The Heavens Declare His Handiwork

Previous Page               Next Page

Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
—-
Author, Speaker
Naturopathic Physician

Christian Counselor
—
Medical Consultations

Marriage Counseling
Seminars, Speaking
Books, Articles
Audio, Video
—

(503) 255-9500
drthomas@naturedox.com
Portland, Oregon

God-Directed Evolution vs. Godless Evolution:

I believe God guided the assembly of molecules to form the panoply of living organisms.  The observation of the flora and fauna on the Galapagos Islands provides examples of what appear to be “evolutionary adaptation” to meet the requirements of local conditions.  This possibility has given courage to those who wish to hypothesize that natural forces and random accidental changes provided the mechanism by which new forms, functions, and species arose.  And, by extension, it is then possible to entertain the possibility that all life, even the universe itself, arose by accidental purposeless change that assembled ever more complex structures that were adapted to survive in their particular environment.  And ultimately, if there is no Creator-God, then there is no judge and I can act as I choose without fear or reprimand or divine consequence in the realm of “victimless” crimes.

• While some changes in physiology and form may be driven only by natural stresses, I believe the large changes, e.g. from species to new species were directed by God.  

• I believe the adaptations that created new species in the local micro-climates were executed by God-directed force on the molecular/DNA level to produce a divinely ordained adaptation and ecology with other species mutually dependent upon each other.

• The atheist and modern day Secular Humanist seeks to attribute all “evolutionary” adaptations to the process of time and chance mutations.  This camp supports their faith in a Godless world with the time and chance species-adaptation theory.  This precept lies at the heart of their hypothesis to validate their faith in of a Godless Evolution of life.  

• The exceedingly low probability “time and chance” evolutionary theory can be easily replaced with the high probability “God-directed” evolution.  The same changes in the species purportedly executed by random accidental assemblages can be more successfully explained as a gradual “creative evolution” of the species purposefully directed by God’s hand.  

• The evolution-embracing scientist declares that the introduction of God into the rise of life brings “unneeded complexity” into the explanation of a phenomenon that needs no other causative agent than the “forces of nature”.  The scientist declares that a faith-based, ad hoc, attribution of God’s intervention has been proven unnecessary in the past in other areas of physical process, therefore there is no reason to assume that this particular unknown sequence of causation will be any different.  Of course this is a logical fallacy, to declare that other items have been explained using natural forces, therefore all present and unknown processes will likewise be so explained.  Argument from the specific to the general (inductive reasoning) is always subject to error, because it assumes the generality is true based on a limited sample of the specific.

• The scientist assumes that all poorly understood complex mysterious processes will someday be seen as the result of a collection of poorly recognized natural forces.  He argues that in the past theologians have invoked divine and miraculous intervention by God to explain natural phenomena which were later explained using natural processes.  And, while such an argument has historical validity, extending that argument into the future and declaring therefore that all phenomena have natural explanations is not a logical extension of the argument.  Using words like, “it is likely, or I believe” bring the declaration into greater alignment with truth.

• If God is the Creator of all particulates and forces, then to conjecture that He was the designer who formed those particles into life-forms is a logical extension.  In a world where God is already seen as existent and foundational to the very existence of nature, then hypothesizing that God created life adds no complexity to the causative sequence.  In fact, to argue that chance collisions and time, and mutation add significant complexity to the causal chain.  

• The argument of added complexity is only valid if there is already a simpler explanation that actually works.  Science has started with the declaration as though it were a fact that “time and chance actually explain the origin of life.”  Then after declaring this statement as truth, science has declared that an alternate explanation that introduced God as the creator was more complicated because it introduced an additional force, other than the already known forces of mechanical action and reaction.

• But, a simple explanation, which has almost no possibility of occurring, is of little explanatory value, especially if it won’t ever happen happen.  If the time and chance collision theory was demonstrably true as a valid sequential possibility with a chance of occurring in the available time, it would be valid to say that an alternate theory with hypothetical extra (God) forces, was in fact more complex.  

• One interpretation of Occam’s razor declares that the simpler solution is the correct solution.  But this injunction against complex solutions is trumped when a simple explanation has an extremely unlikely probability.

• Thus, the argument is more about whether God exists at all, rather than whether the “God-directed” evolution theory is a more or less simple explanation of the fossil record and its genetic connection with current life forms.  A strong belief in an extremely low probability “time and chance mutation theory” is reveals that the evolutionist is making more of a statement about his “Faith” than making a statement of reason or evidence.

• Thus, if the scientist can have faith in evolution, certainly the people who believe in God should be allowed to have faith in God’s involvement in creating life.

• Theistic Evolution need only assume the existence, power, and will of God to produce the sequence of life evidenced in the fossil record.  No species-change is too great a gap to bridge with God-directed micro and macro-mutations.  Nor is any length of time too short to manifest the needed adaptive transformation.  

• Problems with the time and chance theory of evolution, such as “the extremely rapid appearance of new species seen in the Cambrian Explosion,” disappear instantly with this perspective.  The sudden appearance of numerous and significantly different species falls into the category of an extremely improbable event that contradicts the tenets of Darwinism that requires gradualism.

• A natural competitor to a theory that requires billions of perfectly sequenced events to produce life is a theory that requires only the assumption of the existence of God.  The obvious question is whether it is reasonable to consider that God exists?  Or stated another way, “Is there evidence that supports God’s existence?  

• Since God cannot be observed directly, and there is no experiment that can be done that detects his existence, or conclusively determines His non existence, we must rely on inductive reasoning to argue from the specific (phenomena which are explained by the existence of God) to the validity of general hypothesis (the existence of God, and His active participation in the creation of life, its substance, and the ongoing activities of that life).  

