I used to believe that creation vs. evolution was one of the most important topics of Christianity. Now I believe it is more of a distraction. It is extremely divisive and antagonizing, and its discussion hardly ever seems to bring about any good fruits. That being said, it has been important for me personally to be convinced in my own mind what I believe about the origins of life—and for this reason, I have spent some time exploring and reflecting on this topic.

A theological approach. I am a theology and sociology major—not a scientist. The purpose of this post is not prove or disprove anything in scientific terms, but to address a much more fundamental aspect. I want to look at some of the philosophical and theological principles and beliefs that are necessary in order to consistently and fruitfully navigate the question of creation and evolution. Besides that, I also want to lift up a more nuanced view than what I feel is often presented by on each side of the question.

The comments of the Adventist pioneer Ellen White on the topic of education, science and the Bible have been a major inspiration to me. She claimed that while there might seem to be contradictions between Scripture and the natural sciences, these apparent contradictions stem from our own ignorance and the misguided inferences drawn from the actual evidence. The Adventist emphasis on education and critical, independent thinking, and on nature and the Bible both being revelations of God and truth, has encouraged and inspired me to more independently explore the issue for myself in the limited capacity that I have as a theologian (and not a scientist).

These are my own observations so far.

An inevitable question of faith. Early on in my exploration, I realized that I had to acknowledge to myself where my basic trust lies when my own understanding, education and experience fall short. As for all the truth claims that I cannot personally verify, test or comprehend using my own abilities, who and what do I fundamentally trust and implicitly believe to be closer to the truth? Do I place my fundamental trust with the scientists? Do I place it with the Church? The Bible? My social circle?

My first acknowledgment: Most of the so-called knowledge that each and every person possesses is based on trust, not personal experience or observation. We trust our teachers, the journalists, the authors who wrote the books that we read, the professionals and experts, and we trust in society at large in various other ways. We trust others with our very own lives—doctors, bus drivers, pilots—the list goes on. None of us have personally verified or reasoned out every piece of information that we’ve come across. At times we might critically question what we read or hear—but this we do by measuring a dubious claim up against what other more trustworthy sources say. Using our limited reasoning capabilities, we make pre-judgments of what seems likely to be true. We accept or reject the information we come across based on our own more or less reasonable and subjective, often instinctive and subconscious assessments. The question of truth is inevitably tied to the question of trust or faith—whether we are aware of it or not.

My second acknowledgment: Following my powerful spiritual experience as a teenager through Christianity, and my personal and academic studies of the Bible, the biblical prophecies, and of philosophy and human history as an adult, there was no doubt in my mind: What Christians refer to as God is real. The Divine has manifested itself in our human history (of which the authors of the Bible give an account), and the Bible as a written work bears the imprint of a divine, multi-layered genius, logic, mind and coherence behind the imperfect and often chaotic human agency and history. My experience and observation, though limited, generates the conviction that the principles and ideas conveyed in the Bible, despite possibly being misrepresented and insufficiently understood, hold important, practical truths about God that are for our own benefit.

Trusting the Bible. Thus, I had to acknowledge that my basic trust in God and in the Bible is greater than my trust in the shifting theories of the natural sciences. Oftentimes has scientific research uncovered new evidence that changed their models, explanations and history timelines. And on several significant occasions have scientific discoveries confirmed what was once only regarded as biblical myth (I’ve been quite fascinated with this quite recent discovery).

The unchanging words of the Bible have on the other hand brought a richness of meaning and wisdom and life-betterment to human beings over thousands of years. Prophecies uttered thousands of years ago concerning the Messiah, the world kingdom, and the end of the world, find and continue to find curious matches and fulfillments in the work of Jesus Christ and in the social and political developments of our world ever since. The messianic prophecies’ fulfillment in the life of Jesus, the prophecies of the world kingdoms found in the Old Testament, and the prophecies of the end-times in the New Testament, are to me outstanding evidence of a divine genius that can be scrutinized and tested against the history books. I’ll save this for another post.

However, to me personally it is the goodness and wisdom manifested in the life and message of Jesus Christ that serves as the greatest proof of the genuineness of the Bible. Jesus as a historical person is simply outstanding and serves as a fitting and inspirational role-model for any human being, as he also has been for important historical figures such as Martin Luther, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Sir Isaac Newton, William Wilberforce, Leo Tolstoy, Nelson Mandela, Florence Nightingale, Blaise Pascal, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and others.

To me, the most important questions to ask concerning the origins of life are therefore the following:

1. What does the Bible really say (and not say) about the origins of life?
2. How do scientific observations of evolution fit into the biblical worldview?

