If life begins and is developed by random chance, then mathematicians get in on the action when it comes to Darwinian evolution. If random chance is an option, one begins to see how improbable it is for life to form in this way. One example I find fascinating is a protein molecule.

A minimally complex cell would need between 300 and 500 protein molecules. The odds of only one protein molecule forming by chance are 1 to 10125. This is a huge number. A number you can’t even comprehend. Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, gives an example of what these odds look like.

Take three grains of sand and paint them red. Then hide them individually somewhere in the Sahara desert. Send a friend out to find the grains. They have to pick only three times and each time it has to be one of those red grains. One other thing. They have to do this blindfolded! The odds of your friend finding those three grains and choosing correctly? 1 to 10125.

Now you can see why questions are being raised.

When considering the origin of life, you can see why there is a challenge to Darwinian evolution immediately. If natural selection and mutation are the mechanisms that drive the process, first you have to have something to naturally select from and you have to have something to mutate. The Darwinian model presupposes you have life in the first place! But how was that formed?

In origin of life research there is no strongly supported theory at this time. We just don’t know. This doesn’t mean we will not discover a solid origin theory, it just is not happening today and it would be honest to admit as much in the classroom rather than gloss over this fact. Like anything else in life, if you want to know about something, an important part of the process is to start at the beginning.

The greatest difficulty of the Darwinian evolution model is the most obvious- How do you get life from non-life? In the Christian worldview project we are working on, Rich Melheim puts it this way.

“One cannot speak of the origin of life. Today one must speak of the origins of life. The carbonaceous deposits in the oldest known rocks on the planet suggest that life appeared shortly after the earth cooled, then disappeared, then arose again, then disappeared in a series of multiple spontaneous eruptions and mass extinction events. Recently, science has made it disturbingly clear that the conditions on earth were hostile to life arising at each of those times. The chemicals for the “primordial soup” did not exist for the recipe and the UV radiation bombarding the earth would have killed off anything organizing into strands of life without some thing or some one “hovering over” the whole experiment. That life would arise by chance even once is mathematically improbable. That it would arise again and again in absolutely hostile conditions is cause for great skepticism.”

The “primordial soup” was such a slam dunk theory, that scientists have been quite slow in taking it out of high school and university textbooks now that it has shown to be a dead end for first life. Now scientists are looking to outer space and other planets to try to explain where life comes from. Problem is this just delays the inevitable question, “How did life originate?” All the evidence points to advanced life only on earth. If life did originate on other planets or heavenly bodies the question will be the same regardless if it is Earth, Mars, or a moon of Jupiter, “How do you get life from non-life?”

A fourth viewpoint in the Darwinian evolution is intelligent design theory. Most of the scientists questioning the validity of some of the Darwinian model are in this group. The organization most active here would be Discovery Institute. They define intelligent design in this way.

intelligent design- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.



Intelligent design scientists come from all religions as well as agnostics. Supporters of Darwinian evolution have tried to label them, “creationists,” but this is a failing attempt at the straw man approach, as the scientists are becoming well known in the public arena, including their religious background, or their lack thereof.

Intelligent design theorists use real scientific methodology to support their theory and they are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals despite efforts to isolate them from the scientific community. Presently, intelligent design proponents don’t advocate teaching intelligent design as an alternative to the Darwinian model. Instead they focus simply on teaching the Darwinian model and the challenges to the Darwinian model.

I will give some examples of some of the challenges to the Darwinian model in the days ahead.

Another viewpoint in the Darwinian evolution controversy is the one held by many mainline Christians. This can be called “theistic evolution.”

Theistic evolution- the view that there is a God who created the universe and set everything in motion. The origin and development of life follows the natural system as given by the Darwinian model.

This is the official position of some Christian denominations. Generally theistic evolutionists would keep speaking of the miraculous in the private faith department and mutation and natural selection in the science department.

The challenge with theistic evolution is it really is simply Darwinian evolution in practice. The question is not, “Could a God have done the creating and continue to create through a Darwinian process?” but rather, “Are there difficulties with the evidence for the Darwinian model to begin with, whether you believe in a God or not?”

Another group of people who would challenge the evidence of the Darwinian model as an accurate explanation of the origin and development of life would be those who are labeled, “Old Earth Creationists.”