• The entirety of the Theory of Absolutes is a study in the examination of how all phenomena can be explained in terms of the behavior and interaction of the conscious particles (DP Sea and Grid Points).  I believe this hypothesis will be shown to be true for all experimental data.  As the body of rules that the conscious particles follows becomes better documented, and is shown to be non-conflicting, and generally applicable, this body of “Particle Law” will provide an ever stronger inductive proof of the existence of the conscious particle, and in turn the existence of a Lawgiver.

• The ultimate purpose of the Theory of Absolutes is to provide a strong inductive proof for the existence of God.  A theory of conscious particles and a body of Particle Law that corresponds seamlessly as a rationalization for physical experimental data, provides a strong basis for the logical hypothetical step, the validation of God as Creator, author, and lawgiver.  Such a theory is the ultimate satisfaction of Occam’s Razor.

• As the Creator, God has established all the Laws on all levels of spiritual and physical existence.  In such a universe, a “natural” explanation simply means that even God’s proxies, the conscious particles, are simply following laws He has already established.  The question is then raised, “Does God still intervene in the affairs of men after he created the physical universe, life, man, and set the play in motion?”

• The Deist believes that God created the universe, but ceased His participation in human events after the Creation was completed.  The atheist believes that God never intervened at all in the creation because He does not exist.  The Christian believes that God has participated in creating the creation, that “In him we live and move and have our being.”  And that He continues to actively respond to the affairs and prayers of man.  

o Acts: 17-26  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.  27  God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.  28  ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’  29  “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill.  30  In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

• As Christians, and scientists, we should always attempt to discover the natural mechanisms that have worked sequentially and causatively to manifest any given natural phenomena.  But, having exhausted all known processes to explain any given phenomena, we should not shrink from invoking the ultimate causative force as our explanation – divine creative fiat.  

• In the case of the debate between the factions arguing for the “evolution” vs. the “creation” of the species, we should always consider whether there is a probable natural explanation besides direct intervention.  In the case of evolution, the chance assembly of particles creating all the various species is possible, but extremely unlikely.  In fact it is so improbable that those who hold this unswerving allegiance to the naturalistic, God-free explanation, the level of faith is so great that such a belief can only be categorized as possessing deep faith in their particular religion of “Evolutionism”.  

• While most natural and human phenomena can be attributed to the natural causes and sequences of the forces of nature and human choice, we should not limit ourselves to such forces alone.  When all other explanatory forces fail to explain a sequence, we should be allowed to attribute the explanation of events to the power of God, and his intentional intervention to work miracles according to His own desire and plan.

• If God did “evolve” the species, we must ask whether such intervention is consistent with His character as revealed in Biblical scripture.  

o For example: One school of Christian theology interprets Genesis as allowing God only 7 literal earth days in which to create all of creation.  Thus, the entirety of all astronomical phenomena, the whole fossil record, and all of the current species must have been placed into position within this 7-day period.  

o In this school of thought, we are required to engage in a great deal of rationalization to justify how God created the entire fossil record in seven 24-hour periods.  But, all this rationalization becomes unnecessary if we simply look at the possibilities available for interpretation of the Hebrew words used in describing the Genesis.

• The words of Scripture provide the possibility that God-directed the creative evolution of the universe and life over an extended period.  The Hebrew word for “day” in Genesis 5 is “yowm”, which can be translated as “an age”.

o Genesis 1:5 (KJV) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

o Genesis 1:5 (Hebrew with Strong’s numbers):  ‘elohiym:H430 qara’:H7121 . ‘owr:H216 yowm:H3117 . . choshek:H2822 . qara’:H7121 layil:H3915 . . ‘ereb:H6153 . . boqer:H1242 . . ‘echad:H259 yowm:H3117

o Strong’s Hebrew Translation: 3117. yowm, yome; from an unused root mean. to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether lit. (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or fig. (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:--age

• Thus, if scripture allows an unspecified period of time during which each of the process of creation occurred, we need only ask whether the mechanics of the creation provides Him with a doorway to exert spiritual influence over the physical universe.  If so, we can plausibly justify how God may have executed the manipulation of genes to manifest a “God-commanded Evolution.”  

• The ultimate purpose of the Theory of Absolutes is to provide us with an intellectual model from which we can make our faith in God more rational and consistent with the requirement for sequential application of forces.  As such the Theory provides a plausible mechanism by which we can connect the world of spirit with the realm of natural physical force.  As such, the scientist can in good conscience accept the “God thesis” and release his dependence upon time, chance, and physical-only processes as the rational understructure for the sequence of development that lead to life and the physical universe.

• For the scientist to embrace the postulate of a God-directed evolution and a creation based on God’s primal existence, he would have to see God’s existence as one of the forces acting in, and part of the fabric of, the natural universe.

• The scientist acting with integrity to his commitment to objective evidence does not need to directly perceive a particle in a bubble chamber to accept its existence.  With sufficient evidence and theory-parallax, the existence of an unseen, or unseeable particle is accepted as inductively proven.   When prediction of effect, and evidence of effect coincide, there is the logical evidence of prior cause, and such reasoning is commonly held to be valid indicators of fact.  When particles decay, or influence on other particles in a manner similar to prediction, or a family of effects, the particle physicist considers his theory validated, and the existence of the unseen particle worthy of being elevated to a functional theory.

• But, because the question of God has theological implications for morality, world-view, and personal responsibility, the scientist is reduced to layman status in his judgment of truth.  His objectivity is bent by the pressures of peers, career and status to consider only Godless naturalistic forces as the entire set of possible explanations.  Such manipulations of men’s souls are the tools used by the spiritual realms to persuade and enroll men to serve the dark side of the force.