The Creation account. Firstly, it seems evident from the sayings and writings of Jesus and the apostles that the creation accounts written in Genesis 1 and 2 were read by them as literal, historical events, and not merely as allegory. The apostle Paul does indeed affirm that Bible history can have allegorical significance in addition to being historical (Galatians 4:24). However, the Sabbath commandment and the seven-day week as established by God to Moses in the Ten Commandments assumes and is undergirded by a literal understanding of the time span given in the creation account (Exodus 20:1-17). Also, the repeated phrase “and there was evening and it was morning” in Genesis 1 seems to underline that each day was a literal 24 hour period.

However, the evidence of an evolutionary process in nature as studied and documented by scientists such as Charles Darwin is undeniable. The process of natural selection and change in species over time is observable today and is also clearly seen in the fossil record. How does one make sense of these two testimonies, of the biblical record of creation and the natural record of evolution?

General/natural revelation. When I first began reading the Bible, I thought little of how it portrays God as a Creator who is constantly present and at work in nature, such as sending rain, feeding animals, balancing the clouds in the sky (Romans 1:20; Colossians 1:13-17; Matthew 6:25-30; Psalm 104; Psalm 19:1-6; Psalm 147:7-9; Job 12:7-10). This, I thought, was a poetic, allegorical way of saying that God is the First Cause of everything. I did not believe that God literally was feeding animals, sending rain and balancing clouds in the sky, but rather that since He created the world with natural laws, He has caused these things to happen by themselves.

It was, however, the insights of Ellen White that made me realize that this is not at all what the Bible is saying. In the Bible, nature is intentionally presented as being under God’s constant and incessant control. God is not portrayed only as the First Cause of everything; He is portrayed as being constantly active in and through nature to keep it running moment by moment. I realized that the assumption that God, after having created the world, mostly doesn’t interact with it (deism) is an unbiblical belief.

The Familiarity Bias. What does it mean, then, that God constantly works in and through nature, as the Bible portrays it? It means that the energy or fundamental forces by which nature operates should from a biblical standpoint not be viewed as blind, mechanical forces that are inherent to nature itself. Rather, they must be manifestations of God’s energy and activity. God is constantly and miraculously exerting His power and energy in accordance with set laws in order to uphold the universe second by second. This is an immense thought!

In Christian theology, the knowledge that nature imparts (natural science) is referred to as natural or general revelation because it is natural/general manifestation of God’s character that is available to all. The ordered existence of the universe, the healing of a wound, the beating of the heart, the movement of the stars and planets in their set courses, all following ordered laws, show God’s power and genius. Because these natural processes happen by the constant exertion of divine power, they are really no less miraculous or divine than the resurrection from the dead. It is only a matter of familiarity and perspective. In Western thought, many assume that nature’s laws and forces are inherent to nature and are no evidence of the existence of the divine. But the Bible conveys the exact opposite—that nature manifests a divine and supernatural presence that is constantly active.

According to the Familiarity Bias, we humans tend to undervalue that which we are familiar with, even though these things might really be significant. People living in beautiful surroundings may not think much of their own home, while tourists from all around the world come to see the place. Perhaps we are so used to seeing God’s work and presence every day and all around us that we don’t recognize it for what it truly is?

Natural selection. If God manifests Himself through nature and the laws that govern and uphold it (as the Bible indicates), this must also include the observed law of natural selection, or “the survival of the fittest”. This is an ingenious law ensuring the continued adaptation and survival of life in the face of environmental change. It ensures the preservation and continuation of life in the face of adversity. But natural selection is often understood in an unbiblical way. How can it be understood from a biblical point of view that is faithful to the principles and morals of Christianity?

When Christ (good) is described as triumphing over the Devil (evil) in the Bible, this is by the law of natural selection. The principles of Christ (truth, love, unselfishness, omnipotence) are superior, more viable or “fit” for survival than those of Satan (falsehood, hatred, selfishness, limited power or impotence). The principles of the Devil may seem superior through pretense and falsehood and short-term thinking, but are ultimately and in the long run self-destructive because they ignore the law of cause and effect and are odds with the laws ensuring life, health and development.

Hence, we may understand that the law of natural selection that drives evolution is not a superstitious or blind mechanism driven by chance as some Christians argue, but rather is a real manifestation of God’s wisdom and providence at work in nature.

