My friend said that evolution is scientific, but believing in creation is not. Is this true?
Suggested Daily Reading: Romans 1:18-25
Science is “knowledge based on observed facts and tested truths.” As no person was present to observe the formation of the universe, this earth, or the origin of life, and because no one can set up a test to consistently determine whether evolution or creation is true, neither is “scientific.” Both are different beliefs based on different assumptions. The evolutionist assumes that there is no god and builds a theory of origins based on matter and energy in the universe. The creationist believes in God and builds a view of the world on based on the works of the Creator. Both are based on “faith.”
The evolutionist religiously believes that all the complex forms of life we observe today developed from simpler forms of life without any Master Designer or God. The creationist religiously believes that God, as Master designer, created all forms of life. The evolutionist bases his belief on the ideas and teachings of men. The creationist bases His belief on the truth of God as taught in God’s Word.
Consider the following example: You and your friend both view a gorgeous painting. The artwork includes beautiful trees, fields, an attractive cottage, as well as peaceful water, blue sky and puffy clouds. The shading is perfect and the detail is amazing. But you both view this painting differently. If your friend ruled out the possibility that there could be an artist who painted the picture, he would need to explain the painting’s existence like this: over many, many years rains washed different colors onto the paper and winds blew twigs that scraped across the colors to make the distinct lines and swirling leaves smoothed out the paint to fill in the larger sections on the painting. You, however, do not agree. When you see the design, complexity, beauty and how one part perfectly fits into another across the painting, you believe that an artist designed and painted it. You cannot prove this as you do not know the artist, but you see evidences of design and not chance when you study the painting.
Which is more “scientific” and which requires more “faith” to believe? If believing that there is a artist (even if one does not know the artist) fits better with the facts of life that we observe than does believing in a painter-less painting, then how much more this is true when we see the infinitely greater design, complexity, beauty and synchronization of all creation! In one sense, how does evolution require more “faith” to believe and how is creation more “scientific”? How should observing creation speak to us of God?