The Brethren response to Evolution

There are two general beliefs or theories in how everything we see and even we ourselves came into being. There are two predominate views and several lesser views. The focus is our approach to the main theory, Evolution. Any honest scientist will admit that evolution is not science. Science has a set standard by which something can be determined as being "scientific". They are: 1. Observable. 2. Testable. 3. Repeatable. 4. Capable of making predictions. This is what it takes to make something scientific. Therefore, we must evaluate Evolution on this basis.

1. Have we observed evolution? No. Some may argue for mutations. No science or Biologist can show any evidence that a mutation or even adaptation causes what is called Macro Evolution. Instead, adaptations fit absolutely in line with the belief of Creationism, but we will delve into that in a minute. A mutation is very rarely helpful, and often is disaster to whatever we have that has mutated. Adaptation, as a Creationist will hold and believe, fits in line with genetics, and changes in the genetic code itself. A new animal is not made. Just a different form of the same animal. This is what we would argue for Micro-evolution. Most Creationists would agree with that position. To show evidence for evolution, any proof that shows a shift from one animal to the next, is not possible, and has never happened. There are no links, and spontaneous change, such as a duck coming from a lizard egg, has also never been evidenced either. To be fair, Creation has not been observed either. The difference between the two theories, in this point is that Evolutionary theorists must account for the changes using a system that does not allow or provide for a method for those changes to get a squirrel from a racoon. Creation Theory believes a squirrel is a squirrel and a racoon is a racoon. But within those animals, for example, we do, based on the fact of Creation and God who created, accept the fact that squirrels can have variables, different color fur, leg length, etc. As simple as this is, it illustrates the point. Creation Theory does accept and is equipped with the reality of adaptations. Therefore, to say Evolution is science, based on observance, is false.

2. Can we test evolution? No. There have been many who have tried, and failed, to put forth any testing to show evolutionary thought as being evidential. To be fair, Creation is also non testable. No evidence can or has been presented to prove Creation as well.

3. Evolution, contrary to its proponents, is not repeatable through mutations or adaptations. The closest they can get is adaptations since it is the only one that actually allows the species to survive in the environment which it is found. Mutations cannot give that. To say evolution is repeatable, we have not seen this in our day and age, nor do we see anything making the macro evolutionary change for the future. To be intellectually honest, Creation itself is not repeatable either. Again, no scientific lab can produce such necessities to cause the creation from nothing to something.

4. Here is where it gets interesting. Can either of these positions allow the making of predictions? Sure. Are they correct? According to some predictions, Evolutionary theory holds to a few key points that they say derive from Evolutionary theory. They are a common Ancestor, Fossil Record, Biogeography, Vestigial structure, and Natural Selection. There are many others, so please do not assume these are the only ones. But do these "prove" evolution? If we work through these, they are also able to prove Creation as well. Using just the ones mentioned here, Common Ancestor. The fact of like DNA, like features, or like structures, also can show there is a common creator. All points reflecting back to God who created, just as an Evolutionist would say there was one beginning animal. Biogeography, Evolutionists will say that some animals on islands or one locations will develop differently than others in their same family. But this also does not prove evolution, for Creationists would also predict such things. We would look at the world, realize that God created everything and built into their genes, the ability to adapt for their area. But a duck on an island is the same as a duck on a mainland. Vestigial structures is not a good argument for there are many "vestigial" structures that were once held to as being useless, but have, as our knowledge grows, there have been many "vestigial" points that were discovered to serve a purpose. The tailbone on the human spine, was once believed to be vestigial, as a leftover from when we had tails. No tails, no longer needed. However, as we have started learning, the tail bone has several key muscles that help keep our bowls from just pouring out. This can be done over and over again. Once again, the predictions are failing. Natural selection, that is not a good argument for stronger overcoming the weaker is also found in the Bible and therefore accepted and "proof" of Creationism looking and accepting the flaw of nature found because of sin. We will stop here, but if this were the basis of all evolution vs Creationism, it would, at best, come up neutral. But Creationism also allows predictions. Creationist make the predictions that DNA, because it is not as old as the Evolutionists, it can be found and extracted. Sure enough, we now have Dinosaur DNA, Neanderthal DNA, and even Dino skin! The prediction from Creation and how all of civilization began in a certain place, led to the discovery of rich Oil fields in the Middle East. This does not ignore the discovery's of Geophysics and the Cooler Mantle Material Near Earth's Core, in Physics with the Rapid Reversal of Earth's Magnetic Field, in Oceanography, with the discovery of the "Path's of the sea", and on and on. To say that this point only supports Evolution is to deny the truth that even Creation supports predictions and they are getting it right.

What does Evolutionary theory have to rest on? If these are what makes a belief scientific, then both Creation and Evolution fail at that. Hence, to say that Creation is theory and Evolution is Science is intellectual dishonesty. What do both of these theories have in common? They both go back to one point. Creationists say that a Being that is outside our world and outside our Scientific laws, created all we see and did so in such a way that math and science does work. Evolutionists go back to dirt or matter. The difference being that God is outside the closed system demanded by Evolutionists and therefore is the ultimate cause. matter is found inside this closed system, and that before even the Big Bang happened. Somehow, from that matter, which explodes, everything else comes. The second, and probably the bigger issue falls into line with Occam's Razor. The essence of Occam's Razor is the belief that has the least amount of assumption is the correct one. Evolution makes the assumption there is matter that explodes. Then in that, there is the assumption that somehow there is some kind of liquid that heats and cools. Then in the midst of that liquid, there is an assumption that some life formed. Then the assumption is that it evolved slowly. Another assumption is that it then finds a mate (which we assume evolved the same way). Finally, and we can carry this out till we get assumptions till we can then start applying Scientific methods. Creationists have one assumption. We assume God created everything, put in it all that is needed, made the DNA code able to be adaptable, and then Creation functions, both as planned, but also as corrupted by sin. There is the difference between one assumption and many.

As a Brethren, we hold to the Bible and that includes Genesis 1. This blog does not cover the disagreement between young or old earth creation, nor does it attempt to address that. However, the arguments here should be considered for the arguments it brings. No, it is not as robust as some deeper articles and debates, but the goal is not to write book. But the points still carry their weight. The Brethren are Biblicist and therefore we take the simple reading. Jesus also refers to the Creation as being 6 days with the 7th being a day of rest. As a Brethren, we should accept the truth of the Bible and not be led astray by the Theory of Evolution. If anyone is reading and they are not Brethren, it would also be good to evaluate the claims of both theories. Let truth lead where it does while maintaining absolute integrity and intellectual honesty in our research. God's Word is true, and absolute, including when it deals with Creation.