, one of the biggest pit-falls in macro-evolution is this: It violates Newtonian Mechanics. Evolutionists believe that every life form as we know it initiated from one live ancestor, who spontaneously began to "live" and reproduce and divide and develop. But, Newton's very first law of physics states that:

- No movement can begin without an initial Force. So, macro-evolution fails to explain who the heck started this one ancestor to come to life in the first place. But, contrary to what they say, it simply could NOT have begun from "nothing."

- No movement can end without a Force. So, can someone who supports macro-evolution please then explain the concept of "death" to me? Who is the force behind lives ending?

The contradiction is clear. According to everything we know about physics, life simply could not have begun from "nothing." There had to be an initial Force beginning it, directing it, and ending it. Those who are as religious as they are scientific may define this Force as "God."

4. Macro-evolution also contradicts established knowledge in chemistry. In chemistry, one foundational principle is that life and everything in this world rotates towards a state of complete entropy (which means randomness, or disarray). So if you wait a while before cleaning your room, you will see a whole bunch of junk lying everywhere and it will begin to look really gross....until you apply force (work, effort) and put things back in place, right? Everything in life is like this--the atoms that make up our bodies really instinctively want to fly free and mesh in with everything, but there are forces everywhere keeping things beautifully and delicately in place.

So, if evolution was true, then there is no way to explain how all these "evolving" species were capable of developing unique shapes, forms, retaining functionality, and growth. It contradicts chemistry. Why didn't the replications of the one under-developed ancestor's new cells (not to mention all the ribosomes, DNA, and everything else in the cytosol) wind up colliding randomly and uselessly in space? When chemistry says entropy, physics repeats loud and clear: force. The only reason we are in the shapes that we are in--distinct from all other life forms on earth--is because there is a Guiding Force keeping us this way (the same for your pet, your house, your backyard tree--your everything!). Otherwise, according to the proven laws of chemistry, every single sub-atomic particle would rotate into mass chaos.

I'll say here what I tell all my students. It's important that you respect the idea of evolution--but it's also important that you know that rejecting the notion of macro-evolution does NOT imply that you have blind faith. There are very strong scientific facts both demonstrating the necessity of the existence of God, as well as weakening the argument of macro-evolution. Quite frankly, atheists do not have a monopoly over science! I hope that reading the above has inspired you to do your own critical thinking and research, to see what conclusions you come to on the topic!

Good luck!


,mkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk Dorothy, The above message was stomped out by my cat, who sends his love and support and hopes you win the debate with your hubby :P (no joke that was really my cat)

if (isMyPost) { }