To purchase the entire DVD set of the Summit Lecture Series, visit summit.org.
If Darwinian Evolution is true, than you are the result of the same process that created other primates, created other animals, and all of the living world. So this reminds us that there’s nothing special or unique about you as human beings. You are just as equal in value – and essentially in your nature – as other animals.
One famous quote actually came out of Hollywood in regards to this. When asked about her reputation of promiscuity, actress Scarlett Johansson replied, “I do think, on some basic level, we are animals; and by instinct, we kind of breed accordingly.” Now regardless of if you agree or disagree with promiscuous sex, it is clear that she understands that ideas have consequences; and if Darwinian Evolution is true, you are essentially just another animal, not uniquely made in the image of God – so why not act like it?
So this begs the question: Are we made in the image of God according to a plan? In other words, are you the result of a purposeful creation, intended by God; or are you the result of an unguided accidental process?
It seems to me that it’s harder to come up with a more basic and important question than this. Now some people – even many Christians – wonder why the evolution debate even matters. Why can’t Christians just agree to disagree with evolutionists, or even compromise and suggest that God used Darwinian Evolution to create the world?
The reason lies at the core of evolution’s argument of how we all were originated: are you planned by a God who knows you and has a plan for your life, or are we the result of this accidental unguided process?
Almost everything stems from this question.
Let’s look at this within the context of a worldview consideration. Firstly, consider the duckbilled platypus. The platypus lays eggs like a bird or reptile, but is a mammal. What’s interesting is that when western explorers first came back with reports of a mammal laying eggs, with fur all over it and a duckbill, well… no one believed them. Even though they had trusted, eye-witness testimony, the idea of such an animal went against the construct of their worldview (the way they understood reality). According to their understanding, reptiles and birds lay eggs and mammals give live birth, and that’s just the way reality works. So, when they were presented with something that didn’t fit their reality, they said it must not be true. Even when explorers came back with a dead platypus mother with the egg still inside of her, most people still rejected it as a fake. You see, sometimes our worldview is so powerful, we cannot even see the evidence that is right in front of us.
So here’s the question – if you approach the issue of evolution and you rule out any mind or intelligent agency, then how compelling is Darwinian Evolution going to look? But if you remain open to where the evidence might lead, then I think that the evidence might look very different. This is why people who believe in Intelligent Design and people who believe in Darwinian Evolution can look at the same evidence and interpret it very differently.
In other words, if I want to find out what two-plus-two equals, but before approaching the question, we say that the number four doesn’t exist, then the answers three or five are going to appear very compelling. These (or at least one of these) answers must be true, because we know that four doesn’t exist.
The same is true with evolution. If we begin by saying that there is no intelligent agency and all of nature is the result of blind processes – now what explains living reality? Of course, evolution is going to appear compelling.
So, behind the data, these worldviews lurk. This all raises an important question: If the battle of ideas is really the battle of words and definitions, than WHAT IS SCIENCE?
To a Naturalist, science would be defined as “The search for natural explanations of the world”. Notice what is ruled out before we even begin an investigation: Supernatural, Spiritual, or simply an intelligent agency… A MIND.