Table of Contents
Part I: Evolution or Creation?
Two World Views: The Christian and
THE fundamental difference between the Christian and
the purely naturalistic view of the world in which we live is
simply that the former sees the world as having been deliberately
planned as a habitation for man, whereas the naturalistic
view sees man only as an accidental by-product of an entirely
purposeless process. These two diametrically opposed views are
epitomized by juxtaposing two quotations, one from the Word of
God and one from man. The Word of God reads:
For thus saith the Lord God that created the heavens,
God Himself that formed the earth and made it;
He hath established it, He created it not in vain,
He formed it to be inhabited.
man, in this instance G. G. Simpson: (2)
There was no anticipation of
man' s coming. He responds to no plan and fulfills no supernal
purpose. He stands alone in the universe, a unique product of
a long unconscious, impersonal material process, with unique
understandings and potentialities. These he owes to no one but
himself, and it is to himself that he is responsible. He is not
the creature of uncontrollable and indeterminate forces but is
his own master.
Now, why is
there such violent opposition between these two views? I think
it exists for several reasons. To begin with, the first world
view clearly introduces plan and purpose (what is technically
known as the concept of teleology), and plan and purpose
involve a Planner and a Purposer who stands above and outside
of the programme. And the existence of such a creative agency
inevitably introduces the probability of supernatural intervention.
Supernatural intervention, no matter how infrequent it may be,
if it occurs at all, electively removes the possibility of any
2. Simpson, G. G.: quoted by John Pfeiffer,
"Some Comments on Popular Science Books," Science,
vol.117, 1953, p.403.
1 of 4
understanding by pure
intellect alone. Such intervention will inevitably involve events
which can only be explained by reference to forces beyond experimental
control because they are outside the system. In addition to this,
the introduction of a personal Planner at once brings up the
question of human responsibility in cooperation or opposition
to the plan, since man clearly has the ability to perceive the
purpose and therefore to advance or retard it. Both G. G. Simpson
and Sir Julian Huxley, the great prophets of the naturalistic
world view, have openly acknowledged this fact. For example,
Sir Julian speaks of the "glorious paradox" of a process
which through eons of time, though quite without direction, finally
produced a creature, man, who by reason of his possession of
self-consciousness and the ability to make delayed decisions
is freed from the previous all-pervasive determinism of the natural
order and can therefore undertake that which no creature before
him had been able to undertake, namely, the directing of his
own future. Indeed, he sees man as the introducer of purpose
into a hitherto purposeless universe. (3) Henceforth man will direct evolution.
So these two views are indeed diametrically
opposed. The second has really rejected the first for two stated
reasons: supernatural intervention is a scientifically unmanageable
concept, and moral responsibility to some Agency other than man
is psychologically unacceptable. Scripture is clear in saying
that man is both spiritually and intellectually in need of redemption,
and so long as he is unredeemed, his spiritual and intellectual
perceptions and tendencies are distorted.
The very existence of a Purposer
introduces a whole "other world," interacting with
this world to place either complete understanding or complete
control out of man's reach unless he cooperates with God. And
it calls man to humble himself, to place his will and his intellect
at the service of the Lord instead of attempting to act as an
entirely autonomous and self-sufficient creature. Unless he will
accept the lordship of Christ in his life, a bondage which is
really a freedom, he is forced to accept bondage to himself with
his fallen nature, a bondage which is fatal. The naturalistic
world view parades as an objective exercise of the intellect
but is really the display of a rebellious spirit pretending to
be self-sufficient and omnicompetent, cloaking itself in the
garb of an unselfish humanitarianism that is entirely deceiving
and self-deceived. Naturalism or scientific materialism is, in
fact, a false religion, based on a
3. Huxley, Sir Julian, Rationalist Annual,
faith which, like the
Christian faith, is supported by a creed and a hierarchy (evolution
and the contemporary evolutionary authorities), and is every
bit as dogmatic and narrowminded as it rightly accuses the Medieval
Church of having been. As H. J. Eysenck said, "The mantle
of the Inquisition sits uneasily upon the shoulders of the scientific
Or as R. E. Gibson put it, "The present tendency is for
the scientific community, now grown powerful, to behave much
as the Church did in Galileo's time." (5)
It, too, has its "scriptures,"
the pronouncements of its recognized authorities. It believes
in miracles and has its shrines (and its sacred bones): and it
has its prophets and its martyrs. In short, it is simply another
religious world view, for man is indeed incurably religious.
Only, it is pretending not to be religious and has so far been
highly successful in maintaining the pretense.
Now the question is, Which religious
world view is the most reasonable one? An examination of the
evidence shows increasingly that the truth lies clearly in the
Christian world view, in the view reflected in Isaiah 45:18.
The world was indeed formed as a habitation for man, though it
is to be gratefully acknowledged that we owe to science much
of our understanding today of how this fitness for habitability
by man has come about. If we once allow that the whole process
of preparation was teleological, did have an end in view
from the beginning, did involve divine intervention often creatively
and sometimes in judgment, and that the world was prepared as
a stage for the acting out of a drama specifically involving
the confrontation of man and God under unique circumstances,
then many striking phenomena in the preparation of the earth
are wonderfully illuminated.
These phenomena can be usefully
reviewed even within the confines of such a short Paper as this.
The phenomena to be considered are three. First, very briefly,
the evidence that our world was specifically prepared to sustain
life. Secondly, that creative activity was clearly demanded
at many stages along the way, because there are an enormous
number of critical missing links between groups of animals which
evolutionists hold must have been related to one another by intermediate
forms but which are nowhere to be found. Thirdly, that there
has been a direction of the course of events, which supports
the view that the earth was being furnished specifically for
the coming of man. In short, the impression of plan and
purpose pervades the whole programme to such an extent that it
becomes virtually unintelligible
4. Eysenck, H. J., in a letter in New Scientist,
May 29, 1969, p.490.
5. Gibson, R. E., "Our Heritage from Galileo Galilei,"
Science, vol.145, 1964, p.1275.
unless they are admitted,
and all explanations which exclude them become stilted and artificial.
The evolutionist must really commit a kind of intellectual suicide
in order to maintain his position that the whole drama has been
the result of a freak accident. Scientific materialism constitutes
a darkening of the intellect, so that its proponents, though
professing to be wise, really become foolish, degrading their
spiritual nature by worshipping the human intellect of the creature
rather than the wisdom and greatness of the Creator.
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights
Previous Chapter Next
So we have these three matters
to consider in order to make a reasonable assessment of the relative
merits of the two world views.