However, while nature and the law of natural selection do testify to those things that are divine—to the power of life and all that which is good, strong, “fit” or viable—, nature also manifests another power at work—the power of “unfitness”, decay and death. This, the Bible teaches, is not God’s doing or work, but is the work of God’s opponent, the Devil. I’ll get back to this later.

Special revelation. Does God’s general or natural revelation of Himself through nature exclude the possibility of Him choosing to reveal Himself in more special ways? Of course not. Special revelation signifies in Christian thought the “supernatural”, extraordinary or personal ways by which God manifests Himself. The Scriptures written by prophets claim to be special and personal revelations of God to mankind as an intelligent and personal Creator. The most personal and clearest way God has revealed Himself to us as personal beings the Scriptures say is through Jesus Christ.

God’s natural revelation and God’s personal revelation cannot contradict each other if they come from the same divine Source. If nature and Scripture come from the same God, they cannot in reality contradict each other, ethough they may seem to do so from a human standpoint. While the natural processes such as natural selection are real and evident from scientific research, these mechanisms do not provide any compelling reason to deny God’s ability as a personal and intelligent to create life through more extraordinary ways as described in the Bible—such as through quick interventions. This is clearly what the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 teach—that life did not emerge naturally over time, but rather that life originated by God’s personal and supernatural intervention.

The creation account in the Bible and the evolutionary processes observed in nature must both be upheld as valid and true in their true sense and meaning. The question is: What is their true sense and meaning? How should they be interpreted?

God’s creative intervention. The creation account describes God’s personal, direct and extra-ordinary intervention to create life on this planet. God forms the man of dust, breathes into him the breath of life, and man becomes a living nephesh, which is Hebrew for “soul” (Genesis 2:7). God is not a mere force working through nature; God is presented as a personal and intelligent Being who, like a master Artist, creates other personal and intelligent beings. God also forms the animals of dust (Genesis 2:19). These descriptions seem to indicate that God chose to create life on this planet through personal intervention rather than merely by natural processes. This to me seems to be the true sense and primary meaning and message of Genesis. God is a personal Being, and we as personal beings are made in His likeness by His personal choice and intervention.

Some Christians assert that the Genesis account addresses the creation of the entire universe, and hold that the entire universe was created in a week. However, the book of Job mentions that other beings already were in existence when “the foundation of the earth” was laid—namely, the “morning stars” and “sons of God” (Job 38:7, ESV). The creation account in Genesis also mentions a time period before the creation week when the earth was empty and covered in darkness (Genesis 1:2a). Also, the story of Lucifer’s rebellion, fall, and his transformation into Satan must have taken place before he could tempt Eve to sin (Isaiah 14:12-17; Ezekiel 28:12-19; Revelation 12:7-9). It is not necessary from the biblical account itself to hold the view that the universe was created in 7 days. The purpose of the creation account in Genesis is to explain the divine origin of life in the world that we humans live in, and the text clearly leaves room for other previous events before life on earth.

However, while the theory of evolution claims that advanced forms of life originated and evolved from microscopic amoeba over millions of years, the Bible on the other hand claims that advanced forms of life were created and planted on the earth through divine intervention over the short time span of six days. These two claims cannot both be true. And this is where I must choose: Whom will I trust?

The God of Darwin vs. the God in Genesis. Darwin’s theory of the origins of life holds that death always has been a central part of existence on this planet, since the very beginning. Darwin was not an atheist, but suggested that God created life through the suffering and death of billions of organisms, creatures and animals over time, culminating in the emergence of human beings. The Bible, on the other hand, plainly states that in the beginning when God created our world, death and suffering didn’t exist (Genesis 2:17; 3:19; Romans 5:12-21). In Genesis 1, God pronounces His creation to be good seven times, indicating divine perfection. However, the apostle Paul writes that God allowed creation to be subjected to decay and death because of mankind’s sin (Romans 8:20-21). God did not create a world with death and suffering; it was through mankind’s sin that death entered the world (Romans 5:12-21). God allowed death and suffering to enter the world, contrary to His own creation, when mankind made the choice to start sinning. Sin is breaking the laws that govern order and life, and therefore sin naturally brings suffering and death as a consequence. Death is according the the apostle Paul an enemy that in the end will be eradicated by God (1 Corinthians 15:26; Revelation 21:4). Death will once again cease to exist.

These texts are at odds with Darwin’s theory, which, based on the current world, views death and suffering as an integral part of our origins. According to the Bible, however, death had no part in this world in the beginning, but came into the world as a consequence of mankind’s sin. Nature no longer only testifies to God’s work; another power is now also visibly at work in nature: The power of chaos, disease, suffering and death. This, the Bible teaches, is not divine or from God, but is the effect of sin.