Old Earth Creationists- those who trust in the God of the Bible and use current scientific critiques when examining Darwinian evolution evidence. This group would say that the Bible gels with big bang theories and the evidence of a 13.7 billion year old universe. The “old earthers” would say the creation story of Genesis One is not 6 literal days but rather 6 “eons” of time. The word “yom” (day) in the Bible language can be translated accurately as:

24 hours

12 hours (daylight)

An undesignated period of time (e.g. the “day” of the Lord)

The most influential “old earth” creationist is Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe ministries. Dr. Ross’s organization is developing a scientifically testable creation model which matches the Genesis One creation account. This group would be in favor of critiquing the Darwinian evolution model in public schools, but not bringing the Bible into the science classroom, as some of the strict biblical creationists would advocate.

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”



This was the statement published in newspapers around the country in 2001. This was signed by 200 PhD. scientists, including Nobel Prize nominees and evolutionary biology textbook authors. The list has now grown to over 300 scientists. This growing debate within the scientific community continue.

But aren’t there various attempts to challenge Darwinian evolution in public schools today? Yes. There are many camps in this debate. I will look at four. Today the first.

Strict biblical creationists-

Also called, “Six-Day creationists” or “Young Earth creationists.” Believe that the universe and its content were created in 6 literal days by God. Examples of organizations that support this are Institute of Christian Research and Answers in Genesis. This view has in common a belief that the scientific evidence for the 13.7 billion year old universe and such is just an “appearance” of age by a God who created the universe mature to begin with. Their basic motto would be, “If God chooses to create the universe and all of life in six days, he is certainly capable of doing it.”

There are few scientists who hold this view and they don’t use scientific method to support it. They do provide a valuable critique of Darwinian evolution models, however.

When those who are skeptical of Darwinian evolution are mentioned in the public arena (e.g. media and education) they are almost always lumped in with strict biblical creationists, though those who follow this point of view constitute only a fraction of those skeptical. This is a logical fallacy called the “straw man” approach. You take the most extreme position of those who disagree with you, and then attack that position as if it were the general position. Whenever you see the word “creationist” in the media, you know this is an attempt to discredit the validity of a person’s point of view. “Creationist,” in actuality, simply means, “A person who thinks there is a creator of the universe.”

Throughout the country, there is a debate going on just under the surface. It is about the methods of teaching science. The debate centers on the theory of evolution. This is a hot button issue that will not go away. This week I will try to bring some clarity to the various issues surrounding this topic.

First, let’s look at the word “evolution.” It simply means, “change.”

“Darwinian” evolution properly refers to the theory that all of life grew out of a single cell through a random, undirected process of natural selection and genetic mutation.

“natural selection”- the healthiest life forms survive while the less healthy die off. The traits that make an organism more likely to survive remain, while the less helpful traits decline.

“Genetic mutation”- An error in DNA replication that results in possible physical changes in an organism.

There is no question in the scientific community that things change. There is a debate in the scientific community whether Darwinian evolution is the correct process for change.

A statement that is often used by supporters of a Darwinian model-

“No scientist alive questions evolution.”

True statement if you mean “change” as your definition for “evolution.”

False statement if you mean “Darwinian evolution” as your definition. Many scientists express their doubts about the Darwinian model as being adequate to explain the origin of life and change of organisms. What is there to doubt? Tomorrow we will see.

Do you ever see anyone in their teens or twenties by themselves? I know there are “loners” out there in every generation, some by choice, some by unfortunate circumstances. But I am talking about young people who spend any significant time by themselves? It seems to me that my generation and the generations before have many people, including myself, who like to spend time alone. This doesn’t seem to be the case any more. So what gives?

Community just seems to be the way to live. Whether it is for fun or for survival in today’s complex world, everyone seems to have a “backup.” There is a real longing for belonging. So, whenever you wish to be an influence with young people, think community. Think discovering things together. Think there are times that it’s not what you learn that’s as important as who you are learning with. I’m not saying this is a good thing, it’s just a real thing.

I always find it interesting when we try to “read” body language, expressions, nuances in the voice, and such. It is hard enough figuring out what people mean when they say something, let alone how they say it or what their facial expressions are or what their body is doing while they are saying it. We could really mess up the world by simply not buying into this whole subjective enterprise.

I am often tempted to say something in a tone, with a facial expression, and a body contortion which “reads” just the opposite of what I am saying. Either that or delivering every message with a monotone like Ben Stein and an expression like a Buckingham Palace guard. That would be fun.

Instead, let’s just be gracious in our “analyzing” of others. Let’s weigh their words carefully and give them wide benefit of the doubt when it comes to nuances. Jesus said it this way.

“Let your yes be a yes and a no a no.”