The ongoing discussion of creation versus evolution is of great interest to me. It has forced me to think about what I believe, what others believe, and what I want my kids to believe.
The thoughts that I will try to convey here are simple, yet they are not simple. In trying to personally describe what I am about to say to a friend, I either failed miserably, or he didn't read it too well. I am personally not sure which. But I will try to outline it clearly here, because I think it is of the utmost importance for those who admit belief in a God.
First of all, I believe that to many, evolution needs God. The attempts to explain it without Him have fallen short. Why? Because the continuing anthem of an evolutionist is that you can explain (prove) evolution with science, but that the idea that God created man in His own image is contrary to how we interpret the fossil record. Not an idea that I agree with, but I will indulge you for the time being. An evolutionist can look at the fossil record and make assertions based on what he sees. He can classify Australopithecus as a transitional organism with great confidence in his ability to make scientific connections. But, he cannot explain the big bang, or the assembly of nothing-into-DNA because it has never been proved, duplicated, replicated, etc. Thus, he needs one of two things 1) The faith to believe that the answer to this quandary will appear someday or 2) an intelligent designer to set the process in motion. It is a fact of science that we have never seen DNA assemble itself without the help of a designer. Maybe in another million or two years we will see it, but in the meantime, it remains an unproved theory.
So, upon examination, it would be much easier just to say that God used evolution to set His creation in motion. But I will attempt the explain the flaw in logic that I see in that. As I see it, you have 3 options:
God is a powerful God who is able to create something out of nothing, and used evolution to set creation in motion yet He hides from us who He really is, and leaves it up to us to decide what He wants from us.
God created us in His image and loves us. He is powerful enough to communicate who He is to us through the writings of men that He has inspired. Since He is powerful enough to create an orderly universe and man, He is also powerful enough to give us a glimpse of who He is through His Word.
There is no god. We are just floating here by chance. We are animals that have evolved from slime. Morals are relative because there is no one to be accountable to but ourselves. Someday we will figure it all out.
I will attempt to explain why I believe that only options 2&3 are valid.
If we say, "I believe in God, and that He used evolution to set the world in motion, but I do not believe that there is any one religion that holds truth," (because all writings are of men and essentially flawed),-- then we are saying that God is powerful enough to create all of this, but He is not powerful enough to communicate to us who He is. Or maybe you would argue that God hides from us who He is so we can figure it out ourselves. The same way He hides the order of science from us? I think not. If we look at all of the world religions today, we can plainly see that they cause more strife among men that any other idea. Most of the religions contradict one another. People kill each other over their faith. Yet we continue to assert that God, who created an "orderly" system of science, left us with a disorderly idea of why we are here, who He is, and what is right or wrong.
If we say that an orderly God explains an orderly universe, and He gave us an orderly system (Scriptures) for knowing Him and why we are here, it makes much more sense. It would make sense that one of the many world religions would hold the truth, or that one of the Holy Scriptures that man claims to have been inspired by God might just be true.
We can say that there is no God. We don't know how DNA made itself and we can't prove that the big bang occurred. You are a highly evolved animal.
Options 2 & 3 are more valid. I will explain why I believe that.
Option 1 says that the nature of God is orderly, but only in science. He then becomes a bit more disorderly when it come to Himself. If we say that we believe in God, yet we know very little about Him, other than He created an orderly system of science, then essentially we have no one to be accountable to. When we are open to interpret God however we want, then we "make for ourselves god" or AKA and idol. This basically elevates ourselves above God and makes him nothing. You can say this if you are Buddhist, because Buddhism is nothing more than a watered down version of atheism. If god is in everything, and everything is god, then there is no god. But can you say that you are a Christan and make those claims logically? Is not Christianity based on the Bible? Is the God of the Bible powerful enough to create the universe, yet impotent to pass a God-inspired Book of writings to you? Why even believe? What about Jews? Or how about a Muslim? Do they not believe their Scripture to be god-inspired and flawless? Are they leaving god open to interpretation? Not the Muslims I know. Most certainly not.
When we elevate ourselves to the position of God, we are essentially saying that there is no God.
How do we know right from wrong? What keeps us from just slaughtering the neighbor who's land we want for ourselves? If we are simply evolved animals, there is really nothing. Now god is open to interpretation and so are right and wrong. Yet the God of the Bible tells us that He has written it on our hearts. I would propose to you that option 1 is no more than a cop-out. A mere attempt to remove any kind of accountability to anyone but ourselves. An illogical attempt to say that God is logical with His science, but when it come to Himself, He is the author of utter confusion. He will just spend millions of years letting His children "war it out" and kill one another over who He is.
When we remove one authority that the Scriptures might hold (creation) then we can logically remove any other authority that it might have over us. (right from wrong)
There are really only 2 sides to this fence. I find it much more honest to say either God is all-powerful, or that He doesn't exist and we are just not fully "evolved" enough to figure it all out yet. Either way, we are admitting limits to our human knowledge and that is honest. The first option attempts to wedge ourselves into the place of god and only use him when he is convenient to our argument. It assumes that everything we think we know is correct, and that there can be no other option.
It isn't really a valid option, because it is option 3 in disguise. If you are god, then he is not.
What do you believe?