A question of God’s character. Darwin’s and Moses’ teachings on the origins of life come with huge theological and moral implications. What is God’s character like? What kind of God is He? There are important moral bearings in each view. Is the Creator of the world also the Author of suffering and death? Is the suffering and death of humans and animals God’s own plan and will in order to further His own purpose of creation? Is suffering and death a divine invention forced upon us in order for His plan for creation to be realized? In Genesis the clear answer is no—suffering and death are not God’s will. They are not part of God’s design or intention for His creation. According to Darwin’s theory on the origins of life, however, the answer is inevitably yes—God is indeed the inventor of suffering and death as His tools to perfect His creation. Before mankind could make any moral, free-will choice, we and all creatures were subjected to a life of suffering, disease, conflict and death. (Note: Darwin was not an atheist, but believed in God as being the First Cause of the universe and of evolution when he wrote The Origin of Species. He was a Deist.)

While the Bible teaches that suffering and death are not God’s will or creation, the Bible also says that God has allowed suffering and death to enter the world as a consequence of humanity’s free will. To claim that God arbitrarily decided suffering and death to be a part of our earthly existence regardless of our own choice is to give God the ultimate responsibility for suffering and evil. This not only denies human free will, but is also absurd and non-sensical. Why would an omnipotent Creator choose to create humans and animals to suffer and die? This is what Darwin’s theory implies.

Making sense of suffering and death. To me, the trueness of each theory of origins hinges on how they theologically and morally make sense of suffering and death. Would a good and all-powerful Creator design His creatures to suffer and die in order to evolve His creation? As I see it, a God that makes sense and is benevolent is only feasible by viewing suffering and death, not as God’s invention or will, but as the result of our human free will. In the Genesis account, God is portrayed as desiring to spare humanity from the pain of knowing evil; He forbids mankind from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17). However, mankind freely chooses to disobey God and acquire this knowledge for ourselves (Genesis 3:6), making evil and its train of suffering and death a part of our world and human experience.

Jesus’ parable of the weeds. In the parable of the weeds recorded in Matthew 13, Jesus compares the world to a wheat field filled with weeds. He portrays evil in our world as weeds that were planted, not by the farmer himself (God), but by an enemy (the Devil). Yet, to protect the good wheat from being uprooted with the weeds, the farmer chooses not to immediately uproot the weeds, but allows the weeds to continue to grow together with the wheat. The lesson in this parable is that good and evil are intricately and inseparably connected in our world now. If God removed all that which is evil immediately and abruptly, some of the good would be harmed and destroyed. In order to spare that which is good, God waits for our world to mature and develop to the point where He can safely remove all that which is bad without harming the good. God is presented as a Farmer, as a good Creator and Restorer. God’s enemy (free-will beings who choose to rebel against His laws governing the universe) is portrayed as the destroyer of God’s creation.

While the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection and survival of the fittest is an integral part of our natural world today, this law of survival would logically lay dormant if all “unfitness” and competition of resources and mortality were eradicated from our world. There would be no competition or conflict, because there would be no threat or fear of death. Such was the world that God created in the beginning, according to Genesis, and such will the world be when God restores it according to the book of Revelation. While the mechanism of natural selection indeed explains the immense diversity that has emerged over time since creation, I don’t think it is morally satisfactory as an explanation of how life first originated on earth. The Bible teaches that advanced forms of life were created and planted on this planet in the beginning. Since these first “prototypes” were planted, they have evolved and adapted through processes like natural selection to the changing environments on this planet.

But what about the age of the earth?

The uniformitarian assumption. The dating method applied in geology, radiocarbon dating, is based on the assumption that the production of radiocarbon in our atmosphere has been at an equilibrium for millions of years. Radiocarbon dating involves measuring the amount of remaining radiocarbon in fossils. Radiocarbon is continuously being produced in the earth’s atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen. Plants absorb radiocarbon and pass it on to animal life through consumption. Radiocarbon is a radioactive isotope that decays over time. Hence, the older the fossil, the less radiocarbon is found in the fossil. The age of fossils is deduced based on the assumption that certain natural processes observed today, such as the presence of radiocarbon in the atmosphere and biosphere, are the same as they always have been. This is the principle of uniformitarianism.

However, is it safe to assume that the environment on earth today really is the same as in prehistoric times?

