Why do Christians oppose the theory of evolution when there’s so much scientific evidence to support it?
Admittedly, I cannot represent all evangelical Christians on this subject, because there are different points of view even among those who interpret the Bible conservatively. For example, some believe in a “young earth” (6,000 to 10,000 years old), while others, including me, believe a strong case can be made for an old earth and universe. But we do share in common several concerns about the theory of evolution.
First, the theory of evolution is taught as fact, in spite of the very real flaws, inadequacies, and evidence to the contrary. For example: the “Big Bang” theory, once opposed by many scientists, has now won the day, and the general consensus in the scientific community is that the universe had a beginning, consistent with Genesis 1:1. Scientists now generally believe the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, and the earth about 5 billion. After cooling down time, they figure there were only 170 million to 400 million years for non-life chemicals to evolve into life forms. No scientists believe that that is enough time. Michael Behe, microbiologist from Lehigh University, wrote: “The probability of linking together just 100 amino acids to create one protein molecule by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand somewhere in the Sahara desert – and doing it not just once but three different times.”
Second, the fossil records simply do not support the theory of evolution. Rocks dated by scientists to be 570 million years old contain fossil records that show a sudden appearance of nearly all animal phyla. They appear fully formed without any evidence of the transitional stages which one would expect if Darwinist evolution were true. Darwin himself acknowledged that the evidence was not yet there to prove his theory, but he expected it. Now, 120 years later, our fossil knowledge has greatly expanded, with fossils for ¼ million species. But they disprove rather than prove Darwinism. Even the late and noted Darwinian paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould from Harvard acknowledged the lack of support in the fossils:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret in paleontology. The evolutionary trees in our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches. The rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils.
Third, Darwin said, “If any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would completely break down.” Now we know that even the simplest self-replicating cells have numerous irreducible complex systems. The human eye is enough to shatter his theory.
Fourth, the late Carl Sagan wrote in Broca’s Brain (Random House, 1979) that “the receipt of a single message from space” would be enough for him to know there is intelligent life out there in the universe. The 1997 movie Contact, starring Jodie Foster, was inspired by his book. One message of numbers from space — enough to prove intelligent life? Well, if that’s the case, what about the incredible language and messages found in the DNA of every plant and animal on earth? One human cell contains more DNA information than 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The scientific case for Intelligent Design is more than compelling.
Fifth, Darwinism is more a philosophy than a science. There is far greater evidence for Intelligent Design than for non-intelligent, non-purposeful random natural processes. Yet there is a very clear philosophical bias against allowing the Intelligent Design theory to be taught alongside Darwinian evolution. The scientific methodology is not synonymous with the atheistic philosophy of naturalism, yet many assume that is so. Darwinists need to be open to the truth, even if it leads to an Intelligent Designer. And they need to be willing to allow a level playing field in the pursuit of truth at every level of public education.