Until last year, I was a Christian who could happily reconcile my faith with evolution. It was inconceivable to me that evolution could be wrong. After all, nearly all scientists state that it is a fact. I am an educated person - not a scientist, but aware of the main lines of evidence for evolution.
Eventually, a friend explained how problematic evolution is to the Christian faith. His arguments concerned animal death before the Fall, and the historical Adam. At first I brushed it off, as I had an answer to his theological objections. I was well versed in evolutionary creation. But when I thought deeper on these issues, I became convinced that the Scripture teaches a recent creation and that evolution cannot be true.
I was still wary about the scientific evidence, since evolution seemed so ironclad to me. But then I realized something - and this is the main point of my post. Nobody knows what happened in the remote past. The past is, by definition, unrepeatable and unobservable. All dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions, even those favored by YECs (ocean salinity, for example). Ultimately, our paradigm - our worldview assumptions - will determine how we interpret the evidence around us. I found that creation scientists have satisfactory answers for present-day observations that seem to support evolution, like: the fossil record, homology, and radioactive dating. Most importantly, I realized that the scientists who first developed the theory of evolution (both biological evolution and modern geology) were committed naturalists. All modern scientists, except creation scientists (who presuppose the truth of Scripture) employ methodologies that exclude divine creation from the outset (methodological naturalism, uniformitarianism, etc). These methodologies, which even Christian scientists hold to, preclude them a priori from viewing the evidence we see as support for recent creation and a Global Flood. I am not suggesting there is a conspiracy. Only that scientists are fallible people too, and it is human nature to only see what we want to see. It is human nature to interpret the evidence according to one’s pre-existing worldview assumptions (or paradigm). What struck me is this: It isn’t that there is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence for evolution / long ages. Rather, it only suffices as good evidence if one already believes in the evolutionary paradigm. Thus, the creation/evolution debate is not a scientific debate. It is a philosophical one.
What are your thoughts on this? I would love to hear what you all think. Thank you in advance, and God bless.