Testimonies of a global cataclysm. The Bible tells the story of a global cataclysm. It mentions human beings living nearly 1,000 years before they died, and also mentions the nephilim or “giants” as living on the earth before the Great Flood (Genesis 5-6). Similar stories of a global cataclysm and of prehistoric giants are found in various religions and mythologies across the world. Reports of giant humanoid bones have also been in plenty since the 1800s, but have been dismissed by most scholars as hoaxes or as misidentified animal remains. Modern science itself operates with the theory of a fateful disaster that wiped out the dinosaurs. Regardless of how the evidence is interpreted, these descriptions of a catastrophic, global event that drastically changed nature is a clear indication that while uniformitarianism might indeed be convenient and useful for the sake of constructing scientific models, it is still an assumption and is not at all an obvious assumption to make. Yet the scientific models building on this very assumption are presented as indisputable facts in the name of expert opinion. The millions of years postulated by modern science are in various ways based on the uniformitarian assumption—but what if earth’s environment was radically different before? What if certain natural processes that under today’s circumstances indeed would require millions of years were sped up or altered due to a vastly different environment or a dramatic environmental, prehistoric shift?

Factors such as the earth’s magnetic field and the amount of vegetation on the surface absorbing carbon dioxide from the air all affect the quantity of radiocarbon in our atmosphere and biosphere. The immense amount of fossil fuels buried in the earth indicates a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in prehistoric times. The earth’s magnetic field is also weakening. These factors might easily explain the low content of radiocarbon in fossils that makes them appear so extremely old.

The main point is that there are many factors at play and some crucial assumptions that are made in calculating the age of the earth. Why should today’s timelines of modern science be accepted as indisputable facts when they previously have been subjected to revision upon revision after discoveries of new evidence?

The problem with Darwin’s theory of the origins of life is that one aspect of his theory is being observed empirically and is undeniable (natural selection, minor evolutionary changes in living organisms), while the other part (Darwin’s grand theory of the origins of life) is an inference drawn from the empirical observations. That which is observed and undeniable does not contradict the biblical account of creation. Some of the inferences and theories drawn from the empirical observations, however, do indeed contradict the biblical account.

The straw-man of chance. Many Christians today argue against evolution by claiming that it puts blind chance at the steering wheel. But the law of natural selection, as any other law of nature, is a testimony not to blind chance, but to the continual presence and activity of an intelligent Creator. Nothing in nature happens by chance; everything seems to follow very specific laws. Darwin himself was not an atheist. He believed in God as the First Cause of evolution. It is evident from the immense diversity of living organisms today and how they have evolved over time that the law of natural selection does indeed bring forth a multitude of creative, impressive ways for species to adapt and survive in our world. This to me is a testimony of God’s creative power at work also in the evolutionary process.

However, Darwin’s claim that God in the beginning created life employing competition, suffering and death as His creative tools is an affront to our moral sensibilities as human beings. Even many atheists implicitly understand that, and are adamant that a God who created us to suffer and die, whether in this life or in a hell, is not benevolent or just. Was God looking down at animals and humans killing and eating each other and fighting for survival when He in the beginning pronounced His creation to be “very good” (Genesis 1:31)? This seems mildly absurd. I believe this is the most important problem and weakness with Darwin’s theory of evolution, from a biblical standpoint. It is first of all a moral problem. The message of the Bible centers on God’s character, who God is as a moral being and what God’s will is. The Bible teaches that decay, suffering and death are not God’s will or invention, and that God will personally intervene once again to end decay, suffering and death and restore creation to perfect harmony and order (Revelation 21:4). Morally this makes a lot of sense and gives credit to the human instinct that decay, suffering and death in nature are an offensive, disturbing and meaningless element.

Not causing anyone to stumble. I have now presented the main reasons for my beliefs about the origins of life. I am not convinced that the discussion of this topic is beneficial. I think it tends to distract people from the main moral point of Christianity: That God as our Creator is loving and just, and worthy of our love and honor. This is the essence of the Gospel message (Revelation 14:6-7). While Darwin does give credit to a God as the Creator or First Cause, it is in my view difficult to love and worship his God because his God is the source of suffering and death. The God of the Genesis account is not, but specifically seeks to prevent suffering and death from marring His creation—but He also respects human free will.

If Darwin’s theory makes it difficult for people to believe in a good and loving God, Christians should be the first to humbly and intelligently point out the important moral lessons on God’s character found in the biblical creation account. But if discussing evolution becomes a stumbling block to themselves and to others, they should reconsider whether having the right understanding of creation and evolution is the condition for being accepted by God.

This is my testimony. What is yours? Feel free to share in the comment section below!