How and when was the world created? How do we see the hand of God in creation? How much
   can science teach us about creation? These are some of the questions prompted by Will
   Jones' excellent article in October's Lantern.

   There have been times in history when science and christianity have been seen as being in
   opposition, and there are some people today who hold this opinion.For my part, I prefer to
   emphasise what they have in common: that both regard the truth as important and the
   search for truth and understanding as a worthy human endeavour.Christians seek to
   understand the human condition: so does science.Christians seek to understand the
   universe we live in and the place of humanity within it: so does science. 

   There are two issues that may be worth looking at briefly, the age of the earth and the
   processes by which life developed.It is a subject that interests me, but I am not much of an
   expert in the field and the views expressed are my own. 

   Numerous observations of the earth suggest that it has been in existence for a very long
   time.I think the present estimate is about four and a half billion years.Looking at the earth,
   it is possible to see a long and diverse history of events and processes.It is possible to see
   that one event took place before another, and by comparison with the present day and from
   what we know about the physical properties of matter it is possible to estimate roughly how
   long certain processes might have taken (the deposition of a thick accumulation of sediment,
   for example, or the cooling of a large mass of molten rock).More exact calculations of the
   age of events in the earth's history can be made using the rate at which radioactive atoms
   decay.From the gathering of an immense amount of detailed evidence of this kind, a
   consistent story emerges.Within this framework, local problems and inconsistencies occur
   and these are resolved by examination of further evidence: this is how knowledge
   advances.Taken as a whole, however, the evidence for an old earth is overwhelming. 
  
   Part of this evidence is provided by fossils, which show that very simple life forms have been
   in existence for much of the earth's history. There is then a clear pattern, looking like
   sequential development by descent, in which one life form is succeeded by another that is
   similar but different; the later form is often more complex.Some lines of descent come to an
   end, like the dinosaurs; others continue.This process of evolution could only have taken
   place over a very long time. 
   
   When this detailed evidence began to come to light, there were some christians who saw a
   conflict with the Genesis story and maintained that the fossils were placed in the rocks by
   God to test our faith.It is possible, I suppose, to argue that the universe is not what it
   appears to be, that the Creator designed it to look as if it was the product of a very long
   period of growth and development when in fact it was not.An all-powerful God could have
   done this.My objection to such a viewpoint is not based on science (the creator of the the
   scientific laws of the universe has the power to break those laws) but on theology. It would
   mean that God is a deceiver, the maker of heaven and earth a sort of cosmic practical joker
   who created a counterfeit universe for us to live in.I cannot reconcile this with the scriptural
   picture of God as God of Truth.I am satisfied, therefore, that the universe is what it seems
   to be and has been in existence for a very long time. 
   
   Most christians have no difficulty in looking at creation in this sort of way, seeing that God
   used natural processes (which are themselves part of his creation) to bring about his
   purposes.They value the creation stories in Genesis for what they tell us about God and
   about the human condition.In some circles, however, particularly in America, christians
   make it an important point of principle to dispute the evidence for an old earth.If their views
   are based on theology or personal faith, I might feel bound to respect their position even
   though I cannot share it.What I disagree with strongly, however, is any assertion that there
   are scientific reasons for rejecting the evidence for an old earth. 
   
   As I have said, the evidence of fossils shows a progression, in which some life forms become
   extinct and are succeeded by others.There is a coherent pattern to this progression, and
   explaining coherent patterns is the business of science: it looks like God working through
   natural processes, rather than God acting contrary to natural processes. 
   
   Natural selection, as described by Charles Darwin, is a process that certainly takes place and
   can account for the disappearance of one species and its replacement by another: random
   mutations produce variants within a species.Variants that are well suited to their
   environment prosper and pass on their inheritable characteristics to their offspring, while
   variants that are less well adapted to the environment are less likely to prosper.Repetition
   of this process can lead to the emergence of new species. 
   
   Natural selection can account, perhaps, for much of the variety of the living world.Whether
   it is the only process is open to conjecture, however.Darwin himself thought that there were
   other processes.My own feeling (and my knowledge of the subject is very incomplete) is that
   natural selection does not fully explain the evidence and that there is a lot more work for
   scientists to do.I personally suspect that, in this area of biological evolution, both sides of
   the creation debate have got themselves into entrenched positions and are more confident
   than they should be that they have all the answers. 
   
   There is also, I think, a large area of ignorance about natural selection itself.It is easy to see
   that plants and animals that are well adapted to survival will survive better than those that
   are less well able to survive: that is almost a statement of the obvious.However, I'm not
   sure that much is known about the random mutations.Why do some mutations happen and
   others not?Are they really random, or will it be possible one day to predict and understand
   them?Or is this where we see the hand of the Creator God most clearly? 
   
   Where I, as a christian, might differ from a non-believer is that, underlying all the
   apparently random mutations and random lines of descent in the evolution story, it looks to
   me as if there is a sense of direction, a sense of purpose, a sense that 'God is working his
   purpose out'. 
       
Reproduced by permission from The Lantern, the parish magazine of Keyworth and
Stanton on the Wolds, December 2000. 
© Keyworth Parochial Church Council